Talk:Bipolar disorder/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Bipolar disorder. 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 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Diagnosis

Changed paragraph one: Two episodes of mania are NOT needed according to DSMIV. Only one episode of mania and 0,1 or many episodes of depression. Article should be accurate.

Deleted

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Removed the paragraph: "There are many conflicting theories, and there is too much bias towards the medical model because there are reputations at stake, as well as big business interests. There is no doubt that so called bipolar disorder is a serious problem for those who suffer from it, but it is a problem that stems from character and one's personal philosophy. If the problem isn't faced honestly and straighforwardly early on, it will develop into what appears like a biological illness. But there is no blood test or brain scan that expresses distinctly that this disorder exists. Unfortunately the psychiatric profession has its own needs and desires, yet calls it scientific and medical." Not NPOV and not cited.

I just removed the sentence: "Persons suffering from the disorder are considered to be disabled." from the first paragraph. Considered by who? Their doctors? psychologists? the government? themselves? And suffering from what form of the disorder, and in what severity? Seems to require a massive amount of clarification, and some sort of citation. As it stood, it was extremely broad and misleading. --Jasonisme 18:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This was in poor formate so I delted it:--Unopeneddoor 22:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Bipolar disorder is a nutritional deficiency. Take a look at these medical journal articles:

ABC news story transcript http://www.lorenbennett.org/nabcpig.htm
Belmaker RH, Shapiro J, Vainer E, Nemanov L, Ebstein RP, Agam G. Reduced inositol content in lymphocyte-derived cell lines from bipolar patients. Bipolar Disord. 2002 Feb; 4(1): 67-9.
Bourre JM. Dietary omega-3 Fatty acids and psychiatry: mood, behaviour, stress, depression, dementia and aging. J Nutr Health Aging. 2005; 9(1): 31-8.
Chengappa KN, Levine J, Gershon S, et al. Inositol as an add-on treatment for bipolar depression. Bipolar Disord. 2000 Mar; 2(1): 47-55.
Colin A, Reggers J, Castronovo V, Ansseau M. [Lipids, depression and suicide] Encephale. 2003 Jan-Feb; 29(1): 49-58.
Kaplan BJ, Simpson JS, Ferre RC, Gorman CP, McMullen DM, Crawford SG. Effective mood stabilization with a chelated mineral supplement: an open-label trial in bipolar disorder. J Clin Psychiatry. 2001 Dec; 62(12): 936-44.
Kidd PM. Bipolar disorder and cell membrane dysfunction. Progress toward integrative management. Altern Med Rev. 2004 Jun; 9(2): 107-35.
Noaghiul S, Hibbeln JR. Cross-national comparisons of seafood consumption and rates of bipolar disorders. Am J Psychiatry. 2003 Dec; 160(12): 2222-7

I would like to add the following 3rd Personal Experience, my own, with Bipolar Disorder. It is too long to add to the article page

I had taken prozac for one year, after being diagnosed with depression. I stopped taking it after that year for two and a half years before I was diagnosed with BP I. Ironically, I had my first and only BP I level manic episode, lasting a week, about a year after I got married, and while the first of two children was on the way as my wife was pregnant. As this wikipedia article mentions on this page, major live achievements can trigger a BP's first manic swing, and that was apparently the case for me. I had gone through at least a half dozen corporate layoffs after I graduated from college in 1985 with a degree in business, and I think they got to me successfully, producing the kindling affect of straw on the camel's back stressful events, combined with genes.

If you could bottle extreme mania, you could make a fortune. It would sell for, I'd say, $10,000 a bottle, marketed to the wealthy - that is, if there were no ensuing depression afterwards. I would never want to go on "Mr. Toad's Wild Ride" (severe mania) again because the cost (of months of depression) is not worth a week in mental paradise. It is an experience that is really not possible to accurately describe, one that you'd have to experience to know. I felt as if I had made it to some enlightenment level, or made it to a heaven on earth state. Of course I could not concentrate on work. I was hyperactive - to the point of running upstairs in a hurry to complete some writing I was obsessed/crazed about. My thoughts as I wrote came with an elizabethan english accent, although I'm a born and raised American and I've never spent a day in England. And at the same time a full symphony (a new one my mind was creating on the fly) was playing in my mind, while I only played the trumpet for a few years in high school which is the extent of my musical experience. I felt as if I had made it to the same level as Jesus was on when he lived. I thought I could make a lot of money with my mind operating at that "RPM." I felt connected to God, and to the universe. And it seemed as if I were a puppet of God's at times, strings attached, and that God had his God, and God's God had his God, etc, in a grand puppet linkage. My bizarre writings may have been forecasting september 11, in abstract rather than detailed form, such that I didn't know what I was saying, in retrospect. I felt I was at some points telepathically communicating with some souls or persons or beings at a certain direction in space, in the direction of north, and I did not know what that meant, either a planet or heaven, although it felt as if they were warning me (again possibly of the impending disaster of 9/11 I don't know.) My wife reported the best sex she's had with me when I was severely manic that week. I would guess the neurons are firing very rapidly during extreme mania, while depression would be the other way around - not firing fast enough. (?) And creativity certainly is a hallmark of mania, the more extreme the mania, the more extreme the creativity. I believe there is some obsessiveness built in to the need for creativity as well, again along the same intensity of the intensity of the mania. I remember writing such musings as, something along the lines of, "God is lonely, sitting in a chair, in a hall of mirrors" - he is pulling our strings, but we don't always follow. That sort of thing. With the God's God, and God's God's God, thing again, with the strings attached to us humans on earth. Weird stuff like that. And the "play" I was writing was either entitled, or had the words in it, "If the Devil is a Friend of God," - which was done in jest/humor, and with the english accent I mentioned. Again I think in retrospect this might have been alluding to Osama Bin Laden pre-9/11 but I really can't say for sure. It does seem as if you are writing things of a prophetic nature though because they are abstract and you have no idea really where the ideas are coming from nor do you know what they mean.

