@notconvinced (ironic) and I were having a debate seen in my comment section of this article: https://hive.blog/mentalhealth/@laurabell/addiction-plant-medicine-choice#@notconvinced/re-laurabell-q8y1vv # What are your thoughts on this convo. >I too have an issue with saying a person has "a chemical imbalance". Part of what makes each of us unique is the unique mix of the chemicals our brains produce. Not definitively, no. When you say, “part of what makes each of us unique is the unique mix of the chemicals our brains produce” the implication is that “chemicals” (neurotransmitters? Proteins? Chemical messengers?) are the ones that regulate the “part of what makes each of us unique” -- do you mean personality, mood, energy? Because that is the very assumption that has been now build into mainstream culture. A lot of what we know about neurotransmitters is RECENT. I mean, people don’t even realize that we just learned about how CranioSacral Fluid (CSF) was regulated by the lymphatic system in order to get rid of waste in the brain. That was in the last decade. A lot of this speculation about mood and neurotransmitters comes from a flimsy foundation. I am really hitting this hard, because it’s THAT assumption that sets up society to be fooled into taking psychotropic drugs day by day by day. What you are regurgitating is the basis of foundation of the simpleness of the chemical imbalance theory. Here -- look into Kelly Brogan, M.D. a bit more. I loved her interview with Joe Rogan. She talks about the same idea. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cunSB69gaec There is really a lot to this. It has a lot less to do with addiction and more to do with neurobiology. So, I’ll try and be as detailed as possible. Yes, we have ample reason to validate that serotonin can be additionally created in the gut. However, the gut and brain neurotransmitters cannot cross the blood brain barrier. That means that even though certain foods increase serotonin rates, it does not necessarily mean it’s the serotonin creating the better mood. (even though improved mood is correlated with healthy food choices). I am also not saying that a better diet or an increase in fluid can’t help mood. It’s just way more complex than “these chemicals make you who you are, or create a mood”. We don't really know what causes this? That’s kind of my point. I am not trying to be arrogant. There’s just not a lot of research on the topic right now. A lot of the funding is going toward pills, and drugs --- and using that to determine functionality of the brain. We need more science and research that functions more on utility and specificity of the various neurochemicals. For example, there is speculation that serotonin is used by the gut to facilitate peristalsis. That would mean it could possibly have multiple usages -- and mood could maybe be a secondary response opposed to a primary. Again, these are all speculations. Even the way in which we measure neurotransmitter catabolism (urine output) is not super accurate. We don’t know where that neurotransmitter came from? The brain? The gut? There is a lot of nuances that are missed with a casual glance. The truth is that the medical field has a lot less figured out than they want us to believe. How would you feel if you found out that a lot of the foundational research on neurobiology is filmsy. But they are already selling you a pill… For example, some believe that the reason that it has to do with mood is because of serotonins regulation in the brain by the raphe nuclei (this is the nucleus that produces serotonin) in the brain. It also controls the production of melatonin. Scientists are wondering if the mood CORRELATION that serotonin seems to have could instead be understood by sleep-wake cycle or how much sunlight is actually penetrating the skull (that’s what actually stimulates the raphe nuclei to produce melatonin). Also, I don’t think I missed the difference between a theory and a hypothesis in undergrad. In graduate school it’s a given you have a basic definition. A theory is backed up by a substantiated amount of data. That’s really the problem here. Again, I think you assume there is more data to back up the basic function of neurotransmitters? Right? No. A lot of it is still a working hypothesis. It does not have very much substance to back it up. This is what Dr. Valenstein talks about in his book. Being that you are in the natural health community and seemingly interested in the topic. Please pick it up. Dr. Elliot Valenstein, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of psychology and neuroscience at Michigan University writes in his book various points about why this needs to be reexamined steeply by the medical community. “Contrary to what is often claimed, no biochemical, anatomical or functional signs have been found that reliably distinguish the brains of mental patients [from civilians.]” (p. 125) Here is a link to that book I quoted: https://www.amazon.com/Blaming-Brain-Truth-Mental-Health/dp/0743237870/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214846996&sr=8-1 Here’s some facts he states in the book. "Reducing levels of norepinephrine, serotonin and dopamine does not actually produce depression in humans, even though it appeared to do so in animals. The theory cannot explain why there are drugs that alleviate depression despite the fact that they have little or no effect on either serotonin or norepinephrine. Drugs that raise serotonin and norepinephrine levels, such as amphetamine and cocaine, do not alleviate depression. No one has explained why it takes a relatively long time before antidepressant drugs produce any elevation of mood. Antidepressants produce their maximum elevation of serotonin and norepinephrine in only a day