Posted by JohnL on August 4, 2001, at 5:34:35
In reply to Re: Book Recommendation? » JohnL, posted by Zo on August 3, 2001, at 23:07:06
> John, Can you say more about the radical ideas?
Ok, sure. Be forewarned, it is radical, and every time I discuss it at this board it is met with opposition and debate. Only those who have actually read the book understand that it actually goes with conventional psychiatry, not against. Going just on what I can describe in a post like this though, it is hard to comprehend. The book explains it very well in layman terms, but I don't do so well in trying to explain it. The result is lots of skepticism, opposition, and debate. One must read the book to judge the issue fairly.
First of all, the assumption is that all psychiatric symptoms are caused by chemical imbalances. Chemical imbalances can be too much of serotonin, norepinephrine, or dopamine; or too little of one. We usually tend to think only in terms of chemical deficiencies, but chemical excesses are just as bad. That's why it's called chemical imbalance. There must be a proper balance, which varies from person to person since we all have unique genes, unique chemistry, unique molecular binding, unique circumstances and personality. Sometimes it is not an issue of too much or too little, but rather an issue of instability. Chemical balances are instable and fluctuating too much.
The next assumption is that the closer a drug is to targeting the true undleryling chemical problem, the quicker it will work and the fewer the side effects. The farther away a drug is from targeting the real problem, the longer it will take to work, if it ever works at all, and the more side effects and higher doses are needed. The wrong drugs can indeed work, but they do so through a series of domino chain reactions which take time and affect chemistries not related to the symptoms.
With Dr Jensen's approach, he has patients try three drugs from a category, such as three different SSRIs, for only 5 days each, with a one day washout inbetween. In that 5 days we are looking for clues. One of those three drugs could prove to be the right one. The right one will provide clues such as: A hint of a good response within just 5 days, lack of intolerable side effects. In Jensen's approach, he is looking not just for a drug that will work, but a drug that will work quickly. That indicates a superior match for the patient. The strategy is to find superior drug matches for each patient. The whole idea, and this is where debate arises, is not to get well in 5 days, but rather to identify superior drugs and weed out inferior ones. Then longer trials can be given to the superior ones. No sense wasting 6 weeks on the inferior ones. If a drug shows a hint of promise in just 5 days, it is worthy of giving a longer trial and is given priority over other drugs that didn't do anything in 5 days.
So basically the whole approach is one of priority setting. Since there are so many drugs to choose from, we want to identify just the most promising ones and give them first priority for longer trials.
Jensen's approach was built on years of observations that indeed patients do experience good responses in a short time, the phenomenon really does exist, and there is also plenty of evidence at this board and in clinical trials that this is true. A few months ago I set out to find clinical studies that showed patients who responded remarkably well within one week, and I found so many studies showing this I couldn't list them all!
So, that is a very rough interpretation of his book. Like I said, the only way to legitimately agree with it or disagree with it is to read it. Without reading it, neither agreement or disagreement can legitimately be done.
JohnI personally modified his approach by lengthening the sample period to 2 or 3 weeks instead of 5 days. It's a compromise between his approach and conventional psychiatry.
>
> Thx,
> Zo
>
> > His teachings are quite unique and different, but easy for a layman to read and understand. Be forewarned though, at first it seems like a radical departure from conventional psychiatry. But the more and more you read it, the more and more you realize it is just an extension of existing conventional psychiatry. His techniques and conventional psychiatry marry together very well. But like I said, at first it seems radical. After you are done reading, you realize it is not radical at all. It actually blends with current psychiatry like peanut butter and jam. It's only around $30 or $40, and is the best of many psychiatric books I've ever read.
> > John
poster:JohnL
thread:73277
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20010804/msgs/73467.html