What goes up must come down, the ensuing depression phase after this week in heaven was really heavy - I just wanted to lay in bed, and I was so bad with the depression or mixed state that my wife had to drive me to the psychiatrist, as I was incapable of driving due to not being able to focus my mind enough to be able to drive, who I finally agreed to visit once the mania had ended and the "hangover" phase of the depression was making it evident I was in deep trouble. I put on the entrance form to the psychiatrists office that I thought I must have come down with schizophrenia, for one thing I didn't know what bipolar was. I was prescribed an antipsychotic, an anti depressant, and a mood stabilizer. Over time I got better. At first I could only work in my self employment 2 hours a day. I gradually quit the anti psychotic and the mood stabilizer with the OK of my psychiatrist, as I am not a fan of medications. I could not quit the anti depressant although I tried several times, I'd always feel rotten/depressed a few days after trying to quit. I later found out there is a withdrawal symptom ("ssri discontination syndrome") for SSRI's that lasts a month, with the withdrawal symptoms being the same as depression symptoms (making it difficult to quit unless you know about SSRI discontinuation syndrome.)

Just prior to the manic episode, I experienced auditory hallucinations upon waking up in the morning, of leprechauns / elves / gnomes / fairies - they would run out of the house when they noticed I was waking up, laughing and what not on the way out. The experience is so real to the brain, that for months afterwards, I had some fear of statues/ornaments of gnomes/leprechauns/fairies/elves .

I experience motion sickness easily now while I did not prior to aquiring bipolar.

Things got better, I could not afford my HMO $400 a month bill, so I ran out of medication (SSRI.) I did fine for a year. But now that I have re-entered college for graduate level work, I am experiencing some mental problems - cognition and memory and "brain fog" and headaches. So I am going to start taking meds again, probably both the mood stabilizer and the anti depressant, as I have more stress in my life now. I am hoping I can function just fine with a job as my self employment income is going downhill over time. I would like to try Effexor as the SSRI as it works on two brain chemicals rather than just one, and it would be interesting to try Wellbutrin as it works on a third brain chemical. I have only tried SSRI's that work on serotonin only. And I think I should fully accept my life long illness and get back on a mood stabilizer whether I think I need it or not (they can cause sleepiness.)

I do not get hardly any episodes any more. I mostly have a light level of depression. But stressful events / lack of sleep can trigger hypomania.

The movie that struck me as depicting bipolar disorder I is: "The Messenger" - a movie from 2000 or so that is about Joan of Arc. The character of Joan seems like a perfect description for a BP I in that movie.

A sign of hypomania for me (which is so light it is hard to tell you have the hypomania) is when I purchase things I would not normally indulge in spending money on - nothing large - small things. The difference between hypomania (BP II level) (which you can't really tell you have until some reflection afterwards or a few days into the episode) and major mania (BP I level) is something like a 3.0 on the Richter earthquake scale for hypomania, compared to 9.0 or greater for BP I level extreme mania. There is no psychosis with BP II level mood swings.

I am taking some mood stabilizer medication again now, along with an SSRI anti depressant, both leftover medications, the SSRI my wife's, the mood stabilizer mine from 6 years ago (the pdoc said they last a very long time and he is apparently correct.) So for me the big thing now is to fully accept the fact I still have BP, and that I need to take both medications, the mood stabilizer and the anti depressant, because I can tell my mind is working just fine (no brain fog/memory problems) now that I am taking both medications again. And soon I'll be able to afford to enroll in the HMO plan again and get meds. The health care situation in America is not very amenable to persons with a mental health problem, since their problem may prevent them from getting a job that has the benefits to cover their medication costs.

The book "Rabbi Jesus" is a historical account of Jesus, rather than a faith based account, and in the book the author hypothesizes that Jesus had bipolar disorder. (If so he must have been highly manic much of the time, perhaps taking those walks into the hills during the down periods.)

Based on my own experiences, I would guess that the super famous and creative individuals in history that are hypothesized to have had bipolar (there was no diagnosis of bipolar back then), would have created their famous works during extreme manic episodes, not during mere hypomanias. Therefore I disagree with what is hypothesized on the article page, which guesses the other way around, that hypomanic episodes would have created the great creativity. IMO, the higher the mania, the higher the creativity. And the more intense the ensuing crash into depression, which would explain why so many of them killed themselves.

Additionional info: (BP 1) I am a 21 year old college student who had been misdiagnosed and is suffering from bipolar disorder since the age of 15. I do not remember my very first manic experience but I remember my first deep dark suicidal depression and I only say suicide because I know many of you have had similar experiences with depression. I know different meds work for different people but when I first saw a psychiatrist I was placed on anti-depressants( prozac, zoloft, lexapro, effexor). Huge mistake for those of us suffering from BP1. Rapid cycling and intense mania is all you have to look forward to. Don't be like this jackass above and believe that your disease is controllable for one minute. Without treatment the only future you have to look forward to is mental instituions, lonliness, and eventually an untimely death. BP causes more suicides than any other mental affliction. On the other hand, I know the power and the invincibility that one obtains through mania and although at the time taking medicine is the last thing on your mind, it must be done. Mania causes damage to loved ones but mainly it can ruin your life. One impulsive act in the form of rage, which I personally experience, will land you in jail. I know what your thinking, temporary insanity, stop! As an aspiring lawyer the only leniancy one receives is to be placed under psychiatric supervision until deamed fit to return to society( permeanence is a strong possibility). I have not written this to talk about my symptoms, but only to inform those of you interested in learning about how devestating this disease can be to your life. Mostly, I have written this to beg you to remain under treatment. Not for yourself, but for all those who have lost their lives to BP and for all their families whose lives have been shattered; which if your disease is not taken seriously you too will be a statistic (not being morbid...only realistic). Good luck to all of those who read this. medications taken which have given relief, if only temporarily.....seroquel,lithium,geodone(oral and injectable),trazadone,respiridol,amatriptyline,niravam,xanax,clonazepam,clonodine,topamax,thorazine,depacote,cojentin and lamictal

P.S. Self medicating only cause more cycles

Vandalism

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I came this article looking for information on bipolar disorder. Instead, I come across complete & utter garbage. It appears that this article has been vandalized, as witnessed by the first paragraph: "Bipolar disorder, often referred to colloquially as manic depression, is another diagnosis that Ed Goodfriend happens to have." This is just another prime example of why Wikipedia is one of the most dangerous websites for mis-information. Cairnben (Talk)

Ocassionally vandals strike at random articles, but vandalism is usually reverted quickly. I just did so myself in this case. Anarchist42 19:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Marijuana

Latest comment: 18 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

I agree, People on here who are under the belief THC (marijuana) is helping them are for the most part idiots ,ignorant, or only suffer from Bi-Polar type 2. They must smoke pot so much that they believe the government is after them; and are coming up with many false ideas about drug treatment. I have suffered severe Bi-polar type 1 and almost slip into psychosis immiediatly when I'm manic(acute mania). Ive smoked pot intenstly before onset of the disorder and after but have stopped. Marijuana will only cause 'short term' relief but in turn cause your illness to become worse as any psychoactive drug(including alcohol) will. So in the long run youre really doing yourself in, cause you think you are treating your symptoms but youre only making yourself cycles happen more often and have your episode more severe. Of course I hate Lithium and anyother anti-psychotic drug they stick me on, but im not going to be an idiot and make my illness worse. Just cause Marijuana is natural doesn't mean its safe...is cocaine safe? Nope. In conclusion, if you have Bi-polar type 2(which is really not that severe except the depressive episodes), or misdiagnosed Bi-polar(which happens more than you think) perhaps Marijuana is working for you. Do understand that 'these' same people who think Marijuana should be a legal mood stabalizer would be saying Lithium is the best mood stabalizer if it got them 'high'.

I don't who the above anonymous AOL contributor is, but throwing around insults such as 'idiots' is not a convincing argument, although it does demonstrate the uninformed bias faced by mentally ill medical merijuana users. One person's anecdote means nothing, especially when that person also had negative experiences with Lithium. Anarchist42 20:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The first anon comment above is pretty ridicoulous. It is POV and seemingly based on personal anecdotal evidence.I find the comment about BPII not being serious espicially telling. 68.66.108.121 10:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I've seen first hand how Marijauna becomes a phsycological addiction with people with Bi-Polar. Personally, I've never done marijauna because frankly I'm already on so much medication the last thing I need is another drug messing with things. But I've seen my cousin who also is Bi-Polar go down a very rocky road and I wouldn't recomend it. And please no attacks against me because I'm anti marijauna in this case with stuff like "well you don't have this and that...". Trust me, with tourettes, clinical depression, Bi-Polar I, generalized anxiety disorder, OCD, ADHD and dyslexia I think I can say I've earned my stripes. Kisshapedbullet 05:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, that part about marijuana 'helping' manic disorder is extremely biased and pov. in most cases, it has been known to worsen the condition of the user if he is currently suffering from bipolar.

No, the part about marijuana having no benefits is extremely biased and POV. The pharmaceutical lobby has spent billions to keep it off the market because it grows anywhere and can't be patented. Heaven forbid that people can medicate themselves instead of paying an exhorbitant price for prescription anti-depressants of dubious quality. In my case, as well as the case of several acquaintances of mine, marijuana is very effective at relieving mood swings. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of regular users of MMJ are self-medicating for bipolar or depression.

My experience with prescription anti-depressants has been very disappointing. They all (lithium, trazadone, Paxil) seem to feel the same: they wipe out my libido, turn me into a zombie, give me bad stomach cramps, and, worst of all, drastically alter my sleep patterns to the point that I have to stop taking them after a couple of weeks. MMJ is much easier on my system; it works within minutes instead of weeks, and doesn't have the 'zombiefication' effect of prescription drugs.

To reiterate, I am absolutely sick and tired of having Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, et al. dictate to me what I can take to alleviate my bipolar disorder. These companies are very unscrupulous and have no qualms against turning the United States into a police state (highest incarceration rate in the world) to maintain their death grip on the anti-depressant market.

The adds that have changed the "Marijuana" section to the "Medical Marijuana" section are very POV, if there isn't any good backing for it, I think that it should be deleted or reverted at least. NorseOdin 12:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The evidence that you provide seems to be convincing enough for me, if you can get a couple of sources behind it then I have no problem with it being in the article. NorseOdin 14:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

--Seems very reasonable. I'm going to do a quick search on Google and see what I can find. There's plenty of studies like the Shaeffer Commission report in the early 70s and others that show marijuana to be relatively harmless. As for studies to the efficacy of MMJ at treating bipolar, that's much more iffy because of the almost non-existence of serious MMJ research in this country due to the War on Drugs. Something else to consider: if the self-medicated use of MMJ by a manic-depressive person is effective, that person probably isn't going to fall under the purview of the psychiatric sector. Also, any doctor who recommends MMJ to a bipolar person is in danger of harassment by the DEA.

-- With regard to studies on marijuana useage, especially long term usage, the article at http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/Story/0,,1713042,00.html mentions a much more recent study which shows long term usage actually causes some mental illnesses. I agree, it is discussing a person who suffers from Aspergers, but one of the key findings of the study is that 95% of psychiatrists say that cannibis causes psychosis. Have had a particularly weird period of psychosis when I was about 19 (I firmly believed I was the re-incarnation of the goddess Ishtar, to the point of demanding my boyfriend worship me) I know how dangerous these are. I agree, the side effects of the drugs I take to medicate my bi-polar are annoying, and I'd love to get rid of them, but to take something which could make one of the main symptoms of my illness worse - you must be joking. E Lizard Beth 17:28 GMT 20/02/06

Be wary of such correlations, since mental illness diagnosis usually occurs long after the mental illness actually begins. Attempts to show "cause and effect" between mental illness and any activity are unreliable unless mental illness was tested for before an activity. Anarchist42 18:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Can we turn down the rhetoric a bit and supply some supporting citation for these assertions? There is no shortage of emotional opinions on the subject, but very little here to back these up. Just not enough room here for trolling/flaming. Limbo socrates 16:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I can only speak from personal experience.. but I can say that at least for myself Marijuana has been far more beneficial than detrimental to my illness. In addition to manic depression, i suffer from chronic migraines and TMJ, both of which have been much easier to deal with using marijuana. I will also go through periods of intense insomnia (sometimes 4+ days w/o more than maybe a half hour of sleep a day) that I feel Marijuana has also helped with. At least with myself I can also say that it has helped to relieve some of the intensity of the mood swings I experience as well. I make a living as an artist so I am afraid that with the use of antidepressants I will lose my creative energy (not to mention sex drive), so I have yet to venture down that path and I don’t plan on doing so. The only narcotic that has had a huge, HUGE affect on my bipolar disorder was cocaine, of which even a small dosage will greatly affect me emotionally for weeks at a time. I should also mention that I do not smoke Marijuana very often, if for no other reason that if I smoke it often it tends to lose it's effect.Kisshapedbullet 05:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

None of you are biologists or chemists and can only speculate on the pros and cons of med. marijuana through personal experience. This site was not set up to bash smokers or non smokers. All I can add to this discussion is that marijuana has had good and bad effects on my bp1. I can become depressed but usually become hypomanic in a very short period of time, and on a few occassion have gone manic for more than a couple of days. With all the medicines working in your system one should generalize that it will most likely have a negative effect on the user even if it is only judged by the fact that it is a depressant. And Im pretty sure depression is the most common sympton of Bp1 Bp2 Unipolar and Bp(Nos). But if getting hi gets you through the day easier, go for it because you might as well be sick and happy rather than just being sick. Good Luck to all who read this

From a researcher (neuropsychologist): People are different and therefore react differently to drugs, whether they be from the pharmaceutical companies or from the garden. From experience of talking to many patients and non-patients, it is clear that while some people can smoke joints all day long with no obvious immediate ill effects, other people become psychotic after very little exposure. The effect is almost immediate. This was recently confirmed in experiments here at the Institute of Psychiatry, when volunteers were given THC tablets. Some developed florid psychotic symptoms almost immediately, while most did not (none had psychiatric history). The most common symptom was paranoia - which is particlarly dangerous as it is self reinforcing. A paranoid person draws attention to themselves, which feeds the paranoia.

It is important that people have access to unbiased (as far as is possible) information so that they can make their own decisions. My personal advice is to be aware - if you develop paranoia or other symptoms immediately after smoking, then please be especially cautious. If you do not develop such symptoms immediately, be aware that there may be unknown long term side-effects - in addition to those from the act of smoking itself. Of course, if marijuana does seem to have a real theraputic effect for a person, this benefit may outweigh any side effects.

It is possible that drug taking (stimulants, cannabis, antidepressants) may trigger mania or psychosis in people with a predisposition to bipolar disorder. While this in not proven, my opinion is that this is likely, in at last a minority of cases. Given this, it is worth educating children (epecially for families with psychiatric history) about this possibility. My advice for parents is to provide the least emotive, least biased information possible and put forward all the opinions. Children tend to react better to this kind of advice - and are offput by dogma, from whichever direction it comes.

My apologies for the lack of reference. If I have time I shall come back and provide some.

Cleanup

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This article is a disaster. Perhaps too many bipolars are in the editing process? <grin> I can tell by looking through the talk page that the edit wars on this subject have been intense. I am a psychology undergraduate at my local state university as well as a type II bipolar. It seems to me there are many places in the article that lack sufficent citation as well as perhaps having information that is outright wrong. For example, the article currently lists THC as a viable treatment option, but I don't see a supporting article in the references section. As I stated below I feel that this article should be split. At the very least the various forms of treatment should be split off to their respective articles. Unless I hear otherwise I will probably begin work on that split as well as increasing the rigor of this article ASAP. Also, since the talk page is rather full, and full of splintered rhetoric I'm wordering if unsigned portions of the talk page that are of undeterminant age ought be moved to the end and given their own section, so that people new to the article, such as myself, can make heads or tails of the conversation at hand. Dark Nexus 16:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Although I agree this article is terrible, insulting people with Bi-polar is immature.--Unopeneddoor 22:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Elitest Norms

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

I know most doctors have gone through 8 years of conditioning to get to whgere they are today, so they'd never admit this medicine, but why exactcly is it that no one mentions the most obvious cure for manic depression, THC? A perfectly naturally, controllable, effect measue for treat this.

The answer is that the pharmaceutical industry is one of the most corrupt in the United States. I'm not sure where to find statistics, but it's my understanding that they have one of the highest profit margins of any industry. They have no problem with getting tens of millions of American kids hooked on Ritalin, so it's understandable that they don't have scruples promoting the War on Non-Corporate Drug Users even if the result is prisons overflowing with mostly non-violent drug 'criminals'.

It's not hard to understand why they fear legalization of marijuana. It works much quicker than prescription anti-depressants, doesn't turn people into zombies, and feels good to boot. From their perspective, it's a non-patentable plant which can be grown anywhere by anybody--they stand to lose billions in revenue from lost sales of Zoloft, Paxil, etc. etc.

On the other hand, marijuana increases the risk of schizophrenia as well *increased* depression if overused. However, it is *probably* safer than many pharmaceutical drugs and definitely safer than taking nothing at all, as 20% of bipolar people commit suicide.

Psychotropics as a treatment are largely only the most basic tool for those in a state of post traumatic stress , deep rooted depression and other extreme cases. As a general treatment in BPD I certainly wouldn't advise it. Everybody knows why the drug companies don't want legalisation, not everybody realises why smoking marijuana isn't healthy (bio-psycho-socially.) My contribution to the discussion. Mcbean 02:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Presently, manic depression (like most mental illnesses) is consider to be incurable. Like diabetes, mental illnesses can only be controlled.

