I know, OSB. But I still think psychiatrists are often behind the times. Neurologist seem to be, so to speak, the middle of the road. They can both understand the organ and know what a certain behaviour is being displayed without pullling the brain by its roots.
My cousin was helped by my friend who is a psychiatrist. My friend did a good job, but he never requested any tests. Which I found strange. By tests I mean regular things a GP would request, like blood samples to access several basic levels (thyroid, iron, b12, folate, etc), as well as other basic tests a GP would request.
It was interesting because my friend was able to told me Mr J was having a MLC, but he kind of thought my cousin could be bipolar. I told him, no, it is also MLC. The treatment my friend used on my cousin was indeed aimed at bipolar. It worked much better than the treatment that previous pshychiatrists had used.
Cousin was pretty much diagnosed with every single psychiatric disorder in the book, from bipolar to borderline, not leaving aside schizophrenia, psychotic, and something else I forgot. We had been given meds to all those illnesses. And some of those meds cause big harm. Cousin nearly killed himself because of the anti-psychotic meds. The meds for schizophrenia also did not help.
That tends to be a bit my problem with psychiatry (and, sadly, I have some experience with it, since there is mental illness in both sides of my family), often the psychiatrists goes by what is observed and told (by patient and those around the patient) and concludes is X. Or Z. Gives meds for X or Z. They don't work. Then maybe it is H, so lets try meds for H. All this without conducting some basic tests that even a GP would request.
I confess I find it kind of scary. Especially because people with mental illness, be it permanent or temporary, already are in an altered state of mind.
Of course if could be X but it Y also happens in other fields of medicine. But the other fields then to request blood tests, x-rays, CT scans, ultrasounds, MRI's etc. See my aunt. When she first when to the doctor early this year, my looking at her, listening to her complains and physically examine her, the doctor already had some idea of what it was. But he still request a battalion of blood tests, plus ultrasounds and ct scans and a colonoscopy. He did not said "is cancer", you need treatment W, without having the tests results. The person who said it is cancer was actually the surgeon that my aunt went to see afterwards. But that was only after more specific and further tests requested by the surgeon herself.
Like the doctor who first saw my aunt, after seeing my aunt for the first time, the surgeon already had a good idea of what it could be, but it was not said until she was certain and it has been confirmed by many different tests.
Another example. It had become obvious to me some 2 to 3 years ago that my paternal grandmother had Alzheimer's. The behaviour was there, then the meds for Alzheimer's were also there. But I had not tests or medical confirmation. Today I had to talk to one of my paternal cousins because grandmother had took a hit for the worst. My cousin confirmed grandmother's GP had tests with the extension of the brain lesions. The behaviour was there, the meds were there, but the tests also exist.
Here some psychiatric hospitals have patients with dementia. Dementia fall both under the scope of psychiatry as well as neurology, but GPs are often the ones who deal with them, and first detect them, on a daily basis. But, again, for the dementia there are tests. My mother has vascular dementia. She had to do tests before the diagnosed was confirmed. The symptoms and behaviour can be similar to Alzheimer's, but the causes are different.
I prefer what could be called a dual approach, symptoms/behaviour, but also having tests to back up the diagnosis.
I also make a difference between the daily practice of medicine and research, be it on medicine, neuroscience, neurobiology, etc. The former is what is applied on the day to day practice, the second the cutting edge research that is ongoing and that, hopefully, in the future will allow us to be able to tackle many issues, from cancer to Alzheimer's, without forgetting MLC.
Agree, I think MLC will be better understood in the future. Maybe the problem is the name in itself and the stereotypes that are associated with it. A disorder of the mind, with many facets. And an intriguing one, because it mimics other disorders.
And I still think some vitamins and minerals could be of a help. Be it for MLC or non MLC depression. I'm not opposed to meds. Sometimes they are the best and faster option, but I think using vitamins and minerals would also be important. You know how much the B12 is helping you. And me. And several others on the board.
Magnesium is also been helping me a lot, as well as B6, a B vitamin complex, vitamin D and even vitamins A and C. I do feel a huge difference, and not only in the body, in the brain as well.
Today I was able to handle the news about my paternal grandmother well, and what I will next have to do. I was not able to deal well with BD nor with the times after. Why? In the grand scheme of things a spouse having an affair, even being mostering, is less serious than Alzheimer's. Even because one can divorce the spouse.
I think part of my very poor reaction was the huge level of stress I was under. Add to it a couple of serious infections that took me to the ER twice, plus more hurt from my dad's death just days after Mr J left, and it safe to say all my levels where too high or too low. Sadly, I knew nothing about brain/body levels and chemicals, and very little about vitamins and minerals.
Upintheair, I may be better to refrain from putting testosterone on husband's food. It is dangerous playing with hormones, let alone without knowing the person levels. Plus stress (cortisol) affects testosterone, as it affects other hormones and chemicals (to make it easy I'm using hormones and chemicals; hormones are chemicals, but I think it is better understand if they are used separated).
On that bundle of neuroscience and neurobiology books I recently got there was some (two?) that had infos on the teenager brain. Velika's idea is interesting. But, at least for the most part, and to our current best knowledge, an adults brain is different from and adolescence one. The adult have a fully formed brain, the adolescence does not.
However, we do not have brain scans and other tests of the brains of MLCers. We have an idea of what may be going on, but we do not have the tests. At least not on a specific scientific experience conducted to see how the brain is altered during MLC. It would also be important to have the before and after MLC. The before, of course, is a problem, since we do not know who is going to have MLC.
The brain fascinates me, but not only because of MLC. Because of the dementia as well mental illnesses. I also have no troubles to consider possible that several things can contribute to any of those. Or a conjugations of things. Proteins, dopamine, serotonin, cortisol, damages in brain parts, issues with the brain electric circuit, even virus or bacteria. Like OSB said, the brain, as well as humans, is complex, and we are indeed more than the sum of the parts.
As for midlife crisis being about middle life, I don't think a 36 years person is a middle aged person. Mr J was 36 when he left. And he was not the only one who was in his mid, or even early, 30's. His current age would be more middle life fitting.
Sometimes good things fall apart so better things can fall together. (Marilyn Monroe)
Biochemistry, neurotransmitters and brain research III
Author
Topic: