It looks like psychotic-level depression, which actually isn't all that uncommon in older folks. We're talking about something very serious here, and there’s a solid chance that medication could either cure it or at least significantly improve the situation. In my opinion, it is completely inhumane and unethical to deny them help, regardless of whatever excuses are being made! Besides, doctors do house calls, and you always have > available if things go south. Someone acting out psychotically—which is definitely what we're seeing here—is a clear indicator that you need to call one of those two options for an immediate consultation. Ideally, you should start with the family doctor if that's an option, which it ought to be. And you need to move fast, because we have no way of knowing the suicide risk, and we don't want to be caught off guard by that. Naturally, they’ll probably need a brief hospital stay until the symptoms subside and the risk of self-harm is managed.
William Reed3 said:So, I’ve been on this routine for seven weeks now. It involves some light stuff—cannabis, coffee, cigarettes, and sometimes linden tea, though occasionally I skip the tea and just stick to the rest. Along with that, I’ve been taking Lorazepam, though not every single day.
For these past seven weeks, my daily oral intake has been at least 2 mg of Lorazepam, peaking at maybe 10 mg on certain days.
Work life? Great. Side effects? Well, I deal with some bladder issues occasionally. Sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't. I guess it depends on the timing, whether I take it before or during the act, and if I used cannabis that day.
Fatigue? Not really.
I can fall asleep on it, wake up, go hiking, meet new people, study, follow conversations or TV shows... everything feels normal, just significantly more patient.
I bolded that because that’s exactly why I’m taking it.
But here’s what I’m actually wondering: when am I going to hit addiction? (I’m actually trying to induce it.)
Right now, I don't even have a tolerance.
The reason I'm using it is that I wasn't a fan of the psychoactive treatment my dermatologist prescribed for a few things, and Lorazepam helps tremendously with that. Plus, my skin issues—which haven't been great so far—are actually clearing up. I’ll practically be done with this skin condition (and maybe there's a psychological component here too) by the day after tomorrow at the latest.
My plan is to keep going until I'm hooked, just to see what else it's good for. Once I start feeling the withdrawals, then I'll quit; it won't be useful anymore. (Meaning, I'll taper off eventually, even though I don't have a set dosing schedule right now. I'll establish one, obviously—how else am I supposed to taper?) But honestly, I'm not planning much, because I've heard rumors about this "incurable lifelong benzodiazepine crisis." I want to know if that's a real thing and what it actually entails.
In my opinion, the psychotropic drugs are secondary here. The primary issue is that you clearly have a psychological problem, some pathological personality traits. Subconsciously, you want to achieve the status of a victim (an addict) to justify your own sense of grandiosity. You think you know better than the dermatologist—that addiction isn't something you're vulnerable to like everyone else since you feel you have control over your doses... and other fantasies. That way, any success or pleasure is credited to your undeniable competence, while any potential discomfort can be blamed on addiction, giving you a permanent excuse. You should consider seeing a psychiatrist instead of making your life unnecessarily complicated. Since skin issues are often the "battleground" for psychosomatic symptoms (they develop from the same embryonic tissue as the nervous system), it wouldn't surprise me if your skin condition is just a symptom of psychological issues that you aren't treating, but are actually "feeding" instead.
restlessfalcon13 said:Hey, if there are any doctors reading this, I could really use some help. I've had a low-grade fever—somewhere between 98.6 and 100.4—for over a week now. It never hits 101, but I have this dry cough and I feel completely wiped out regardless of what I'm doing. I’m getting exhausted just brushing my teeth. I saw my doctor, and he thinks it's just a viral infection since my lungs sound clear. He told me to rest and stay hydrated. I've been taking some over-the-counter cold meds for three days, but as soon as they wear off, the symptoms come right back. I'm 23 and I've honestly never felt this sick in my life. Thanks in advance for any insight.
Just a standard virus, probably not even the flu. If you aren't feeling better in a couple of days, go back to your doctor.
Casey Evans3 said:I can see we have some experts in here.
So, for me, my lymph nodes are swollen, and last week my neck was so stiff it was almost painful. Everything kind of aches. On top of that, I have a severe sore throat and white patches (my doctor thought it might be strep throat). Before that, I had a dry cough for a few weeks, and now it's back... No real fever, maybe hitting 99.5 occasionally, but mostly just staying around 98.6. My blood work showed elevated lymphocytes at 53, and atypical lymphocytes at 6. Liver enzymes were high too—ALT at 139 and AST at 90—plus CRP at 6.8. That's everything that's outside the normal range.
Mononucleosis? Or something else? I read online that elevated enzymes can be an alarm bell?
