Jump to content
Acne.org
Search In
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Recommended Posts

Hey polkadots. I am a sociology and psychology major and I know what you are saying. I do grasp your ideas. They are indeed social constructions. There are people that are more prone than others in developing anxiety disorders and depression.

Read this article:

http://www.socialanxietyinstitute.org/chemical.html

Yes I browsed, it and I agree with it, I am not sure what else I am supposed to say, other than it partially backs up my view that drugs often to do not cure anything, but offer temporary solutinos to problems which hide and mask symptoms, and not treat the causes, which lie (as the article explains) in negative thought processes. I like cognitive views on depression, evry practical applications.

People have no idea how far depression can go, and how would having experience with clinical depression not be a contributing factor to the knowledge on the topic, seems like it would help to me..

In this I was referring to the condescneding attitude I have encountered in here from others thinking I have no 'personal' experience and thus don't 'understand'. I also hate using ''''''' but it gets the pont accross.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey polkadots. I am a sociology and psychology major and I know what you are saying. I do grasp your ideas. They are indeed social constructions. There are people that are more prone than others in developing anxiety disorders and depression.

Read this article:

http://www.socialanxietyinstitute.org/chemical.html

Yes I browsed, it and I agree with it, I am not sure what else I am supposed to say, other than it partially backs up my view that drugs often to do not cure anything, but offer temporary solutinos to problems which hide and mask symptoms, and not treat the causes, which lie (as the article explains) in negative thought processes. I like cognitive views on depression, evry practical applications.

Exactly, that is what I am arguing, and that is what they we were arguing on the previous page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly but it suggests that one must retrain their thought processes in the meantime to battle the depression and during this time antidepressants are taken. They do mask the true problem bought they offer a way for people such as ourselves to stay focused and calm in our daily routine and to take the necessary measure to correct our learned behaviours through psychological treatment.

I agree that antidepressants in no way are the solution in themselves and any psychiatrist would agree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good post zelio, one I can actually agree with and reply to.

Anti depressants in this sense that you have mentioned, is a way to help overcome depression, but how many people stay addicted to these drugs and just take them for the rest of their lives? This is what I don't like.

Previous argument sin this thread have argued that antidepressants correct chemical imbalances, but these poster did not bother examining where this imbalance came from, only not realising the imbalance is a result of something, not the casual response.

What i also don't like is what I have already mentioned many times about how someone who takes antidepressants becomes part of a label that is negative.

I can argue all day, but this thread is getting messy because I am replying to several different points from different people.

furthermore i have tried to argue how much new illnesses don't exist until psychiatry collects a group of symptoms and calls it something. Some medicines are given to people and children, though they don't even have a scientific rationale based upon the illness or how the treatment works.

I have also tried to explain how certain illnesses like depression are more common in some countries than others, and as such I have tried to show depression to be socially induced, not somehting that has always existed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you polkadots. We are trying to say the same thing just I guess we came at it from different angles. It is a never ending debate and we have enough stress in our lives to cause stress in a place where we should feel support and comfort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think my points were grasped within this thread, and my points were not really addressed.

I think some of them were. I addressed your point about the fact that these illnesses are NOT new. And you said you don't believe they are chemical imbalances - well there is a ton of research the contracts that. Have you read any of it? I cited some of that as it relates to hippocampal changes in those with depression. If a physical brain change isn't medical, then I don't know what is.

It seems to me that you are basing many of your points on your beliefs, rather than on evidence. Provide some hard data for your position, and I will be more than happy to look at it.

You've not understood my points. I did not say chemical imbalances did not exist, I said they are caused by something, they just don't appear, they are usually caused by say, the pain acne of something.

And you have not grasped the fact that illnesses like depression are social constructions, just like adhd never existed until recently, you have not grasped the ideas i am presenting to you.

