Teen Depression

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just reading the last page, it's hard to believe this is the "clean" version. I'm sorry that posters who shared their painful stories came under personal attack.

Which post?

The posts where people shared their painful stories and were met with caustic comments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was dx'd with clinical depression at 12---it was v clearly a chemical imbalance, no environmental factors. It took five meds to find the right one, and several bad therapists before we found one that works. It's always going to be there, I'll probably always be on meds, but it's manageable.

I don't think you understand "enviornmental" factors. Everyone has them. It's a long process to learn which ones weren't positive.

Maybe this is a perceived attack.

If by perceived you mean blatant, then yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just reading the last page, it's hard to believe this is the "clean" version. I'm sorry that posters who shared their painful stories came under personal attack.

Which post?

The posts where people shared their painful stories and were met with caustic comments.

Nothing specific. Just complaining.

[Anonymous]

And the Einstein poster should apologize.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And the Einstein poster should apologize.

for................?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
They used to say that cancer was all in your genes to.

Just look how dumb that turned out to be.

Wise up, folks.

This is mean, no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was dx'd with clinical depression at 12---it was v clearly a chemical imbalance, no environmental factors. It took five meds to find the right one, and several bad therapists before we found one that works. It's always going to be there, I'll probably always be on meds, but it's manageable.

I don't think you understand "enviornmental" factors. Everyone has them. It's a long process to learn which ones weren't positive.

I had a happy childhood and a very supportive family, no history of abuse or PTSD or anything. But thanks for telling me about my own mental health, I totally appreciate the insight from a random anonymous stranger on the internet.

Good thing you isolated your bad luck gene.
Incredible that the family you inherited the illness from, was perfect in every way.
Truly amazing!

I'm not saying they were perfect, but that my issue was obviously a genetic mutation and not situational. Blaming families for medical conditions doesn't help the stigma that surrounds mental illness.

It's so unfortunate that you feel this is about "blaming". It's about learning the truth. There is no perfect parenting. Not your parents. Not my parents. And certainly not me.

Let's just be honest. We all could have been better.
If only we knew.

Um, the truth about depression is that it can be caused by a chemical imbalance you nutjob.

+1

PP needs to know more about depression. It causes cognitive distortion, so you can start with a physical illness (depression triggered by hormonal changes, for example), but then to attach the physical illness to causes that are unrelated (marital problems, financial problems, hangnails, etc.) and decide the illness is caused by these ordinary things. Every human being has problems of one sort or another, some large, some small, most in the middle, but there's no avoiding them, and most problems do not cause depression. (Some people go through horrific experiences and end up without depression or mental illness.) The cause and effect of depression is not clear because as I mentioned, depression causes cognitive distortion, ie your thinking and rational understanding of your experiences becomes distorted by your depression, and you begin to blame what is a chemical issue in your brain on external issues (like your husband or your job or your kids), which all of us have to one degree or another.

Excellent explanation.

It is well articulated but not necessarily accurate. There is really no one in the medical community who would call depression a chemical imbalance. That is a term that was developed years ago partly to move the perception of depression away from personal weakness/character and partly by the the pharmaceutical companies who wanted to tell you they could re-balance your chemicals. It isn't accurate and is a frustration for people who do research on mental illness as it is a pervasive view in the general public. Depression is neurobiological however that doesn't mean that no other factors other than neurotransmitter re-uptake are at play. While the etiology is still in its infancy in being understood, we do know that there is no one 'cause'. Just like there isn't one cause for all heart disease or one cause for all cancer. There is absolutely zero evidence that everyone with depression was born with a chemical imbalance. The serotonin theory is only one of many, many theories in understanding depression. The fact that SSRIs work to alleviate symptoms of depression tells us nothing about the cause of the illness. The drugs just treat symptoms. Just like ibuprofen alleviates the symptoms of pain, however if you have pain alleviated by ibuprofen that doesn't mean the cause of your pain was a ibuprofen deficit. Until now our understanding of mental illness has been symptoms driven (see DSM), that approach has just about run its course and taken us as far as it can. The NIMH is now moving away from that and in the next few years we will hopefully start to have a much better picture of mental illness. Also environmental factors and situational factors are two entirely different sets of factors, and both absolutely play a role in illness, including mental illness. Posters saying those play a role are not wrong in any way. Those factors have both a physiological and psychological impact. Environmental and psychosocial factors being at play does not mean that someone just couldn't cope with their environment/situation.

