Talk:Bipolar disorder/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 2 |
Archive 3
| Archive 4 →


Contents

Omega-3s

I'd like to see the omega-3 section fleshed out and either moved to or reiterated in "alternative therapies". And there is no reason (other than snobbiness) to put a commonly understood word in quotes ("alternative").

Yes there is. According to Cliffnotes, quotations are used to distance the author(s) from the word. In this context, there is a debate about whether certain disorders can be treated entirely with alternative therapies/regimens, hence the complementary medicine movement.

Temporal Lobe Epilepsy

There is significant enough overlap between bipolar disorder and temporal lobe epilepsy to warrant its own section. (With info on distinguishing between the two, when possible, and info on MRIs, EEGs, etc.) Kay Redfield Jamison (her again!) notes that Vincent van Gogh had (probably temporal lobe) epilepsy, but diagnoses him with bipolar anyway.

Okay, I'm not really sure how posthumous psychiatric diagnosis works and I'm not sure I want to know either. -- Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC

Alleviating Symptoms with Nutrients Instead of Drugs?

http://www.truehope.com/

There's a nutritional supplement called "EMPowerplus" (which stands for Essential Mineral Power) that seems to help with bipolar disorder. The formula is based on a particular mineral ratio that alleviates aggressive behavior in animals. The company, Truehope Nutritional Support, claims that the ratio is so important that taking other mineral supplements may reduce EMP's efficacy, and that many customers have reported adverse reactions doing so.

Since the product is designed to treat disease, it's more costly but allows for 80% absorption of its nutrient content, compared to standard supplements that typically allow for fraction of that. No labelling will warn consumers about the poor absorption of nutrients in typical multi-vitmains. In addition, EMP is lab tested to help ensure its reliability. Several pilot studies suggest, as renowned psychopharmacologist Charles Popper says, "extremely high research potential." Popper testified in court recently that EMP works better than medication for 80% of the patients who have tried it in his practice and works much better than medication in most cases; he has treated or consulted in the treatment of well over 300 patients. More than 50% appear to be able to come off of medications completely, it appears so far. Others can at least reduce their medications and probably come off them with time. Taking medications and EMPowerPlus together has resulted in complications, so people are often forced to choose between them.

At the time of the company's inception, customers would take up to 32 capsules a day. Today, the product is more user friendly and the typical loading dose is down to 15 a day. It can cost around $140.00 a month but varies from person to person. A unipolar disorder might be treated with fewer than 7 pills a day, costing much less. One notable property of the process of treatment with EMPowerplus is that reactions occur with people who are taking or who have taken pharmaceutical drugs.

People shouldn't assume EMPower will be a magic cure, and stop taking medication without planning and consultation. The process can be "tricky" as Popper put it. Many can't make the transition from standard medication to EMPower at all, so it is important to consider the risks involved. For some people with more severe mental illnesses, these can be very grave risks.

EMPowerPlus has appeared in news stories in Canada as the government health organization Health Canada has faced off with Truehope over their claims about EMPowerPlus. At one point, Health Canada banned the product, raided their offices and seized cases of the product, but this resulted in public outrage, protests and intervention by parliament. At least two people comitted suicide after their depression returned, having been denied the only treatment that had been working for them. Continuing an apparently rash and unreasonable course, Health Canada recently took the manufacturer to court to fine them for selling without a Drug Identification Number. However, the judge has ruled: Truehope did not have a choice but to continue to sell their product, because they could have been charged with reckless endangerment for *not* providing it. Based on phone transcripts and some of Health Canada's actions in its attempt to hurt the company, the judge stated that Health Canada seemed to know Canadians were being put in danger by banning the product. Anthony Stephen, CEO, is calling for public inquiries into Health Canada's actions and is demanding they reimburse the company for illegal seizures of the product. Furthermore, people who were harmed by the ban are taking legal action against specific Health Canada agents who showed blatant disregard for the safety and well-being of the people they were supposed to be protecting. Critics of Health Canada suggest that middle-management conspired with drug companies for financial reasons.