And I don't think you understood my posts either. Again, stiil you have just stated your opinion and beliefs. Where is the evidence that depression and ADHD didn't exist until recently? Where are you gathering this information. Show me some credible sources and I'll consider your position more seriously. I'm not saying you are totally wrong, I'm just saying that I would like to see some evidence for your statements. I do believe these conditions are over-diagnosed and not everyone needs meds for them, but they are not just social constructs.

Sure acne can lead to depression - but generally in people who are already prone to it. Why do some people get acne and never get depressed? There is a very strong biological component to depression - (e.g., the brain studies I mentioned earlier).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am trying very hard to be understanding polkadots but you complain that we are not grasping your points. Yet you see very defensive in not even trying to awknowledge ours. A discussion requires a definitive approach.

Also, ADD (which by the way i have so i take serious offense to it being deemed as non exisitant) wasn't recognized until recently due to the fact that science and our ability to recognize and categorize changes over time, a phenomena known as "paradigm shift"

prior to recently ALL psychiatric illness were group randomly into piles and all patients treated the same. As a result, many treatents were unsuccessful and such extreme measures as instiutionalisation, electroshock therapy and lobotomizing were needed. when the DSMV index became broader, a more precise treatment could be established, its the equivilant of catagorizing wildlife in the rainforest. Just beause you didn't know it was there 20 years ago does not mean it didn't exist, its just that now we know how to look for it.

and please understand NOBODY is saying to take drugs. NOT ONE POSTER HAS DEMANDED OR EXPECTED IT. we are saying from OUR experience which is lenghty and full of trial and error it was the ONLY route.

A diabetic needs insulin, would you tell them to stop the insulin and look for better ways to treat the absence of it? that would be ridiculous, so is telling a bipolar or a scitzophrenic that they don't "need' to be on their treatent for a physically traceable disorder resulting from a neurological problem THAT CAN show up in test results.

Nobody, least of all me is saying that this is a matter of absolutes. It is an individual trip. MY CONCERN is that by saying to NOT consider medication it may trigger someone to refuse it when they may need it and that could lead to some horrible effects such as the suicide that was mentioned.

please also note i have not once mentioned acne in my posts. At this point my discussion pertains to the overlying problem not the specifics that may be associated with a condition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a) I am trying very hard to be understanding polkadots but you complain that we are not grasping your points. Yet you see very defensive in not even trying to awknowledge ours. A discussion requires a definitive approach.

b)Also, ADD (which by the way i have so i take serious offense to it being deemed as non exisitant) wasn't recognized until recently due to the fact that science and our ability to recognize and categorize changes over time, a phenomena known as "paradigm shift"

c) prior to recently ALL psychiatric illness were group randomly into piles and all patients treated the same. As a result, many treatents were unsuccessful and such extreme measures as instiutionalisation, electroshock therapy and lobotomizing were needed. when the DSMV index became broader, a more precise treatment could be established, its the equivilant of catagorizing wildlife in the rainforest. Just beause you didn't know it was there 20 years ago does not mean it didn't exist, its just that now we know how to look for it.

d) and please understand NOBODY is saying to take drugs. NOT ONE POSTER HAS DEMANDED OR EXPECTED IT. we are saying from OUR experience which is lenghty and full of trial and error it was the ONLY route.

e) A diabetic needs insulin, would you tell them to stop the insulin and look for better ways to treat the absence of it? that would be ridiculous, so is telling a bipolar or a scitzophrenic that they don't "need' to be on their treatent for a physically traceable disorder resulting from a neurological problem THAT CAN show up in test results.

f) Nobody, least of all me is saying that this is a matter of absolutes. It is an individual trip. MY CONCERN is that by saying to NOT consider medication it may trigger someone to refuse it when they may need it and that could lead to some horrible effects such as the suicide that was mentioned.

g) please also note i have not once mentioned acne in my posts. At this point my discussion pertains to the overlying problem not the specifics that may be associated with a condition.

Hello

There are a lot of points in your post that I can challenge.

a) My discussion I have reiterated many times, My points were summarised in post 56#. It is a general critique of drugs, mostly drugs to treat 'mental disorders' (though I hate to use this word to describe what people supposedly have).