It is good that depression isn't a chemical imbalance. SSRIs are only effective in alleviating symptoms for 50-60% of people, naturalistic recovery is about 50% (people who get better in a year with no treatment), and initial placebo effect is about 40%.

Here is a position statement from the Director of the NIMH on moving away from the DSM and symptom driven diagnoses. http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-diagnosis.shtml

[Anonymous]

It is well articulated but not necessarily accurate. There is really no one in the medical community who would call depression a chemical imbalance. That is a term that was developed years ago partly to move the perception of depression away from personal weakness/character and partly by the the pharmaceutical companies who wanted to tell you they could re-balance your chemicals. It isn't accurate and is a frustration for people who do research on mental illness as it is a pervasive view in the general public. Depression is neurobiological however that doesn't mean that no other factors other than neurotransmitter re-uptake are at play. While the etiology is still in its infancy in being understood, we do know that there is no one 'cause'. Just like there isn't one cause for all heart disease or one cause for all cancer. There is absolutely zero evidence that everyone with depression was born with a chemical imbalance. The serotonin theory is only one of many, many theories in understanding depression. The fact that SSRIs work to alleviate symptoms of depression tells us nothing about the cause of the illness. The drugs just treat symptoms. Just like ibuprofen alleviates the symptoms of pain, however if you have pain alleviated by ibuprofen that doesn't mean the cause of your pain was a ibuprofen deficit. Until now our understanding of mental illness has been symptoms driven (see DSM), that approach has just about run its course and taken us as far as it can. The NIMH is now moving away from that and in the next few years we will hopefully start to have a much better picture of mental illness. Also environmental factors and situational factors are two entirely different sets of factors, and both absolutely play a role in illness, including mental illness. Posters saying those play a role are not wrong in any way. Those factors have both a physiological and psychological impact. Environmental and psychosocial factors being at play does not mean that someone just couldn't cope with their environment/situation.

It is good that depression isn't a chemical imbalance. SSRIs are only effective in alleviating symptoms for 50-60% of people, naturalistic recovery is about 50% (people who get better in a year with no treatment), and initial placebo effect is about 40%.

Here is a position statement from the Director of the NIMH on moving away from the DSM and symptom driven diagnoses. http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-diagnosis.shtml

Nevertheless, many are helped by medications. It is cold comfort indeed to read from DSM after seeing the tragic effects of teen depression.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It is well articulated but not necessarily accurate. There is really no one in the medical community who would call depression a chemical imbalance. That is a term that was developed years ago partly to move the perception of depression away from personal weakness/character and partly by the the pharmaceutical companies who wanted to tell you they could re-balance your chemicals. It isn't accurate and is a frustration for people who do research on mental illness as it is a pervasive view in the general public. Depression is neurobiological however that doesn't mean that no other factors other than neurotransmitter re-uptake are at play. While the etiology is still in its infancy in being understood, we do know that there is no one 'cause'. Just like there isn't one cause for all heart disease or one cause for all cancer. There is absolutely zero evidence that everyone with depression was born with a chemical imbalance. The serotonin theory is only one of many, many theories in understanding depression. The fact that SSRIs work to alleviate symptoms of depression tells us nothing about the cause of the illness. The drugs just treat symptoms. Just like ibuprofen alleviates the symptoms of pain, however if you have pain alleviated by ibuprofen that doesn't mean the cause of your pain was a ibuprofen deficit. Until now our understanding of mental illness has been symptoms driven (see DSM), that approach has just about run its course and taken us as far as it can. The NIMH is now moving away from that and in the next few years we will hopefully start to have a much better picture of mental illness. Also environmental factors and situational factors are two entirely different sets of factors, and both absolutely play a role in illness, including mental illness. Posters saying those play a role are not wrong in any way. Those factors have both a physiological and psychological impact. Environmental and psychosocial factors being at play does not mean that someone just couldn't cope with their environment/situation.

It is good that depression isn't a chemical imbalance. SSRIs are only effective in alleviating symptoms for 50-60% of people, naturalistic recovery is about 50% (people who get better in a year with no treatment), and initial placebo effect is about 40%.

Here is a position statement from the Director of the NIMH on moving away from the DSM and symptom driven diagnoses. http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-diagnosis.shtml

Nevertheless, many are helped by medications. It is cold comfort indeed to read from DSM after seeing the tragic effects of teen depression.