Drug use is generally bad for mood disorders although, of all the illegal drugs, those that contain THC are likely the most benign. Cocaine, in particular, is hell on people who are in the manic phase. Successful treatment of bipolar disorder has more to do with REMOVING harmful things, rather than ADDING them. There's been some interesting recent research on aspartame (Nutrasweet) in this regard. -- EFS

--I don't consider marijuana to be a 'harmful thing'. The brain contains at least two types of cannabinoid receptors and THC itself has a resemblance to a natural neurotransmitter anandamide.--

Indeed, this is true. At best, THC can mask the effects of some mood disorders by burying them beneath its own effects, and it hardly makes the user functional. Stimulants - including cocaine - have been documented to trigger full-blown bipolar disorder in individuals who are already predisposed to it. - 129.49.145.65 16:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

--'Hardly makes the user functional'? I've functioned well for years on THC. On the other hand, it's the crap like lithium or Paxil which has disrupted my sleep patterns to the point where I suffered from delirium due to sleep deprivation and couldn't function at all.--

"Self-medication" is an important issue that needs to be discussed in the main article, considering that it takes the average mentally ill person 7 years to get an accurate diagnosis, and even then other co-existing mental illnesses are usually not diagnosed. Once proper treatment begins it can take several years to find an efficient medication regime. Considering these facts, and the deleterious effects that untreated mental illness can have, it is not surprising that the mentally ill resort to "self-medication" (even if they are unaware that that is what they are doing).

Although any mind-altering substance can be dangerous for the mentally ill (including some prescription medications), some can be of some use in the temporary relief of symptoms. Alcohol, as a natural depressant, is often used to "self-medicate" a manic episode (nonetheless, alcohol can be dangerous for those who are prone to addiction!). THC can be effective for immediate symptom relief (unlike prescription medications) and has few and rather mild side-effects (dry mouth, drowsiness, etc.). It should be noted that, unlike cancer sufferers, mentally ill THC users tend to use very small amounts of THC, often if doses so small that they do dot feel "high". Since THC is natural, and hence not patentable, there is no incentive for pharmaceutical corporations to invest in research; additionally, due to anti-drug propaganda, government's rarely fund THC research.

--Good points about THC. I'd like to also add that, in my personal experience, alcohol and bipolar are a very dangerous combination. Sometimes, alcohol can mitigate a manic cycle, but in my case, it usually made me more obnoxious and anti-social by removing my natural inhibitions against 'acting out' in public.

Actually, there are many pharmaceutical preparations of THC/THC-receptor activators, such as nabilone (a Cannabinoid)!!! Perhaps there is good reason why these drug companies haven't tried to cash in on treating bipolar depression?

--I'd like to add that they've also produced Marinol (a THC pill) and, in Canada, they have something called Sativex which is medical-grade marijuana in plant form. I think the existence of these drugs indicates that the pharmaceutical industry considers THC to be safe and effective enough to develop and cash in on the anti-depressant market (not to mention its anti-emetic and anti-spasmodic properties). However, I'd guess the main reason the pharm industry didn't go far with these cannabinoid medicines is that manic-depressives and other users might decide that it's cheaper to simply grow some marijuana plants than pay something like $10 per Marinol tablet.

How the hell is weed going to cure it? Hah, not likely. misanthrope 17:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

--I don't know if any anti-depressant actually 'cures' bipolar disorder--Standard Operating Procedure is that patients are given a prescription of Paxil, Zoloft, etc. for life--so THC is no better or worse than prescription anti-depressants in that regard.

First of all BP is incurable, secondly why should cannabinoids be any less effective than say Neurontin? Anarchist42 17:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

--It's probably just as effective. However, the pharmaceutical industry can't sell Marinol tablets for $10 each when people can easily grow their own marijuana, so the pharmaceutical lobby has decreed that cannabinoids are less effective.

Actually, Neurontin was given to multitudes of BPs despite the fact that there was NO research to suggest that it did anything (the manufacturer admitted in court that the whole thing was a scam). Now that Sativex is on the market (at least in Canada, with limited availablility in the UK and Spain), researchers now have a legitimate pharmaceutical to use in their research - numerous studies are now underway, including treatment for various mental illnesses. Anarchist42

Instead of ongoing rhetoric, could some of the posters here supply supporting references for your assertions? This page would be significantly shorter if opinions and "conventional wisdom" were replaced with emperical argument. Here are some I just Googled which represent differing points of view (in no particular order):

(In the interest of candor, I am a BPII sufferer who has used cannabis with beneficial effect in conjunction with Rx meds; no signs of schizophrenia...yet ;) Limbo socrates 16:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Bipolar and Mental Health

1. Biploar Disorder 2. Bipolar Affective Disorder, also known as "manic depression" is a disorder of the brain resulting in unusually extreme highs and lows of an individual's mood over time. 3. Bipolar disorder is a condition that causes extreme shifts in mood, energy, and functioning. In most populations it affects around 1 percent of the population. Men and women are equally likely to develop this often-disabling illness. The disorder typically emerges in adolescence or early adulthood, but in some cases appears in childhood. 4. There are no definite known causes. Scientists believe that Bipolar Disorder may be caused by a combination of biological and psychological factors. Most commonly this disorder can be linked to stressful life events. More than two-thirds of people with bipolar disorder have at least one close relative with the disorder or with unipolar major depression, indicating that the disease has a heritable component. Studies seeking to identify the genetic basis of bipolar disorder indicate that susceptibility stems from multiple genes. 5. Mania is often characterized by insomnia, elation, euphoria, hyperactivity, productivity, hyper imagination, a "flight of ideas," over-talkativeness, etc. Depression or Clinical depression, is often characterized by slowness to conceive ideas and move, anxiety or sadness, even suicidal thoughts or actions. It should be noted that this disorder does not consist of mere "ups and downs". Ups and downs are experienced by virtually everyone and do not constitute a disorder. The mood swings of bipolar disorder are far more extreme than those experienced by most people. 6. There is no cure for Bipolar, how ever there are medications that can be used to prevent a person from going out of control.Medications, called "mood stabilizers" can sometimes be used to prevent or mitigate manic or depressive episodes. Periods of depression can also be treated with antidepressants. In extreme cases where the mania or the depression is severe enough to cause psychosis, antipsychotic drugs may also be used. Some common medications are Lithium salts, Anticonvulsant mood stabilizers,and Atypical antipsychotic drugs. Also Psychotherapy and Electroconvulsive therapy have been shown to be effective.