Your whole argument seems to be on convincing me that drugs work. I can see that some drugs work, but some don't. Some over overprescribed, some people take drugs for the rest of their lives. I have said this several times already.

b) Okay, so you have add, there is a huge amount of evidence, articles and such from doctors and experts that suggest add and adhd, and other illnesses, do not exist. I have mentioned this already, please don't make me repeat myself because that is what I am doing. Can you show me some scientific proof for add, other than a collection of symptoms? And more importantly, if people do not know why people get add, how can we treat it, is this not a little dangerous? Studies which I am aware of, only show that there might be a genetic element to add, if you call it that.

I think you also have used the term paradigm shift in the wrong way. This involves a whole new change in a certain discourse, whereas this has not happened, science and most things, involve small breakthroughs, a constant change, apart from REAL paradigm shifts such as newtonian physics etc changing the way we look at our world.

c) I disagree with this to some degree. Yes, treatment of illness has become better, no one is disputing this. However illnesses have not always existed. You also cannot draw parralels between animals and illness.

d) You can see how someone MIGHT have bipolar and shizophrenia in a brain scan, but abnomalities in the brain do not consist of billboard saying 'I have bipolar'. Just like there is no way for us to measure a headache.

e) Okay, since when did I talk about diabetics? Even so I will argue that THERE ARE MILLIONS OF DIABETICS WHO DO NOT TAKE MEDICINES, IN FACT, THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW THEY GOT IT. THEY LIVE A PERFECTLY HAPPY LIFE UNAWARE THAT THEY HAVE THIS SO CALLED ILLNESS THAT NEEDS MEDICATION.

f) You have totally changed this argument. I have argued that in many cases drugs are overused, does not work, based on poor evidence, many illnesses are social constructions , yet you are trying to argue that drugs are useful. I am not denying this, you are not addressing my points.

g) You have once again not grasped my point. I used acne as an example to suggest that psychological thoughts can produce illness, something that is obvious, but your reasoning seems to just be based on 'we can find physical evidence for illness' but you don't bother to examine where the illness came from, how it is triggered.

I think there is one issue that you and I are split against. You seem to be happy bunching psychological and non psychological illnesses into one, hence using both examples as an argument. I however see them as different, this is no wonder that psychology and science are different disciplines.

This post has just been a repeat of what I jhave been saying. Unless we can actually talk abotu the same thing, I won't be replying to you any more.

And ps, can we cool it, you sound pretty pissed off, don't take thigns too personally when debating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And ps, can we cool it, you sound pretty pissed off, don't take thigns too personally when debating.

After reading your post that is just lol-tastic. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://h11.protectedsite.net/uploads/video/BroadbandDSM.wmv

http://cchreus.org/files/videos/SZASZ-INT.wmv

http://www.cchr.org/uploads/video/dinnerschaler.wmv

watch this, I stole it from another poster in the depression sticky.

Much of what i have tried to say is coevered in this 4 minute video, in how mental illnesses are created, not discovered.

tell me what you think tired_of_waiting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that was a really good video. thank you for sharing that.

he makes some good points. the DSMV is defientey very biased and changes. However i feel that his rational is based on personal opinion. The problem in psychiatry is that the condition can be traced by that which it leaves behind. Save for scitzophrenia (which is very obvious under a scan and in a cadevour) it is very true, you cann't necessarily see everything physcially. that is why so many people are either misdiagnosed or bounced from one system to another without proper care. Psychiatry is never an exact science.