Oh absolutely, the medications that we have currently have saved many lives and do help many, many people. The alleviating of symptoms means that people can function, and that makes life manageable. Mental illness is now talked about with recovery and remission language - no longer seen as automatically being a life long or chronic illness.

Having a high naturalistic recovery also can be misleading - while about half of people will recover in 12 months without treatment, the impact of having been depressed for 12 months can be devastating - it can ruin relationships, make people lose jobs, deeply ingrain cognitive distortions, and lead to self harm and suicide.

The DSM has played a critical role in organizing symptom profiles and moving the field forward - it is exciting that we are moving past that, but the contributions of the DSM will always be part of the history of understanding mental illness. It has also helped to validate and give names to illnesses and that in itself is a positive.

Before moving into research I worked for ten years on an adolescent inpatient psychiatric unit, and have seen the tragic effects. I just think it is really important that people know that understanding and addressing environmental and psychosocial factors are extremely important in treating depression. It is not just a chemical imbalance and the only option to treat it is medication.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It is well articulated but not necessarily accurate. There is really no one in the medical community who would call depression a chemical imbalance. That is a term that was developed years ago partly to move the perception of depression away from personal weakness/character and partly by the the pharmaceutical companies who wanted to tell you they could re-balance your chemicals. It isn't accurate and is a frustration for people who do research on mental illness as it is a pervasive view in the general public. Depression is neurobiological however that doesn't mean that no other factors other than neurotransmitter re-uptake are at play. While the etiology is still in its infancy in being understood, we do know that there is no one 'cause'. Just like there isn't one cause for all heart disease or one cause for all cancer. There is absolutely zero evidence that everyone with depression was born with a chemical imbalance. The serotonin theory is only one of many, many theories in understanding depression. The fact that SSRIs work to alleviate symptoms of depression tells us nothing about the cause of the illness. The drugs just treat symptoms. Just like ibuprofen alleviates the symptoms of pain, however if you have pain alleviated by ibuprofen that doesn't mean the cause of your pain was a ibuprofen deficit. Until now our understanding of mental illness has been symptoms driven (see DSM), that approach has just about run its course and taken us as far as it can. The NIMH is now moving away from that and in the next few years we will hopefully start to have a much better picture of mental illness. Also environmental factors and situational factors are two entirely different sets of factors, and both absolutely play a role in illness, including mental illness. Posters saying those play a role are not wrong in any way. Those factors have both a physiological and psychological impact. Environmental and psychosocial factors being at play does not mean that someone just couldn't cope with their environment/situation.

It is good that depression isn't a chemical imbalance. SSRIs are only effective in alleviating symptoms for 50-60% of people, naturalistic recovery is about 50% (people who get better in a year with no treatment), and initial placebo effect is about 40%.

Here is a position statement from the Director of the NIMH on moving away from the DSM and symptom driven diagnoses. http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-diagnosis.shtml

Nevertheless, many are helped by medications. It is cold comfort indeed to read from DSM after seeing the tragic effects of teen depression.

Oh absolutely, the medications that we have currently have saved many lives and do help many, many people. The alleviating of symptoms means that people can function, and that makes life manageable. Mental illness is now talked about with recovery and remission language - no longer seen as automatically being a life long or chronic illness.

Having a high naturalistic recovery also can be misleading - while about half of people will recover in 12 months without treatment, the impact of having been depressed for 12 months can be devastating - it can ruin relationships, make people lose jobs, deeply ingrain cognitive distortions, and lead to self harm and suicide.

The DSM has played a critical role in organizing symptom profiles and moving the field forward - it is exciting that we are moving past that, but the contributions of the DSM will always be part of the history of understanding mental illness. It has also helped to validate and give names to illnesses and that in itself is a positive.

Before moving into research I worked for ten years on an adolescent inpatient psychiatric unit, and have seen the tragic effects. I just think it is really important that people know that understanding and addressing environmental and psychosocial factors are extremely important in treating depression. It is not just a chemical imbalance and the only option to treat it is medication.

Thank you,
Thank you,
Thank you.