7. Even though Bipolar Affective Disorder can be extremely difficult at times, individuals (and to some degree their families) who have it, tend to be intelligent, creative and successful. Some also believe that the manic state is a type of universal connection which provides creativity and intelligence but comes with the price of the depressive low.

· Support groups · National Alliance for the Mentally Ill(US) (http://www.nami.org/) · Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance (US) (http://www.dbsalliance.org/) · Manic Depression Fellowship (UK) (http://www.mdf.org.uk/) · Child & Adolescent Bipolar Foundation (US) (http://www.bpkids.org/) · Psych Forums: Bipolar Forum (http://www.psychforums.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=135) · Health Diaries: Bipolar Disorder (http://www.healthdiaries.com/bipolar-disorder.htm) 8. BPrayer: Support for Those With Bipolar Loved Ones (http://bprayer0.tripod.com/)

The above are not support groups. They are pro-psychiatry groups. Don't keep calling bipolar disorder or any other mental illness a "disease of the brain" until you can provide the objective test for the disease. Until then, bipolar disorder remains, like schizophrenia, a social construct. -- Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC

Agreed, too many support groups and websites pretty much tow the psychiatric industry line. For example, just TRY to find any mention of the Neurontin scandal (heck, some websites STILL promote Neurontin as a psychiatric drug!). Additionally, there is rarely any mention that most psychiatrists regularly mis-diagnosis and/or under-diagnose their patients. Anarchist42

NAMI, for instance, is heavily subsidized by pharmaceutical companies. NAMI's website is not much more than a drug advertisement. Their website is also riddled with comical statements such as the shocking news that bipolar people experience a divorce rate of 60%. (Last time I checked, the general divorce rate in North America was 57%.) -- Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC

Bipolar disorder, talent and famous people Many famous people are believed to have been affected by bipolar disorder, based on evidence in their own writings and contemporaneous accounts by those who knew them. See list of people believed to have been affected by bipolar disorder. There is no definitive scientific basis for classifying dead people as having had bipolar disorder, though they may very well have suffered from severe and even recurrent bouts of disordered mood. Until very recently there were no diagnostic systems with any degree of reliability. Even with the development of tools such as DSM-IV, there is a great deal of diagnostic uncertainty with living patients who have been intensively studied for decades, and there is no reason to think that it is any easier to diagnose individuals in their graves. For these reasons, some doctors regard psycho-history of this sort as a dubious endeavour. There appears to be an association between bipolar disorder and artistic talent in many cases - this is documented in Jamison's book "Touched With Fire: Manic-Depressive Illness and the Artistic Temperament".

Thanks for the psychiatric accuracy. The last paragraph is still a little confusing -

Bipolar disorder runs in families
suicide rates are high
men roughly = women

FOR WHAT? Suicide, or Bipolar disorder in general?

men roughly = women

...for rate of Bipolar disorder in the population.

See the book "Manic-Depressive Illness" referenced in the article for lots of information about this and other statistics.

For some reason the person who made the original entries on bipolar disorder and depression deleted my corrections of these and snidely challenged my credentials (assuming that like himself, I was unqualified), while acknowledging that he was not an MD. Somehow my reply to his comment was deleted. The fact is, I am an MD, a neuropsychiatrist and an officer of a society on the history of psychiatry. As I explained, it would not seem appropriate for him to go in and on his own authority delete everything that I have written because he assumes that I am no more qualified than he. I assume that there is a reconciliation to be done between the (rather obvious) misinformation he has been providing and the detailed and accurate information I have provided. Where appropriate I have given chapter and verse for my explanations. Despite the fact that his work was riddled with errors and misleading information, I did not take it upon myself to delete any of his work, and I should appreciate his giving me the same courtesy.

24.58.228.xxx makes the assertion that

Psychohistory is a highly unreliable and dubious enterprise generally promoted by less than reputable psychologists and psychiatrists, patients who wish to be in good company, and organizations that stand to benefit from contributions made by those whose sympathies would be aroused by such "diagnoses at a distance".

The leading author of books on mental illness in history, Kay Redfield Jamison, is a Professor of Psychiatry, at The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. She is a MacArthur Fellow. She has been published extensively in peer-reviewed journals. Her book on the subject, 'Touched with Fire', has been favourably reviewed by Herbert Pardes, Dean of the Faculty of Medicine at Columbia University, and James. D. Watson, the Nobel Prize winning discoveror of DNA. Hardly 'less than reputable'.

24.58.228.xxx, your contributions on this subject seem to be remarkably forceful, as if you are speaking with authoritative professional expertise on a subject of which previous authors have little knowledge.

Can you tell us what your qualifications as a medical doctor are?