or two, but it often takes several weeks before any improvement in mood occurs. Although some depressed patients have low levels of serotonin and norepinephrine, the majority do not. Estimates vary, but a reasonable average from several studies indicates that only about 25 percent of depressed patients actually have low levels of these metabolites. Some depressed patients actually have abnormally high levels of serotonin and norepinephrine, and some patients with no history of depression at all have low levels of these amines. Although there have been claims that depression may be caused by excessive levels of monoamine oxydase (the enzyme that breaks down serotonin and norepinephrine), this is only true in some depressed patients and not in others. Antidepressants produce a number of different effects other than increasing norepinephrine and serotonin activity that have not been accounted for when considering their activity on depression" source: https://chriskresser.com/the-chemical-imbalance-myth/ >Yes, we agree that the problem is bigger than the drug. Though, one drug IS more addictive than another and this comes down mostly to physical dependence. Each drug affects the body in wholly or minute ways, but none are exactly the same as another. If I don't get marijuana for a while I have problems going to sleep at night. My brain got used to the chemicals MJ motivated the production of to fall asleep easier. I have very few physical symptoms if I miss an MJ dose. Maybe a little brain fog for a couple of days max.Now, I also use nicotine, which is a very different story. If I don't receive my nicotine within an hour my whole body revolts. It's all I can think about, I have this uneasy feeling in the pit of my gut and I can't concentrate on anything else, except wanting a cigarette. Addiction is a problem that is bigger than the drug, yes. The range of chemical dependency is a scale, correct. So yes, one drug can create more physical dependency than another (remember physical dependency happens even if the person is NOT mentally addicted). I am not over here trying to argue that shooting heroin in the back alley is equal in consequence to playing video games for hours upon hours on end. I am not even saying that getting healthy is going to go along the same path (withdrawal, risk of death, lifestyle, ect…) What I am trying to say is -- at the core, it’s all the same MENTALLY. When you boil down the reason to the very bottom. Every single person addicted reaches to the external to provide relief for the internal. When the problem can’t be fixed by an outside substance. A person cannot get “hooked” by physical dependence ALONE. It may be a horrible reason why someone descended into the path of addiction. This would not explain why there are seemingly normal, everyday people who have taken hard opioids during various times (surgeries, injuries, ect..) and came off -- did have withdrawl symptoms. Yet, they did not have the mental craving -- they did not keep going back to get more even when they weren’t in pain any longer. The mental capacity is the only thing that makes addiciton, well, addiciton. If not, we are just talking about chemical dependency. And that’s easy. Just get them off the drug by making them as comfortable as possible with other drugs (or kratom). Now, I want to dive into semantics. Technically, you are using the correct definition of addiction, which is: noun the fact or condition of being addicted to a particular substance, thing, or activity. I desire to separate the term addiction from that of chemical dependence. I think the interchangeability of the word waters down addiction and it’s chronic impact that duration lasts longer than the drug use. It also limits proper communication when describing the mental aspect (chronic) of addiction. >Many physicians realize that nicotine may even even be among the most addictive of drugs.Meth or heroine have even worse physical symptoms if you miss a dose. You can't move without pain, you're nauseous, every muscle hurts, you are extremely tired and feel severely sick. This does not happen with MJ or Nicotine. Agreed there are levels of chemical dependency. >Also, not all addicts use(d) drugs to escape. I love to party and do so with an enhanced mood. So, for fun. I've always loved myself and am full of confidence. I have no issue looking in the mirror, yet I'm addicted to nicotine and have been for 30 years. I can go without MJ if I'm broke, but not nicotine. Partying and enhancing mood is escaping! Are you kidding? I am not saying that all escape is bad -- hell, every single one of us loves vacations! Isn’t that a form of a healthy escape from the normal. It’s when you need to compulsively escape. Do you not think there is something beyond your physical dependence on cigarettes? Why do you choose to smoke? Do you think your life was beyond the possibility of having emotional traumas that perhaps caused anxieties? Have you ever heard of the use of magical mushrooms to get rid of craving and ALL pain associated from the withdrawal of nicotine at times? If it was so tied to the physical -- how could these lack of withdrawals be so? It happens a lot in plant medicine too. And from alcohol, heroin, and various other “harder” drugs. Could it be that even physical symptoms of withdrawal could be in part emotional? I am not here trying to debate if there is physical withdrawal or not. Because it is absolutely biological. It is absolutely real. It is hard. It hurts. It sucks. I am here talking about addiction. I think addiction is mental. I’ve gone over why I separate terminology. >There are many reasons people try drugs and of course low self esteem makes one more likely to become addicted, but so does the frequency of use, the dosage and