So few people in this field
are willing to speak the truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It is well articulated but not necessarily accurate. There is really no one in the medical community who would call depression a chemical imbalance. That is a term that was developed years ago partly to move the perception of depression away from personal weakness/character and partly by the the pharmaceutical companies who wanted to tell you they could re-balance your chemicals. It isn't accurate and is a frustration for people who do research on mental illness as it is a pervasive view in the general public. Depression is neurobiological however that doesn't mean that no other factors other than neurotransmitter re-uptake are at play. While the etiology is still in its infancy in being understood, we do know that there is no one 'cause'. Just like there isn't one cause for all heart disease or one cause for all cancer. There is absolutely zero evidence that everyone with depression was born with a chemical imbalance. The serotonin theory is only one of many, many theories in understanding depression. The fact that SSRIs work to alleviate symptoms of depression tells us nothing about the cause of the illness. The drugs just treat symptoms. Just like ibuprofen alleviates the symptoms of pain, however if you have pain alleviated by ibuprofen that doesn't mean the cause of your pain was a ibuprofen deficit. Until now our understanding of mental illness has been symptoms driven (see DSM), that approach has just about run its course and taken us as far as it can. The NIMH is now moving away from that and in the next few years we will hopefully start to have a much better picture of mental illness. Also environmental factors and situational factors are two entirely different sets of factors, and both absolutely play a role in illness, including mental illness. Posters saying those play a role are not wrong in any way. Those factors have both a physiological and psychological impact. Environmental and psychosocial factors being at play does not mean that someone just couldn't cope with their environment/situation.

It is good that depression isn't a chemical imbalance. SSRIs are only effective in alleviating symptoms for 50-60% of people, naturalistic recovery is about 50% (people who get better in a year with no treatment), and initial placebo effect is about 40%.

Here is a position statement from the Director of the NIMH on moving away from the DSM and symptom driven diagnoses. http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-diagnosis.shtml

Nevertheless, many are helped by medications. It is cold comfort indeed to read from DSM after seeing the tragic effects of teen depression.

Oh absolutely, the medications that we have currently have saved many lives and do help many, many people. The alleviating of symptoms means that people can function, and that makes life manageable. Mental illness is now talked about with recovery and remission language - no longer seen as automatically being a life long or chronic illness.

Having a high naturalistic recovery also can be misleading - while about half of people will recover in 12 months without treatment, the impact of having been depressed for 12 months can be devastating - it can ruin relationships, make people lose jobs, deeply ingrain cognitive distortions, and lead to self harm and suicide.

The DSM has played a critical role in organizing symptom profiles and moving the field forward - it is exciting that we are moving past that, but the contributions of the DSM will always be part of the history of understanding mental illness. It has also helped to validate and give names to illnesses and that in itself is a positive.

Before moving into research I worked for ten years on an adolescent inpatient psychiatric unit, and have seen the tragic effects. I just think it is really important that people know that understanding and addressing environmental and psychosocial factors are extremely important in treating depression. It is not just a chemical imbalance and the only option to treat it is medication.

Agreed. Only when you begin to address the contributing factors, will you begin to really heal. The meds help will severe mental/emotional conditions.

[Anonymous]

^^ You can sit around and talk and talk but that will never bring back the victims of teen suicide. While you are busy treating the "underlying problem" which may not have a simple talk it out solution, teens are finding their own ways to cope: drugs, alcohol, risky behavior, cutting, and many more. There is no going back from many of these behaviors. No amount of talking is going to change some of the problems that depressed teens face.

[Anonymous]

Talk therapy is not cheap, either. Very hard to get teens to address "issues" that adults see very clearly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Talk therapy is not cheap, either. Very hard to get teens to address "issues" that adults see very clearly.

Neglectful parenting has a high price. It's better to do the hard work when the kids are younger. But how many parents of little kids are even home? It's a string of daycare workers or nannies. No one really knows your kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Talk therapy is not cheap, either. Very hard to get teens to address "issues" that adults see very clearly.

Neglectful parenting has a high price. It's better to do the hard work when the kids are younger. But how many parents of little kids are even home? It's a string of daycare workers or nannies. No one really knows your kid.

This started as a thread that was helpful for the parents dealing with kids who have depression, a serious illness that has a death toll, and causes enormous stress on parents. The thread has now been destroyed by posters with a regressive, hateful agenda.

I am a SAHM. I have been home. I have never neglected my children. I know them better than anyone. And my teen has struggled with serious, serious depression. Therapy plus medication saved her. Without the medication the therapy would have been a waste of time, she would not have been able to access it.

I have a good idea, why don't parents of kids with depression post on the SN section to get actual support. Better yet, speak with medical professionals. There are too many posters here who know nothing and peddle ignorant, dangerous ideas.