-- The Anome (who is not a medical doctor)

Reply to Anome: I have entered this reply twice and once in another location for Talk, but for some reason it is not taking. Hence I repeat my reply here, again: For some reason the person who made the original entries on bipolar disorder and depression (you, I take it) deleted my corrections of these and snidely challenged my credentials (assuming that like himself, I was unqualified), while acknowledging that he was not an MD. Somehow my reply to his comment was deleted. The fact is, I am an MD, a neuropsychiatrist and an officer of a society on the history of psychiatry. As I explained, it would not seem appropriate for him to go in and on his own authority delete everything that I have written because he assumes that I am no more qualified than he. I assume that there is a reconciliation to be done between the (rather obvious) misinformation he has been providing and the detailed and accurate information I have provided. Where appropriate I have given chapter and verse for my explanations. Despite the fact that his work was riddled with errors and misleading information, I did not take it upon myself to delete any of his work, and I should appreciate his giving me the same courtesy. (SE)

I have therefore replaced the last version of the bipolar and depression entries with the last version which included what I have written. If you wish to correct anything that you have written, or suggest anything incorrect in what I have written, I welcom you to re-enter these as separate comments. I trust that you will not delete or in any way alter what I have written without informed authorization from the owner/editor of the Wikipedia site.

For some reason, my restoration has not taken in the bipolar and depression entries, so I will replace them again. I trust that you are not purposely erasing my work a second time.

I will attempt to inform the owner/editor of the problem

Thanks, SE

---

Kay Redfield Jamison receives flak because she conducts mesearch and diagnoses the dead. I myself like her work but regard it as somewhere between amusing and tacky.

Kay Redfield Jamison is a beautiful writer and very intelligent woman who found that lithium was an effective treatment for HER. She somehow extrapolated that to recommend such treatment for the rest of us bipolars which was way over-stepping. As I said, she's a fabulous writer but she is merely one pro-psychiatry writer. She is certainly not THE writer on the subject, but rather a minor player. Much more important works were contributed by, among others, Thomas Szasz, Peter Breggin and (most recently) Robert Whitaker (author of "Mad in America", which I highly recommend to everybody, regardless of their personal viewpoint on psychiatry). -- Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC

Hey, SE! Please don't just revert my changes - I am trying to merge in your point of view. Please don't just write CORRECTION all over the place: it breaks up the article, and forces others to edit the article back into readable shape. Please either:

boldly edit the article to what you think it should be (but be aware you may be boldly edited in turn) or
(better) where there are differing points of view, mention it: 'some say this, others say that' or 'medical opinion now generally considers x to be true; some disagree and say y'

This is particularly true of the several different meanings assigned to 'Manic Depression' over time. Remember, your view is not the only view - and even if you consider yourself to be correct, others may not - so cite evidence for your opinions.

You will find that I have 'authorization from the owner/editor of the Wikipedia site'. As do you. Please see Welcome, newcomers and Most_common_Wikipedia_faux_pas

I am glad to hear that you are an MD. We could use your informed point of view. But please don't assume that non-experts in a given field have nothing to contribute - we are after all the intended audience for Wikipedia, and are generally competent at editing text.

I am sorry that you are upset by my request to state your qualifications - I am more likely to take your point of view seriously as an expert in the field, rather than as another non-expert.

But you do need to _work with_ other authors.

-- The Anome (who is a recognised expert in a number of non-medical fields)

SE, please see my edits to Depression, with matching commentary, in talk:Depression. See how Wikipedia works: the striving for consensus and NPOV? It's not my text, or yours: it belongs to Wikipedia, and via the GFDL, the world. -- The Anome

Right, now watch the same process applied to Bipolar disorder, in a number of logically defensible stages. -- The Anome

The first edit: I entirely remove the paragraph you complain about, and replace it with your corrected text. I change the formatting slightly to make it prettier, and remove the start of the first sentence as it no longer needs to state that it is a correction. -- The Anome

The second edit: now I change an assertion that Bipolar II is milder, to the assertion that 'some consider it to be milder'. Now, this is a statement of the opinions of others, that I am willing to give cites for. -- The Anome

The third edit: now I cite your opinion, in your own words, as the opinion of 'other doctors', representing your opinion as that of an MD, rather than that of 'some people'. (You change from 'a doctor' to 'other doctors', as I assume that you are not the only MD that has this opinion.)

The fourth edit: I qualify 'manic people losing insight' with the word 'some' as per your correction.

The fifth edit: I remove the sentences requesting the correction above, as they are now redundant. I leave in the rest of the correction paragraph.

The sixth edit: I take the rest of your qualification to the statement in the para above, and I insert it in-line into the text. I remove your sentence regarding what it is correcting, as it now follows it as an extensive qualification in-line. Note that the qualified statement has always stated that the drugs 'can' prevent episodes, not 'can always'.

The seventh edit: I weaken the qualified statement to 'can sometimes'

The eighth edit: I remove the rest of your correction, as the above I believe incorporates its sense into the text

The ninth edit: I consider G+J to be a classic; you consider the Kraepelin text to be a classic - let's make a list!

The tenth edit: not only do I consider G+J to be a classic, so do all these others: (see http://www.oup-usa.org/isbn/0195039343.html ). I will just let two stand here:
- "The best treatise on the subject since Kraepelin."--Journal of Clinical Psychiatry
- "A classic work--a textbook in scope, but literate, readable, and compassionate. Sets a new standard in scientific medical writing."--Myrna M. Weissman, Columbia University College of Physicians & Surgeons

Oh look, these people are Medical Doctors too. In my opinion, four named MDs, and a number of writers in peer-reviewed medical journals beats the opinion of one anonymous MD, using the well-known techniques of 'meta-review'. So I will delete your comment deriding the G+J book.

the eleventh edit: I downgrade the assertion re historical figures and bipolar disorder to an opinion, and cite that others are skeptical

the 12th edit: I move your sentences qualifying this statement in-line

the 13th edit: I remove your comment deriding those who attempt to consider whether historical figures were bipolar, as there is evidence (see the top of /Talk above) that (at least some) highly regarded medical authorities have taken part in this activity, and the comment appears ad hominem.

the 14th edit: s/Unlike/Compared to/; s/have/are more likely to have/; moved comment re schiz. patients inline; removed CORRECTION notice, as its sense (and some text) is now incorporated into the text

the 15th edit is a pure copyedit, removing dividing lines that are now redundant, and restoring the bullet-list structure of the external link list

the 16th edit: Moved external link to end of article, put comment pointing to end of article in its place

the 17th edit: mentioned your opinion that psycho-historical stuff is dubious

Now I'm done - for now. I hope that I have fairly incorporated all your opinions into the article. If you disagree, please feel free to edit - and please justify your changes here!