HOWEVER that being said, as a scientist just because i do not have full tangiblilty of something that does not mean it is fictional. I cann't see gravity, i canno't perceive it but none the less i know it is there.

time, is a human consturction, we created the standard time system in order to order our days, it is a "fictional" creation yet none the less it is perceived to be real and there are few that would argue "time" does not exist tho this would be a more philosophical discourse for another day.

the DSMV does change over time, at one point homosexuality was listed as a mental illness whereas now it is an acceptable social norm. However just because of a few flaws i would not say the entirety is a work of fiction as the lecturer discussed. Interestingly, the arguement between you and I and that of the lecturer is that mental illness texts and those of physicall pathology differ. this i find interesting as that would imply that medical texts for physcial aillments like diabetes, influenza etc. have never changed. In fact if you view a 17th century reasoning before the "germ theory" was instituted there were very different rationals for how disease was transmitted. Oh and to answer the argument over diabetes, yes there are some diabeteics who live full lifes, my reasoning was over TYPE 1 diabetics.

Back to the discussion of invention however,

IQ is a work of fiction, as the questions are routed in social awarness and cultural specificity (eg. word associatin) and thus cannot be applied cross culturally.

However. i have studied classic works, my speciality degree being medical anthropology and mental illness IS a cross cultural feature, however how it is recognized differs.

I have no dobut that if i was placed and raised in another culture whatever my condition is would be dramatically altered. I have no arguement that it is not at least partially a construction of an environmental feature. that being said i am in fact living in a society where there are norms i must apply to and in order to function i must maintain a level of functunality to acheive these.

norm itself is a human construction and thus a fiction, in fact the conceptualization of life, happiness these are all human constructions. the only truly NON fictional constructions are the need to eat, sleep, breathe, reproduce which are all located in the lower hypocampus. and can be defined as the animal instincts.

My arguement is not whether society created these conditions but rather the fact that these conditions are real for the society they exist in. ADD is real as it directly relates to how i funciton in this society. It has been methodologically tracked in others and its features applied to others thus it is recognized as a disorder However you are correct, if the society itself changed its thinking, the mentally ill may not be labeled as such any longer.

it is a good point and i have a better understanding of where you are coming from. I would love to continue this discussion. Esotherics of philosophy and the "construction of need' as Durkheim might say is something very human.

none the less, in a society where one must fit in to survive, to not survive can cause death and thus we must adapt any way we see fit, even if it means medicating to the "norm" although that is a cultural construction.

I am not arguing methodology. that is inherently flawed. My concern is simply whether the condition exists FOR ME as a problem and the society we live in. since it impairs my ability to function, i conclude it does. The degree and level of that impairment dictates whether or not i need medication in order to submit to this norm. Sadly as mine is severe i do require the use of medicaiton.

Actually this whole argument was in my head the other day as i mused the conceptualiztion of normalcy and the human brain.

not to worry polkadots, i'm not super pissed off at all. I ADORE a good arguement and can get carried away at times ;)

i appreciate that you are adressing my points, please allow me to offer you the same curteousy. I am listening and appreciating. i think we are aproxiimating an understanding at this point )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do not 'require' medicines, you chose them... EVEN IN THE MOST SEVERE CASE OF DEPRESSION ANTIDEPRESSANTS ARE NOT REQUIRED. I'm not looking down on you but trying to justify your decision to take antidepressants as necessary is just wrong. Do you know that the ratio of people who have suicidal thoughts to those who actually commit suicide is incredibly small? Please don't give me that suicidal bullshit because I think you and I both know if you are still here and breathen you almost certainly wouldn't. I remember one night when I was 16 and my suicidal thoughts were relatively vivid, I stupidly still believed that my parents could show even minimal signs of human emotion, I asked for help and had the door slammed in my face. And due to antidepressant research being relatively new, results are inconclusive on if these drugs have a significant impact on suicide ratio. What is accepted is that almost no case of depression can not be solved with lifestyle changes and therapy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that was a really good video. thank you for sharing that.

a) he makes some good points. the DSMV is defientey very biased and changes. However i feel that his rational is based on personal opinion. The problem in psychiatry is that the condition can be traced by that which it leaves behind. Save for scitzophrenia (which is very obvious under a scan and in a cadevour) it is very true, you cann't necessarily see everything physcially. that is why so many people are either misdiagnosed or bounced from one system to another without proper care. Psychiatry is never an exact science.