EMP's ingredients have been in use for 40 years and have proven to be safe, so far even for pregnant and nursing women, as well as children (in lower doses, of course), and the company provides toll free phone support from trained employees, most of whom have suffered from mental illness in the past but are now well. The following is a comparison of EMP to a standard multi-vitamin. Keep in mind that one would typically take more than 3X the serving size of EMP shown here to get the proper therapeutic amount and that the over-the-counter multi would not have enough of the essential ingredients and would likely have the wrong ratio, a lack of chelation and a lack of nutrients largely unique to EMP. Side effects for EMP are minor and usually managable.

Nutrient Empowerplus capsule (3 capsules) Empowerplus powder (1 serving) Walgreen's AthruZ (1 caplet)
Vitamin A 960 IU 1440 IU 5000 IU
Vitamin C 100 mg 150 mg 60 mg
Vitamin D 240 IU 360 IU 400 IU
Vitamin E 60 IU 90 IU 30 IU
Vitamin B1 3 mg 4.5 mg 1.5 mg
Vitamin B2 2.25 mg 3.4 mg 1.7 mg
Vitamin B3 15 mg 22.5 mg 20 mg
Vitamin B5 3.6 mg 5.4 mg 10 mg
Vitamin B6 6 mg 9 mg 2 mg
Vitamin B9 240 mcg 360 mcg 400 mcg
Vitamin B12 150 mcg 225 mcg 6 mcg
Vitamin H 180 mcg 270 mcg 30 mcg
Calcium 220 mg 330 mg 162 mg
Phosphorous 140 mg 210 mg 109 mg
Magnesium 100 mg 150 mg 100 mg
Potassium 40 mg 44 mg 80 mg
Iodine 34 mcg 51 mcg 150 mcg
Zinc 8 mg 12 mg 15 mg
Selenium 34 mcg 51 mcg 20 mcg
Copper 1.2 mg 1.8 mg 2 mg
Manganese 1.6 mg 2.4 mg 2 mg
Chromium 104 mcg 156 mcg 120 mcg
Molybdenum 24 mcg 36 mcg 75 mcg
Iron 2.29 mg 3.435 mg 18 mg
CNS Proprietary Blend (listed below) 277 mg 416 mg --
dl-phenylalanine ? ? 0
glutamine ? ? 0
citrus bioflavanoids ? ? 0
grape seed ? ? 0
choline bitartrate ? ? 0
inositol ? ? 0
ginkgo biloba ? ? 0
methionine ? ? 0
germanium sesquioxide ? ? 0
boron ? ? 150 mcg
vanadium ? ? 10 mcg
nickel ? ? 5 mcg

WHAT BP HAS DONE TO ME

Since December 2001 when I had my first relaps I have been obsessed with the number 3. I feel better now however my obsession is stronger than ever. Please vist the following to see what I mean. wikipedia didn't seem to like that link

Regards Brian Miller...

This sounds like OCD, which some people with bipolar disorder sometimes contract. That's my theroy.

BP NO RELAPS PLEASE

How long can you go without a relaps?

BM

Spontaneous remission does happen. I have had two bipolar episodes in my life, 15 years apart, both triggered by SSRI antidepressants. Managing life issues rather than trying to medicate them away works for a whole lot of people. Good luck. -- Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC

Brand names vs. generic names

Suggested policy: In the general case, we should refer to drugs by their generic names only, except when a patented drug has a famous brand name such as Viagra or Prozac, in which case we should also add a reference to its generic name as well. -- Karada 21:42, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with this suggested policy, on the grounds that it limits the usefulness of the Wikipedia. Lamotrigine is also known as Lamictal, Lamictin and Lamogine. Why is it a problem to display these helpful search targets? Why should Viagra and Prozac be different? They START with an extensive 'also known as' section. Does this imply that the information is important? This suggested policy is bizarre and counterintuitive. How does one search for the brand name Lamotrigine, when it is branded Lamictin? How can I be confident that they are the same thing unless a reputable source tells me so?

Split the article?

It's really huge. The treatment sections (all three of them) should probably be made a separate article. --Smack (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree that the article is quite long. Perhaps the longer sections should be made into their own articles, replaced in this article with a short summary and a link to the "main article". --Ithacagorges (talk) 17:10, 5 Jul 2005

I too agree that the article should be split. Perhaps new articles for "Medication" and "Research findings"? I could do that. Would like to see an expert expand the "Psychotherapy" section. HalD 04:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I also agree that the article should be split. Though it isn't clear to me in what way it should be split. It seams to me that discussion of each medication/treatment and its effect/efficacy in treating bipolar could be relegated to that medication/treatment's article... e.g. there is already an article on Lithium_salt. Then we could reference to those individual articles perhaps directly to a subheading established in regards to that treatment and its relation to bipolar. Dark Nexus 14:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I also agree this article is much too long.84.143.74.26 09:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Suicide statistic

Is the 15% suicide figure for treated, or untreated cases? And can we have a cite, please? -- Karada 5 July 2005 19:57 (UTC)

  • 15% is a traditional estimate you'll find in a number of books and sources. More recent research suggests it may be somewhat lower, but estimates still typically range between 10% and 20% (for treated and untreated cases combined). I have added a link to a page with abstracts of many recent scientific articles on bipolar disorder and suicide, including some which discuss the lifetime prevalence rate. -- Ithacagoreges 20:05 5 July 2005 (UTC)
    • It may also be worth citing the baseline suicide rate, which most studies put at around 1% for the United States. As for the 15% figure, IIRC that's a traditional unspecific figure for "mood disorders" in general, including depression and bipolar disorder. Most recent studies I've seen put the suicide rate for depression at more like 2-6%, and bipolar disorder at more like 3-9%. I haven't seen any estimates as high as 15% from any studies conducted in the last 10-15 years. --Delirium 12:42, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • Another thing that should be noted is that all these statistics are specific to the United States. Suicide rates are strongly influenced by culture, so U.S. figures are not easily transferrable to other cultures, especially very different ones. --Delirium 12:46, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

External Links

There are a lot of external links here, some of which look pretty much like advertising to me. Here's an extract from Wikipedia:External links:

What should be linked to

  1. Official sites should be added to the page of any organization, person, or other entity that has an official site.
  2. Sites that have been cited or used as references in the creation of a text. Intellectual honesty requires that any site actually used as a reference be cited. To fail to do so is plagiarism.
  3. If a book or other text that is the subject of an article exists somewhere on the Internet it should be linked to.
  4. On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of what their POV is.
  5. High content pages that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article at which point the link would remain as a reference.

Maybe OK to add
[This part is not relevant to this article.]

What should not be linked to
  1. Wikipedia disapproves strongly of links that are added for advertising purposes. Adding links to one's own page is strongly discouraged. The mass adding of links to any website is also strongly discouraged, and any such operation should be raised at the Village Pump or other such page and approved by the community before going ahead. Persistently linking to one's own site is considered Vandalism and can result in sanctions. See also External link spamming.
  2. Links to a site that is selling products, unless it applies via a "do" above.

I'd like to hear discussion around which of the links on the main page meet these criteria. - brenneman(t)(c) 08:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

POV issue

The following paragraph seems to have some POV issues.

"There is no compelling scientific evidence for the biochemical imbalance theory for bipolar disorder or for any other mental illness. Such theories are the brainchild of pharmaceutical manufacturers who are interested in profits, not mental health."

While I neither agree nor disagree with the assertion here, due to lack of cited sources, I feel that it is rather subjectively slanted against pharmaceutical companies without adding anything of value to the article. Perhaps a more neutral wording should be in order here:

"There is no compelling scientific evidence for the biochemical imbalance theory for bipolar disorder or for any other mental illness. Such theories have been criticized as the brainchild of pharmaceutical manufacturers who are interested in profits, not mental health."

I'm going to go ahead and edit this for now, feel free to change it if I'm out of line here. - KrisWood


I added that statement but I disagree with you that it doesn't add anything of value to the article. I think it's critically important for the public to be aware that psychiatrists are not able to identify mental illness through any objective physical test. The reason that they can't is because mental illness, by its very nature, is merely a reflection of society's norms. By way of example, homosexuality was only removed from the DSM in the 1970s. I do agree with you, however, that more neutral wording is almost always better and I appreciate your edit in this case.

