: Re: Amygdala Retraining

[Guest guest]

" " <stephano@...> wrote:

> I would like to say I agree 100% with what Cort says. I am in my

12th year of this illness and I can say, categorically, that since I

began to understand it as a dyregulated/hypersensitised brain/CNS and

experimented accordingly, both with medications (as per Jay

Goldstein's ideas) and things like yoga and meditation, my condition

has improved significantly. (This has been over the past 2-3 years)

>

> This is NOT to say it is a " psychological condition " or " all in

your head. "

> I remain baffled at the dogma shown by some people on this list

who seem to need to cling desperately to this utterly false dichotomy

of 'psychological versus physiological.' Get over it! Get over the

semantics.

>

> I have thick folders of research and medical tests, compiled over

the years in my ceaseless attempt to beat this thing, many of which

show physiological anomalies. I spent so many years chasing my tail,

whether it was trying to address high blood lactate levels, high

mycoplasma levels, immune anomalies, liver function anomalies,

parasites, leaky gut, imbalanced gut bacteria or urine tests showing

fibrillar/non-fibrillar catabolism, anomalies in the shape of red

blood cells, elevated potassium excretion, circadian rhythm/ DHEA and

cortisol anomalies, food allergies, hypoperfusion on

brainscans....just off the top of my head. The list goes on and on,

and the list of attempted treatments and associated expense even more

so.

>

> What I have realised is that all this stuff is " downstream " and,

essentially, irrelevant. If systems controlling bodily regulation and

homeostasis are damaged or rendered dysfunctional, then it is

reasonable to expect that any and all symptoms can result, with

accompanying tests results. People say they are " sure " there is still

some virus, for example.....but the immune system is just another one

of the interlinked systems that can be dysregulated, leading to an

immune response that we take, with 100% surety, to be reflective of a

continued infection. Why does it have to mean that?

>

> As useful as the Canadian guidelines may be, they are loathe to

include mood disorder as anything other than something " reactive. " IE-

Depression or anxiety as a " reaction " to having a disorder that

wrecks your life. In fact, mood disorder in CFS is often part and

parcel of the illness in primary terms. It's not

necessarily " reactive " and it's not necessarily " co-morbid. " It's

often just another CFS symptom. Other neurological illnesses, such as

Parkinson's and Multiple sclerosis, also cause disturbed mood due to

to the mechanism of the illness. Again, this false dichotomy exists

because the CFS community is so defensive and desperate to prove it's

a " real, physical illness. " For god's sake ...of course it's REAL and

of course it has physiological underpinnings....but so do many

conditions, including many so called " psychiatric " illnesses.

Semantics, semantics, semantics.

>

> Somehow, any intervention that has any perceived 'psychological'

elements is instantly deemed to be useless, false and heretic by the

zealots. How on earth can you know this? How can you be certain?

Certaintly is based on a mindset, namely, " I have a physical illness,

so what good are treatments that intervene in a psychological way

going to be. " But....... this is fallacious, because the

physical/psychological distinction is equally fallacious.

>

> Gupta's programme is just another intervention. The only way it

should be judged is whether it is helpful/effective or not. Concepts

of psychological v physical are totally arbitrary and of no use to

anyone.

>

> .

I disagree 100% with what Cort says.

Casting aside the distinction as 'arbitrary' is itself an

arbitrary exclusion of a testable " cause-effect " relationship.

Administration of inflammatory cytokines directly to the brain, as

per Dantzer and , have demonstrated a mechanism in which enzymes

drive a depressive response, regardless of what the mind was thinking.

If xenobiotics and infections induce the release of these

inflammatory cytokines directly from the tissues to give the brain

a " sense " of illness and inflammation, this would be a source of

activation which is purely physical, and not dependent or driven by

mental patterns.

While in this enhanced " cellular messenger signalling state " , it

would seem reasonable that reducing other stimulus, such as

taking " emotional stress " out of the equation, could lighten the

overal burden and give benefit - but this does not create the

conceptual framework of 'curiosity' as to why someone who is only

experiencing " customary " and " normal " amounts of stress should now be

overwhelmed, even though the inherent " emotional-stimulation " value

of the stress itself is not what changed.

(Hint: Multitudes of people saying " I wasn't so emotional before

that strange flu-like illness)

One simple demonstration of Alpha Interferon induced depression

should have been sufficient to convince anyone that the dividing line

between emotionally induced " depression " and enzymatic induced

depression are quite stark and measurable under laboratory conditions.

It is quite feasible to to take the brain right out of the equation

and artificially stimulate the signalling mechanisms for depression.

And since many of us noted deprssive responses which appear to

correlate to elevated levels of these signalling mechanisms as a post

infectious sequellae, we would rather have research into the " flu

like illness " process which initiated this alteration in emotional

lability instead of being told that the very notion that imagining

there can be a physical cause is a fallacious mental construct,

and that, therefore, no such " physical " research is warranted.

-