b) HOWEVER that being said, as a scientist just because i do not have full tangiblilty of something that does not mean it is fictional. I cann't see gravity, i canno't perceive it but none the less i know it is there.

c) time, is a human consturction, we created the standard time system in order to order our days, it is a "fictional" creation yet none the less it is perceived to be real and there are few that would argue "time" does not exist tho this would be a more philosophical discourse for another day.

d) the DSMV does change over time, at one point homosexuality was listed as a mental illness whereas now it is an acceptable social norm. However just because of a few flaws i would not say the entirety is a work of fiction as the lecturer discussed. Interestingly, the arguement between you and I and that of the lecturer is that mental illness texts and those of physicall pathology differ. this i find interesting as that would imply that medical texts for physcial aillments like diabetes, influenza etc. have never changed. In fact if you view a 17th century reasoning before the "germ theory" was instituted there were very different rationals for how disease was transmitted. Oh and to answer the argument over diabetes, yes there are some diabeteics who live full lifes, my reasoning was over TYPE 1 diabetics.

Back to the discussion of invention however,

e) IQ is a work of fiction, as the questions are routed in social awarness and cultural specificity (eg. word associatin) and thus cannot be applied cross culturally.

However. i have studied classic works, my speciality degree being medical anthropology and mental illness IS a cross cultural feature, however how it is recognized differs.

f) I have no dobut that if i was placed and raised in another culture whatever my condition is would be dramatically altered. I have no arguement that it is not at least partially a construction of an environmental feature. that being said i am in fact living in a society where there are norms i must apply to and in order to function i must maintain a level of functunality to acheive these.

norm itself is a human construction and thus a fiction, in fact the conceptualization of life, happiness these are all human constructions. the only truly NON fictional constructions are the need to eat, sleep, breathe, reproduce which are all located in the lower hypocampus. and can be defined as the animal instincts.

g) My arguement is not whether society created these conditions but rather the fact that these conditions are real for the society they exist in. ADD is real as it directly relates to how i funciton in this society. It has been methodologically tracked in others and its features applied to others thus it is recognized as a disorder However you are correct, if the society itself changed its thinking, the mentally ill may not be labeled as such any longer.

it is a good point and i have a better understanding of where you are coming from. I would love to continue this discussion. Esotherics of philosophy and the "construction of need' as Durkheim might say is something very human.

h) none the less, in a society where one must fit in to survive, to not survive can cause death and thus we must adapt any way we see fit, even if it means medicating to the "norm" although that is a cultural construction.

j) I am not arguing methodology. that is inherently flawed. My concern is simply whether the condition exists FOR ME as a problem and the society we live in. since it impairs my ability to function, i conclude it does. The degree and level of that impairment dictates whether or not i need medication in order to submit to this norm. Sadly as mine is severe i do require the use of medicaiton.

Actually this whole argument was in my head the other day as i mused the conceptualiztion of normalcy and the human brain.

not to worry polkadots, i'm not super pissed off at all. I ADORE a good arguement and can get carried away at times ;)

i appreciate that you are adressing my points, please allow me to offer you the same curteousy. I am listening and appreciating. i think we are aproxiimating an understanding at this point )

Hello, thanks for your reply. I think we are making some progress in this discussion, however there are some points I see as needing change.

a) Since when is nothing of personal opinion? The difference is that my personal opinion is backed up by a wealth of evidence which is actually very convincing. Schizphrenia, is interesting. You can see so called abnormalities, but are there not several types of schizophrenia, in which people do not have this so called abnormality?

b) That is a poor example. I cannot see gravity, but a scientist can measure gravity, manipulate variables, it is a force governed by rules, this is science. This canot be said of depression or anything else like that

c) Time is a distinct scientific phenomenon, though there is still debate to how time 'is'. Our interpreation of time is constructed, but time is once again a scientific theory, but I fail to see how these comparisons are relevant.

d) I think you over did it with the 'few flaws'. There are many flaws.

e) Yeh, iq is a social construction, what point are you making here?

g) I think this is where you and I depart in opinion. Once again you argue it has been methologically tracked, but that means absolutely nothing. ADD is real because it relates to how you function in society? Well, that I dispute as well. Sure, the construction influences your life, not the actual illness itself, as I think it doesn't exist. You have also failed to acknowledge why certain illnesses are created, and how people are increasingly becoming labelled as mentally ill, or have disorders for the most stupid things. YOu rreasoning is to just accept it because thtas the way it is.

h) I disagree to some degree here, society must be challenged, we don't just prescribe to the norms, in fact what are norms, and to be honest, no-one prescribes to all the same norms. Your current standing is to just accept the social order you live in, not asking questions about why it is as it is, only that it exists and you are in it, so you therefore believe in them to survive.

j) Whether it exists as an illness for you? A conclusion which you have been influenced into believing, something which you have not addressed.

You once again fail to question why the social order is as it is, you just accept that it is real in your cultural context. You don't acknowledge power relations, becauswe that is what it is all about.

thats all for now, I'm getting tired of this, but an interesting talk al lthe same!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I get what you are trying to say, Polka, about the "mind causing illness" thing. Let's see if I can write it out.

As per conditions being put there by what a person thinks - there IS a biological basis for that thought. The idea that repeated thoughts and thought patterns actually burn a crease into the brain, therefore making it easier for the synapses to fire across that crease and continue confirming the conclusion that those thought patterns lead to.

And it is true that with enough "unlearning", those creases in the brain will go away and the snyapses will have to find another way across the brain.

So in that sense, yes, societal pressure CAN make a person believe they are in some way ill.

Is that close to what you are saying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that is one of what I am saying.

another part is that many illnesses just aren't real, they are created and justified by elite institutions who hold monopoly of knowledge and power, and this knowledge is accepted by society, without question. Not only that, they have much control over the thoughts and beliefs of individuals that will affect their lives a lot. This is my real point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that is one of what I am saying.

another part is that many illnesses just aren't real, they are created and justified by elite institutions who hold monopoly of knowledge and power, and this knowledge is accepted by society, without question. Not only that, they have much control over the thoughts and beliefs of individuals that will affect their lives a lot. This is my real point.

I definately agree with that:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a proliferation of made up disorders, its reaching the point where no-one is normal, we are all abnormal.

"ADHD was literally voted into existence eighteen years ago when the American Psychiatric Association (APA) by a show of hands. A show of hands was enough to see ADHD enshrined in the psychiatric textbook, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). They also created 'Reading Disorder', 'Oppositional Defiance Disorder', 'Expressive Language Disorder', 'Mathematics Disorder' and a litany of similarly ridiculous disorders by the same show of hands. The treatment for these disorders are drugs."

"Psychiatrists are telling parents, whose children may be displaying poor behaviour, that their child has so-called ADHD due to a 'chemical imbalance' in the brain. A parent would be prudent to ask the psychiatrist for evidence to support the claim of a 'chemical imbalance'. If they did ask however, they'd find that the evidence would not be forthcoming – as it doesn't exist."

Psychiatrist David Kaiser said, "Patients [have] been diagnosed with 'chemical imbalances' despite the fact that no test exists to support such a claim, and … there is no real conception of what a correct chemical balance would look like." The words of the President of the APA should also be noted. Mr Steven Sharfstein said, "We do not have a clean-cut lab test [to detect chemical imbalances in the brain]." How then would the psychiatrist know when the child has recovered?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is on antidepressants because of the emotional effects acne has had on their life? I suffer from anxiety attacks, social phobia and OCD. I've have had thoughts of suicide as well and today would be one of those days. :(

It seems like one day I feel okay and fairly "normal" and another day I can't even get up in the morning to face the world. I've caught myself saying if I had a gun in the house I would honestly think about doing something pretty stupid.