-- The Anome

"Many famous people are believed to have been affected by bipolar disorder, including Spike Milligan...There is no definitive scientific basis for classifying any of the above deceased persons ..." Does Spike Milligan know he's dead? The internet doesn't seem to think so. Verloren

Ah yes, but Milligan's not a medical doctor - he and I only think he's alive. An MD's opinion overrides that of a layman, therefore, as non-qualified people, we should accept Milligan's death as a fact. The alternative of thinking that an MD might be wrong about anything is too appalling to contemplate. If I was to believe that, next thing I'd be believing that MDs might actually disagree with one another! And at that point, we'd have to use our tiny brains to work out which doctor was right. I guess that might involve 'cites', or 'literature research', or somefin' -- The Anome

Fixed up the wording cited above as a kindness to SE (s/any of the above deceased persons/dead people/) -- The Anome

I haved moved an earlier version the text before the SE/Anome edit wars to An older, deprecated, version of this page - please note that it contains text that SE, who is a doctor, claims to be inaccurate, and is only there as a temporary copy for comparison purposes, to check if there is any non-contentious material there that might be useful. I will delete it when this is done. -- The Anome

Several more edits made to recreate wiki links: see changelog for details -- The Anome

Changed some of the text to emphasis more the difference between BP in remission and schizophrenia in remission. It's often the case that someone with BP disorder who is not being medicated will appear normal between distrbances and to be fully functional and independent. It's rather uncommon for people with schizophrenia who have undergone several episodes to be fully functional and independent without medication.

Thanks for that. I've since made a couple of (I hope) non-controversial edits: see the changelog comments for details. -- The Anome

I have now added the words associated with mania]] or hypomania to the first sentence - this seems justified as the diagnoses for Bipolar I and Bipolar II (as cited by SE) appear to require an incidence of either mania or hypomania, respectively.

I'm also going to move the 'ups and downs' paragraph up the article to a more logical place, and delete its first word 'futhermore' -- The Anome

There are two essentially identical one-sentence paragraphs crediting Kraepelin with the discovery - replacing/merging the first one with the slightly more detailed second one. -- The Anome

I have now added subheadings, hopefully applying some structure to what is now becoming a reasonable length article -- The Anome

Added note re incorrect, but common, usage of term 'manic depression':

Note: Bipolar Disorder is also commonly (and wrongly) called manic depression by laymen (and by some psyciatrists in the twentieth century) although this usage is now unpopular with psychiatrists, who have now standardised on Kraepelin's usage of the term to describe the whole bipolar spectrum.

Please, SE, note that I am recording usage here, and noting that it is incorrect. -- The Anome

Many famous people are believed to have been affected by bipolar disorder, including Spike Milligan, Lord Byron and Winston Churchill, based on evidence in their own writings and contemporaneous accounts by those who knew them.

I think that Spike Milligan was actually diagnosed with bipolar disorder - in any case, I remember something in one of his books about him being diagnosed "manic depressive" (this wasn't the war books, it was, I think, the intro to a books of his letters, probably published around the 70s). I think he talked about it elsewhere as well - anybody know for sure?

There's a book written by him and Anthony Clare, based on his appearance on Clare's BBC Radio 4 programme. That's where I read about it. -- Tarquin

Dysphoric mania is not the same thing as manic depression / bipolar disorder: it's one of the possible phases of bipolar disorder. Recent thinking is that depression and mania are two different axes, thus creating four possible extremes:

euthymia (ie normal): not manic, not depressed
depression: not manic, depressed
mania: manic, not depressed
mixed state / dysphoric mania: manic and depressed

-- The Anome 07:08 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

So, I guess it's all covered. Every single mood level is now worthy of psychiatric diagnosis and, by extension, medication. What a pile of shit psychiatry is! -- Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC

Actually, it's about time that the myth that mania and depression are opposites on the same axis ended, considering that the very existance of mixed states belies that assertion. Anarchist42

Perhaps it's time to retire the myth that biomedical psychiatry is a legitimate branch of medicine. If bipolar disorder were a brain disease (like Alzheimer's or Parkinson's), we would consult neurobiologists not psychiatrists. -- Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC

WikiProject Psychopathology started, please feel free to join.

I have restored Kurt Cobain to the list of famous bipolar people. In various interviews his cousin Bev Cobain has confirmed that he was diagnosed as bipolar. See http://www.ahealthyme.com/topic/cobainqa for a cite.

The list of alleged, presumed or diagnosed bipolar people probably needs to be spun off into its own article, with just a select few cited here -- large numbers of famous people have been associated with BP, and if we put them all in, the list will overwhelm the article. -- The Anome 21:32, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Go for it! Noel 01:19, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

What view does alternative medicine hold of the causes/treatments of bipolar disorder? Crusadeonilliteracy 14:55, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

A bit of Googling will find a few hits: it's all somewhat bitty. -- The Anome 00:50, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I was just about to do something about that list, some anon keeps adding names to it in no particular order and without wikifying: though shouldent it be put in alphabetical order G-Man 00:57, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Much of it seems already to be alphabetical by surname: I've formatted it as a list item for each letter of the alphabet, to cut down on space. -- The Anome

Depakote is also widely used for the treatment of Bipolar. Is this simply a brand name for one of the listed drugs, or does it belong in the article?

Valproate is mentioned in the article. ElBenevolente 22:31, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Depakote is a brand name for one form of semisodium valproate. -- The Anome 10:30, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

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?

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Official sites should be added to the page of any organization, person, or other entity that has an official site.

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.

If a book or other text that is the subject of an article exists somewhere on the Internet it should be linked to.

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.

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

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.

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

Latest comment: 19 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

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