24.108.4.85: your recent contributions have introduced quite a bit of POV into the article. I can see that when others and I have tried to edit your changes to remove the POV you have accepted and taken account of the changes in your subsequent edits, but it would be better if you could try to make your initial edits a little more neutral. --ascorbic 19:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Some specific thoughts on certain points that 24.108.4.85 keeps reintroducing: the term "electroshock" is unscientific and probably POV. Use "ECT". An "ever-growing minority of critics": is it ever-growing? Do you have any sources to back this claim up? In lieu of evidence, let's just keep it as "a minority of critics" (I think we can all agree it's a minority). Overall, 24.108.4.85 manages to introduce POV in every edit. Could we tone it down a little? --ascorbic 09:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments. I'm not sure how to get around the "POV" problem. You and others haven't just edited my changes, in many cases, you've deleted my contributions. I certainly will try to make my edits more "neutral" (read palatable) but the facts about biomedical psychiatry are indeed upsetting and controversial and it's hard to put that into neutral language.

What is unscientific about "electroshock"? Electroshock is completely accurate terminology -- it's electric shocks being fired into a patient's brain while they are under anaesthetic. By way of contrast, ECT is a politically correct term which attempts to divert public concern. Yes, the minority is ever-growing. Please check out the websites of MindFreedom, PsychRights, the Coalition Against Psychiatric Assault and the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology. If you want further information, please email me at efsimpson@canada.com

Thanks for responding. The problem is that most of your additions use highly slanted language, such as referring to "myths" (it's your opinion that it's a myth), while comparisons to lobotomy are an inflammatory red herring, and not relevant to the article. The same can be said for the mentions you made of the Nazis. The most neutral term is ECT, so it's best to use that. In the other sections of the article, I've tried to moderate your contributions in order to ensure NPOV is maintained, but you persist in reverting the chnages made by me and other editors. You've probably violated the 3RR in that respect. While you feel strongly about your points, you cannot post them as "facts" because many (most?) people would dispute your opinion. These means that it's important to avoid bias in the article. Rather than just reverting our changes, work with us in producing a neutral article. --ascorbic 13:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to now go through your recent additions, point by point, and try to make them neutral. I'll detail my reasons in each summary. Can you let me make this changes and respind before reverting. Thanks. --ascorbic 14:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I didn't realize we were supposed to discuss changes first. Psychiatric diagnosis and treatment IS a myth. That's not a matter of opinion. Psychiatrists themselves cannot objectively measure mental illness. ECT may be most neutral but that doesn't it make the most accurate and I will continue to use the term electroshock. I can't publish the facts because MOST people don't agree? So we either follow the herd or be silenced? Is that what Wikipedia is all about? If so, I'll probably bow out now and just link to the Wikipedia bipolar definition on my own website to point out the misinformation published here.

Again, I'm a newbie and just read the 3RR just now. If I'm guilty of breaking the rules, then others are too here. I'll certainly follow the rule from now on, though. -- EFS

Sorry, but your facts are widely disputed and the article has to reflect this plurality of opinion. You cannot just state them as facts or myths without allowing for alternative viewpoints. Read the guidelines on NPOV. If you want an article to just reflect your opinion as to what the facts are, then it can't be here on WP where we expect NPOV. I've gone ahead and made changes. Can you accept these as neutral insofar as they reflect your views as well as those of people with whom you disagree? --ascorbic 14:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

But not allowing for alternative viewpoints is exactly what YOU are doing. With respect to your changes:

YOUR COMMENT: It is disputed as to whether BD is *caused* by ADs, or if they just trigger episodes in those already prone to them.

MY REPSONSE: It is not disputed. In fact, mainstream psychiatry recommends treating unipolar depression with mood stabilizers (rather than just ADs) for precisely this reason. Whether or not someone is prone to (whatever that means) mood disorders, if they don't exhibit mania until treatment with antidepressants, then bipolar disorder could be said to have been CAUSED by antidepressants. Please check out the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill -- they're pro-psychiatry and they confirm this as a cause of mania.

YOUR COMMENT: Calling the theory a "myth" is highly POV. "Confirm" implies "fact", rather than opinion. Changed to "assert".)

MY RESPONSE: On the contrary, calling the biochemical imbalance theory "credible" is highly POV. Again, there is no compelling (non-biased) research on the subject. Until there is (which will be never -- you cannot pathologize the human condition), the Mad Movement's going to fight the status quo.

YOUR COMMENT: The survivors are included in the critics, so mentioning them separately is not needed.