other factors. Some of those factors are the mixture of chemicals in the brain and its wiring. Why do people have low self esteem? Were we also born with that? No, trauma (I use the word loosely) -- it was induced due to environmental pressures that the individual did not adapt appropriately too. >Some people are simply more genetically predisposed to addiction. Prove it is genetic. What is the code that predisposes someone to addiction? If we focus so much on genes, then don’t worry, they’ll have a pill to fix that too. As natural health facilitators, this is a bad path to go down. >Now, gaming is not supplying anyone with an outside source of chemicals to become dependent upon, but yes people become addicted to it. They do so, whether mentally healthy or not. Yes, because gaming proves my point that addiction is bigger than “the addictive qualities” of a drug in question. It’s about how the mind, not withdrawals -- not who used the hardest drug, not who went to the most rehabs. It’s all about the mind. And that’s what can unite one addict to another despite their different lifestyles and drug of choice. >We know that experiences change how. our brain creates and mixes chemicals We know that experiences change our neural connectivity between axons and dendrites inside the gray and white matters of the brain, sure. But you do this everyday? You do this when you exercise. You do this when you eat spinach. You do this when you feel the carpet with you big toe. Your brain is constantly changing. It doesn’t just change according to drugs, but everyday. Our bodies are dynamic not static. >So, playing the games releases more pleasure chemicals, which your body gets used to and likes. Over time it wants this new balance of chemicals to remain, so if you stop producing those levels your body sends signals that make you feel uncomfortable > at the same level as MJ, but not as bad as nicotine, on average. I say on average, because everyone is different and the withdrawal will be better or worse depending on not only your level of mental wellbeing, but how your body decides certain chemicals are necesaary for it to function. What is this so-called chemical called? Because did you know that all these drugs in question all use a different reward system in order to get pleasure. In general, yes you will adapt to a certain lifestyle. But you can’t blame the chemicals in your brain for causing you to become addicted? That’s my point exactly. Environment → causes changes in chemicals ---> causes changes in brain The environment you said that is causing brain changes is the drugs or video game. I am saying --- no, it came way before. The brain changed way before, when trauma was introduced, that’s what made the mind susceptible -- not that raver where someone was offered meth. That wasn’t the environment where the real changes took place. It was the time that little girl was raped in the sixth grade by her teacher. Ever since that moment, she’s never felt quite right in her body. Her brain changed then. Not when she was offered heroin by her boyfriend at sixteen. You can see the impacts of trauma on the brain. The white matter shrinks, and the amydala swells. This causes impulsivity, a constant release of epinephrine and norepinephrine because they are in a chronic sympathetic state. Basic neurology. Seeing violence can also do this. Being hit as a kid, smacked around. Seeing drugs as a kid, seeing abuse, not feeling love, neglect. >We cannot reduce dependency down to a single issue, because few things ever are. It's a result of many different factors, which differs from one person to another. Again with dependency. Are we talking about addiction or dependency? You are correct, dependency cannot be boiled down to single issue. And trauma isn’t a single issue. It is left up to interpretation of the individual who self-diagnosis themselves with addiction. And just because you’ve used drugs, or partied, or had a good time…. Does not make you an addict. Even if you’ve been around the block or two. >It most definitely isn't a choice. Choices simply lead to it. Agreed. >So, you are only partially correct that I think chemicals control choices. Again, it's never so black and white. Chemicals do not control choices. >It's a theory, not a hypothesis, because we have evidence for some of the equation, but not the whole picture, so is not a fact as a whole either. In terms of scientific data… the chemical imbalance theory does not in fact have enough sustenance to turn it into a theory. It is a working hypothesis. Even if one paper proves something right -- it is still considered a hypothesis until it crosses a threshold. >In the end the brain is very pliable and we can change the wiring, which controls how the brain works and decides what it needs at any time. Yes, we can change the wiring. And yes, it is difficult. Repetition is how you do it though. It's just a long process that can be done more effectively through natural means, though introducing outside chemicals can help it along, making it easier. introducing outside chemicals destroys your brain's ability to wire and rewire aka neuroplasticity. It can make you dependent on the S.S.R.I. and ruins your ability to produce the amounts that you once did. (it changes chemical levels inside the brain synapses, and can destroy your brain matter…) It's part of the problem of dependency... >The problem comes when physicians prescribe these drugs meant to be used as temporary helper as long term or permanent options without the personal help they need to push through the problem. There are a lot of problems. And a physician prescribing is one of them.
Originally posted here: https://hive.blog/naturalmedicine/@laurabell/chemical-imbalance-hoax
No comments:
Post a Comment