She probably assumed the sample was tainted, thinking it had been 'contaminated' by that specific pathogen after the fact. It could also be linked to hemorrhoids, especially if there's bleeding involved, since that bacterium originates in the gut.
These questions are way too complex to tackle all at once. Each one really deserves its own dedicated thread. You can't just lump them together like that. What are you actually trying to accomplish here? Give me some context.
Nicole Robinson88 said:Oof, here we go. After dealing with pain under my right ribcage and near my right kidney (pretty sure that’s the kidney 😁), seeing doctors and getting bloodwork done... everything looks fine on my end, except for this weird stuff in my urine: Help, because I have to 😲 by tomorrow afternoon, and I didn't see any blood in my urine at all. This is the first time I've seen this on a lab report :/ I Googled it and now I'm thinking maybe it's a bacterial infection or kidney inflammation... oh boy
The question is, what does it actually mean when they fall below the reference range? Does it mean there’s zero inflammation, or just that they aren't being produced enough to protect me from it?
Alongside those, my hemoglobin is at 115 (ref. range 119-157), hematocrit is 0.342 (ref. range 0.356-0.47), and IBM is at 8 (ref. range 9-35).
Michael Sanchez7 said:As a layman, looking at the granulocytes, I'd conclude your immune system is weakened, though I have no clue why. As for the other values:
The simplest and fastest indicator of anemia is the number of red blood cells in circulation, specifically the hematocrit. Low hematocrit levels suggest a shortage of circulating erythrocytes or their rapid destruction, which the bone marrow can't keep up with. Another key indicator is hemoglobin levels. Bleeding is one of the most common reasons for a drop in hemoglobin. This could be acute, like a stomach ulcer, or chronic, such as subtle micro-bleeding in the GI tract. In women, heavy or frequent menstrual cycles are often the primary cause of low red cell and hemoglobin counts. Regardless of whether the anemia is acute or chronic, the underlying cause needs to be identified. Regarding IBM, I found that low values aren't clinically significant.
Source:Link
You can't take it that literally. Medicine isn't just a "pile" of data points; it's about how they integrate.
You can't reach a diagnosis this way. But then again, it could potentially be a chronic infection...
From what you're saying, it sounds like you were prescribed this therapy specifically to deal with the panic attacks, which means the headaches and dizziness aren't being addressed separately. The reason they put you on Xanax is because it actually targets panic attacks, unlike Ativan, which isn't quite as specific for that. Also, you can't expect Percocet to kick in after just one pill, so the idea was for the Xanax to provide coverage in the meantime—but you didn't take it! You're overthinking things and trying to control a situation that's already spiraled, which just leads to more chaos. More control isn't always better; you need balance. You have to know when to step back. If you don't, that's how the panic attacks start in the first place.
And I'm really sorry about your dog. I totally get it.
Is there any way to actually prevent this, or at least slow things down?
Just standard preventative stuff. Good posture, getting enough calcium and Vitamin D, staying active enough to keep blood flowing well through the spine...
If she just takes one pill every once in a while—you know, for a headache or some muscle aches—she’ll be fine. Most alternatives to acetylsalicylic acid, like Aspirin or even things like Tylenol or Advil, have a similar effect on blood clotting. You really only need to worry if someone is taking them on a regular basis or super frequently for any reason. In those cases, you can actually run blood tests to check clotting factors and see if there's a legitimate issue. Bottom line: just talk to your doctor.
Look, you guys are mostly idealists. Which is totally fine—honestly, it’s actually kind of refreshing. But when it comes to the actual substance... You’re going to burn out. It’s not a matter of if, but when. And once that happens, it’s over. You’ll eventually realize you haven't exactly discovered fire, and nothing is magically going to shift; things stay just as complicated as they always were. I mean... why am I even getting worked up about this? Anyway, just remember what I told you earlier! Don't get me wrong, thinking critically is a good sign. People need to do it. But when you mix that drive with zero experience, you end up rushing headlong into these "revolutions" because you think it's all going to be easy. I guess the best way to learn is the hard way. So, carry on then.
PS: I’m not going to drag this out or turn this into some massive drama. I’ve been around the block a bit longer than you all, and I prefer to use my energy more rationally. Goodnight! 😉
Jeffrey Barrett2 said:And why on earth should he be expected to process 40 to 50 people a day? The individual is discussing self-help, not proposing some omnipotent, all-encompassing medical treatment. I simply don't understand this tendency to jump to conclusions and lash out at any line of reasoning that deviates from conventional, mainstream medical models. This is especially true when you consider that the conventional approach often merely treats the symptoms rather than the root cause, essentially creating a cycle of dependency where people become incapable of managing their own issues, constantly checking to see where their pills are just to get through the day. Perhaps certain types of disorders might be more easily addressed through alternative or psychoanalytic methods—some may be easy, others perhaps impossible—but science itself is the ultimate proof that we shouldn't view things through such a narrow lens, given its constant evolution and its history of Copernican shifts. Why must a specific approach be required to solve every known psychological disorder automatically? If it proves successful in even one single niche, then it is a success.
