Nuttiness and Brain Injuries

Over at http://www.commiejournal.com/users/sapphoq/18943.html (as well as at http://radical.sapphoq.com hopefully after the f.t.p. thingy quits freaking out and starts working correctly), the reader will find my reaction to the popular and highly inaccurate media frenzy reportage of "Oh Noes. Anti-depressants Don't Work."

This was of concern to me for several reasons. The first one is that 90% of traumatic brain injuries exist in the left frontal temporal lobe. This region of the brain can screw with the head quite literally, in other words-- damage there can make pre-existing mental conditions worse or really un-nice things like major depression of the suicidal variety or schizophrenia can indeed be induced for the first time.

I've gone to at least one RaRa Brain Injury Conference where at least one t.b.i. survivor was willing to vehemently deny that a mental condition of the psychiatric variety can be part of the picture of the problems and symptoms associated with his or her own brain injuries. Thus, some percentage of us who are discriminated against at times because of our state of being still feel free to discriminate against others who have their own state of being and oh noes we cannot be like those mentally ill freakish people. Well, we can. And often we are.

Aside from the neurological difficulties and the chances for increasing psychiatric symptoms, we are also at risk for active addictions-- or for relapses if we were abstinent before our brains got insulted. Active addicts are not known for the clearest thinking or the healthiest-looking behavior. If you don't believe that, head for the nearest barroom or crackhouse. Yes, psych meds are over-prescribed and yes, anyone who can live well without them should do so. Enter a genuine brain injury (not the nami mommies generated "brain disease") and suddenly there is a wrench in the mix. Folks with messed-up neurology often find that no amount of natural supports and total life changes can make up for the malfunctioning of their left frontal-temporal lobes.

The second concern was the media frenzy itself. The public reporting of this was astonishingly bad. For that I totally blame the journalists and editors of the newspapers. The average citizen doesn't have access to Medscape and thus misses out on some of the real deal. The thing is that the literature review of the research studies was not purposed to take sides in the shrinks rule and the nami mommies know best vs. the anti-psychiatry debate. Nor was it designed to address any of the rather serious and excellent questions regarding the state of treatment of people with mental conditions. The literature review team wanted to study biases in the reporting of results of studies of the effectiveness of antidepressants which were done within a certain timespan.

A bit more of background: In the year 2004, Congress began to investigate the F.D.A.-- because the F.D.A. tends to use research studies that are according to the desires of the FDA to justify the yea or nay of licensing drugs for public use-- rightly so, although I do not trust politicians to know what the hell they are doing when trying to create medical policies. Consequently, some folks from the A.P.A. and the child-adolescent shrinks version of the A.P.A. approached the A.M.A. regarding research studies and the idea that they should all be registered in order to be recognized. This was in fact done. However (predictably) making researchers jump through more red tape before conducting research did not help the F.D.A. become less biased in its use of the results of research studies for its own purposes-- approving or disapproving new drugs for the American public to be prescribed. A literature review team decided to review some research studies done on antidepressants and how those results were used by the F.D.A. The literature review team found that the FDA is still biased. The mediacs of the popular press didn't bother informing the public of the expressed purpose of the literature review nor did they deem to mention the background essential to understanding the literature review.

Thus, my third concern. That a few folks may conclude that since the troublesome pills they were advised to take are causing them to gain weight and some other stuff don't work anyways, why bother? Flush 'em. Then again, anyone who is prone to wanting off the psych drugs can use accurate information or inaccurate information as their impetus. So screw that thought.

That (probably a more realistic scenario) the health "maintenance" organizations i.e. medical insurance companies will use the study as erroneously reported to justify denying necessary psych meds to those people who wish to take them and need them in order to have some quality of life or at least to have a break from psych symptoms. I hate insurance companies. Those of us who have had to fight for services and treatments usually do.

To any mediacs who were involved in the latest shameful widespread yellow journalism-- shame on you.

sapphoq healing traumatic brain injury

p.s. In case anyone is curious: As far as the meds vs. meds plus talking vs. meds and natural supports vs. no meds and only natural supports debate, my own beliefs are that in a general way:
-psych meds are over-prescribed,
-antidepressants don't work well on folks who are not clinically depressed nor on folks who have a chronic low grade clinical depression,
+a complete physical should be done before placing a patient on meds,
+anyone who is able to do without the meds ought to, -some of us can't (+Dr. Daniel Fisher of the National Empowerment Center who at one time was diagnosed as having schizophrenia bases his entire psychiatry practice on evaluating people to access whether or not they can function without the meds),
-and that the nami mommies are full of crap when calling psych conditions "brain diseases."
I am also against:
-forced drugging and
-forced court-ordered out-patient treatment and
-forced e.c.t.