MY RESPONSE: Sure, they're included but they are due special consideration, given that they know firsthand the devastating effects of the treatment. I think it's important to point out that the mechanism of electroshock is brain damage, as even psychiatrists admit this and they have no idea for the reason for the alleged "success" of the treatment. If electroshock were effective, then they'd hardly be pushing maintenance electroshock for life, would they? -- EFS

I do, however, accept the changes made and appreciate your input. -- EFS

I feel that I should comment on this section. 30 July 2005, I reverted the content regarding electroconvulsive therapy. I felt that it was very POV and unsubstantiated. I also felt that references to Nazi Germany were not appropriate to an article on bipolar affective disorder. I wish now that I would have added something on the talk page Saturday when I made the changes to the article. I am glad to see things are getting resolved. If there isn't already a page, I thing an article on the history of the therapy could be very interesting if done appropriately. Psy Guy 16:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually your reversions were, for the most, reverted. However, I agree that the references to Nazi Germany (although completely truthful) were unnecessarily inflammatory. Things are getting "resolved" only in that a psychiatric assault survivor is once again being told how and when she may speak. -- EFS

One doesn't have to be a critic of psychiatry to aim for truth in language. Electroshock is a treatment whereby electric shocks are generated and applied to a patient, with or without his consent. Calling it "ECT" may make pro-psychiatry types feel better, but does nothing to clarify the issue. The word is electroshock. -- EFS

If anyone wants to learn about the history of electroshock, they could start at the Deadly Medicine exhibit at the Holocaust Museum in DC. -- EFS

You're only being told how you may speak in terms of asking you to stick to the policies of this site. Like it or not, the policy here is NPOV. There are plenty of places where POV is allowed. Myself, I have written many opinionated pieces (including one you may find interesting and relevant), but I don't post them on wikipedia, because that's not what WP is about. You seem to be trying to use WP to advance an agenda. This is a futile quest. --ascorbic 00:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

No, I understand the POV policy. That's not the issue. -- EFS

  • I agree that 90%+ of 24.108.4.85's edits have been POV with no place in this article; they promote the so-called "anti-psychiatry" agenda, and typically make misleading, inaccurate, exaggerated, and/or non-scientific claims. I have just reverted her most recent batch, and there are a few older ones that should also be reverted. As an aside, in this case we are not "silencing positions on Wikipedia" either as you suggest; most of 24.108.4.85's postings appear in several places on the anti-psychiatry article, related articles, and the anti-psychiatry section of the general psychiatry article. (In fact, if you read some of them I would argue those are the articles that currently need more balancing, not the "mainstream" articles.) --Ithacagorges 02:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

It's not the "so-called anti-psychiatry agenda." We ARE anti-psychiatry and our "agenda" is to bring truth to the mentally ill and their families. I have said NOTHING misleading, inaccurate, or exaggerated. "Anti-scientific" is a comical complaint, given that the entire field of psychiatry is merely a social construct. I have only posted to this article therefore your claims about other places where my postings appear are invalid. -- EFS

The POV policy absolutely is the issue. You have made dozens of edits in the past couple of days, and virtually every one has introduced POV. When we try to make edits to balance your changes, you revert them or change them in another way to make them POV. YOU consider these things to be facts. Others disagree. NPOV is about not slanting an article to one viewpoint, and that includes not expressing contested opinions as "fact". This is NOT the place to argue your agenda, or any agenda. Your viewpoint is well represented in the article, but you don't seem to be content with that, and want it to be the only viwepoint that is acknowledged as "true", with everything else dismissed as "myth". THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN, however many times you edit the article to try to make it so. --ascorbic 07:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

You could make the same point about some of your reversions. The original article was very one-sided. It's not a matter of what I consider facts. I'm looking at the whole field of psychiaty and the scientific evidence that they have. There is no credible link, for instance, between low serotonin and depression. The only reason the facts I am introducing into this article are contested is because they fly in the face of mainstream psychiatry. That's a serious problem with psychiatry, not for me and I have every right to speak out whenever I see mainstream psychiatry spewing its BS. Contrary to what you say here, I am very content with the changes I have seen in the article and I think my edits were well worth my time. In summary, IT DID HAPPEN, however many times you try to deny it. -- EFS

PS I enjoyed your article you linked to above. Were the proposed changes enacted? I'm in Canada and our mental health laws aren't as strong, however, many psychiatrists get around this by just ignoring them. -- EFS