I'm currently on 30mg of Celexa and I feel its just a waste. The only way my panic and anxiety will subside is with a clear complexion. Is it wrong to feel that way?

Feedback would be appreciated. God Bless and keep on truckin'

Oh ya. I'm a 28 year old male which makes it all the more difficult to accept my skin. All my friends and relatives have clear skin and I'm the black sheep.

Reading this is very strange for me. What you describe here is what I suffered from - anxiety, social phobia and OCD and I was also on SSRIs for these when I was 17 years old (I'm 25 now).

Like you, I also feel that my symptoms were caused by acne but it took me 8 years to actually pin point this.

I wrote a topic about how I feel about acne -

http://www.acne.org/messageboard/index.php?showtopic=99646

For me, the best thing that I've done in the last 9 years was to come off SSRIs. It has almost made me feel like it wasn't me living my life, I sometimes feel like I was a completely different person back then. SSRIs aren't the answer, try to work things out yourself as best you can. It's really tough and I'm still trying to do it, but it'll make you a better person and give you lots of insight and wisdom.

Of interest, some SSRIs can cause acne as a side effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Report: Teen depression may shrink part of brain

Thursday, January 29, 2004 Posted: 9:47 AM EST (1447 GMT)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Teenagers with depression may have abnormal brain structure, Canadian researchers say in a new report.

Imaging studies show that adolescents with major depression tend to have a small hippocampus. This is a part of the brain associated with motivation, emotion and memory formation.

The study, done by a team at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia and the National Research Council of Canada, fits in with others that suggest depression can shrink the hippocampus.

Major stress and trauma -- both depression triggers -- can also cause the shrinkage.

Researchers Frank MacMaster and Vivek Kusumakar studied 34 teens aged 13 to 18 years old, half of whom had major depressive disorder.

They used magnetic resonance imaging to scan the volume of their left and right hippocampuses.

The hippocampuses of patients with depression were, on average, 17 percent smaller than those of the healthy volunteers, MacMaster and Kusumakar reported.

"To our knowledge this is the first published report regarding hippocampal volume in youths with early onset depression compared to healthy controls," the researchers wrote in their report, published in the online journal BioMedCentral medicine.

Other recent studies have suggested that antidepressant drugs can restore depleted brain cells.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't find this convincing in the slightest, considering the amount of information I have discussed in this thread, the findings don't appear to be too convincing.

And maybe your post would have benefited from some actual personal input, rather than regurtitating a study.

This also suggests that those are are legitimately depressed have a brain abnormality? No I think not.

There is much criticism from scientists in pathology and all that, there isn't any real evidence, because hippocampus abnormality doesn't instantly link to depression, and depression as such has to be definable as an illness, not just a collection of symptoms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't find this convincing in the slightest, considering the amount of information I have discussed in this thread, the findings don't appear to be too convincing.

And maybe your post would have benefited from some actual personal input, rather than regurtitating a study.

This also suggests that those are are legitimately depressed have a brain abnormality? No I think not.

There is much criticism from scientists in pathology and all that, there isn't any real evidence, because hippocampus abnormality doesn't instantly link to depression, and depression as such has to be definable as an illness, not just a collection of symptoms.

Relax, wouldja?? - this is just a healthy debate we are having here. Nobody has to get hurt......

I was looking for some additional studies to post here, so haven't added my own thoughts yet. This study was conducted by well known researchers in the field, so there is every reason to lend it credibility. There are also a number of other brain-imaging studies that have found decreases in hippocampal volume in those diagosed with depression. There are additional studies linking biochemical stress reactions (increases in glucocorticoids) to atrophy of the hippocampus and depressive symptoms - as much as a 20% decrease in hippocampus volume - that sounds like a brain abnormality to me. I'll post them (or the links) when I get a chance.

I have read your posts, and I do agree that they are well thought out and possess some validity. I just don't agree with them 100%, and I don't feel that they are fully consistent with the medical evidence that is out there now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Personalized Advice Quiz - All of Acne.org in just a few minutes

×