Because that’s how many people are lined up outside every single clinic every day, and this is being pitched as a substitute for the doctors actually working those clinics. You clearly aren't reading the posts carefully before jumping in. I asked—given that specific scenario—what he proposes saying to the people who *aren't* chosen (since you obviously have to pick a select few to train in these methods) if he can't get to everyone. I still haven't received an answer, and I certainly won't be waiting for one.
The guy is talking about self-help, not some magic bullet treatment for everything.
Sure, that's possible, and that's fine. Self-help can be brewing your own tea or making lemonade. But that isn't a replacement for actual medical therapy. If we're following that logic, why are we even having this discussion...? Honestly, that's a rhetorical question; I don't actually care about the answer.
I don't understand this tendency to jump on anyone whose way of thinking deviates from conventional medical approaches.
An attack would involve an emotional outburst, which your post leans toward more than mine does. I’m just trying to facilitate a very grounded, logical debate.
Why does any given approach automatically have to solve every known psychological disorder? If it works for one specific area, it's successful.
Nobody said it had to. But if it's meant to replace doctors, it should probably be able to treat at least what those doctors treat. It seems pretty logical to me.
When you talk about treating causes versus just managing symptoms... that’s a bit of a gray area.
Some medications tackle the fallout, while others go after the source—think antibiotics, for example. If someone has a shrinking hippocampus because they've been dealing with chronically high cortisol levels, and that leads to personality shifts, then giving them an SSRI to restore that hippocampal mass to normal—is that addressing the cause? Pretty much.
It’s the same story with the methods being discussed here. Are they actually hitting the root cause? Or are they just taking an existing problem and trying to patch it up? There isn't any deep-dive research happening, because if there were, we wouldn't be calling this self-help or medical treatment anymore.
And even if a change actually happens—how would you even tell? How would you know if she suddenly flipped her entire "philosophy" or value system during some brief moment of clarity just to escape the despair it created? Or what?
Look, healing requires actual structural changes in the brain. Unless you think the brain is just a radiator for blood and the psyche is some mystical liquid floating around—in which case, I’m done with this conversation—that kind of shift doesn't happen overnight. It's like hair growth. You don't wake up with a full head of hair instantly; protein synthesis takes time for both, among other things.
Scientists apparently don't even grasp how Tramadol actually works—as in, where it actually hits. Yet doctors seem perfectly fine prescribing it. Real geniuses, those guys.
Pure nonsense. It feels like this amateur doesn't even realize how much they don't know. That’s really all there is to it.
In my opinion, it really comes down to a case-by-case basis. You have to look at the intensity, how long the person has been struggling without seeking help, and their own individual personality... there are just a lot of variables involved (that’s just my two cents).
That’s spot on. That’s exactly how it plays out in practice—well, as much as it can.
The reason you hear so many conflicting opinions is probably because, frankly, not everyone is actually a professional. There's way too much flirting with "life philosophies," intuition, and esotericism... most people lack a solid grasp of actual science and academic insight. Even some professionals don't get it. That’s why people spend so much time arguing in circles instead of actually doing the work!
Here is an example of how, if you ask me, and it seems pretty obvious, a situation that looks totally settled. One smart question followed by an even smarter answer! That’s how you handle it, that is true expertise!!! Think of this as a quick case study, just to remind ourselves what scientific rigor actually looks like and why it has that certain 'edge.'
But then again, those mother stations are running on an entirely different level of technology—it’s practically cloning at this point. It has nothing to do with ultrasound. Seems a bit sketchy to me.
It’s one thing to sound like you have an answer, but it’s another thing entirely to actually provide one. I’m asking you specifically—how exactly would you effectively manage 40 to 50 people a day? I’m asking because that is the actual volume we're looking at. Do you actually know, or not?
Just like with a narcissist. self-absorbed. Call it whatever you want—a collection of symptoms, whatever. But how then would you treat such a cluster of symptoms? Go ahead, tell me. These are real human beings, not some theoretical concept you can just ignore because they don't fit into your neat little framework. When someone like that walks through your door, what happens? What does "self-help" even look like for them? What kind of instructions are you giving? Again, I'm only asking because these people actually exist.