# Struggles and Support > Mental Health in the media >  >  It's invisible

## Misssy

Anxiety and Depression are mainly invisible 

It's viewed as being "different, weird or negative".... a flaw, a personality flaw, a genetic flaw


The only people who are impacted by it are those who suffer from it and pills are thought to be the solution to everything


Why is there no blood test for it?


No brain scan for it?


Why don't doctors do a genetic test on people....if it's inherent then why don't they prove it?

Why do they just put people on a series of pill trials?


If therapy takes years before it works, why don't health insurers pay for years of therapy.

Why is it that cancer patients receive tons of treatment but anxiety and depression don't, even if anxiety and depression can also lead to death?

Anxiety or Depression is never the "cause" of death on a death certificate...it's something that is easy to ignore.

----------


## L

Well said and sadly it is very true - we cannot see or measure mental health difficulties. 

These is no blood test. and guess what, that things you lack in that causes depression and the pill you take to "increase or decrease it" that cannot be measured either so how do they know you lack or have to much of a neurotransmitter - they don't, why do they prescribe medication, because people want a "quick fix" a way out that doesn't involve working on their problems, they have been brainwashed with this over simplified version of depression that makes them feel safe - I know medication can help, but not on it's own.

----------


## Coffee

There have been brain scans and a lot of research into neurotransmitters but can you imagine how expensive that would be to test every person?  I think researchers are working on a blood test but i'm not entirely sure. Some health insurance companies allow for short term therapy and most will pay for medication as it's prescribed by a doctor.

----------


## Misssy

> There have been brain scans and a lot of research into neurotransmitters but can you imagine how expensive that would be to test every person?  I think researchers are working on a blood test but i'm not entirely sure. Some health insurance companies allow for short term therapy and most will pay for medication as it's prescribed by a doctor.



Yeah, that is my point. Short term therapy doesn't do anything, and there are no tests available that prove anything at all, there are only pills- tried randomly. Been prescribed 6 types of pills, one that I never tried because I've lost trust in the method and the system and the doctors.

oh well maybe 50 years into the future they will find the answers

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011...ntidepressants

There is no way 10 percent of Americans all have the same disease...anywho..

----------


## Coffee

> Yeah, that is my point. Short term therapy doesn't do anything, and there are no tests available that prove anything at all, there are only pills- tried randomly. Been prescribed 6 types of pills, one that I never tried because I've lost trust in the method and the system and the doctors.
> 
> oh well maybe 50 years into the future they will find the answers



Well yeah i mean it's difficult to have one kind of pill universally applied, because there are always going to be individual differences and it's just way too expensive to test everyone individually at the moment. But as you said, there will be advancements. keep in mind that mental health is still a baby-science. It wasn't too long ago that mental disorders were thought to be the devil in a person, lol.

----------


## Misssy

yah, I'm just venting coffee, there are so many people taking these pills, and there are more and more coming out and I simultaneously want to find help and relief but am scared to try any more pills....in an age where science and facts reigns supreme....really mental health medications are handed out in a very unscientific way it's trial and error

was prescribed celexa ...though it's in a class that i tried before and it didn't work for me

----------


## Misssy

Plus if somebody is bleeding or falls off of a bike, some people would show some interest in what had happened. 

If a person is in appearance dull, disengaged, quiet, mopey, "negative", sad, very moody... all of these are seen as detractors, like social demerets.

God I am ruminating so badly right now, not only am I ruminating but I have learned of the term co-ruminating ....means to ruminate with others. 

ummm okay

----------


## Antidote

I know you're just ruminating but I just want to add...





> Why is there no blood test for it?



Because they can't really measure stuff that's going on in the brain through a blood test. In theory they can use certain metabolites present in the blood to indicate certain neurotransmitter levels in the brain but it's crude and no blood test has been designed yet that is diagnostic. They know that there are abnormal levels / density / functioning of NTs in mental illness however, because 1) they have seen this when experimenting with animal models 2) they have seen this with different kinds of brain imaging 3) drugs that change levels of NTs, change people's behaviour / symptoms (even if not for the better, there is a change).





> Why don't doctors do a genetic test on people....if it's inherent then why don't they prove it?



It has been 'proven' it's inherent. DNA is your blueprint, and how it interacts with your environment determines who you will become. Genetics have been identified as a contribution to mental illness. But most mental health conditions are polygenetic, meaning there are many genes involved and not all specific contributing genes have been identified. Also, right now, like with fMRI's, genetic testing is too tedious and expensive to conduct routinely on people.

----------


## compulsive

Its not invisible, you are just told to shut up when ever you want to discuss things others dont understand. God forbid you want to have emotions about something others dont understand. 

People know it exists, they just dont care. Cancer gets more funding because you can die from it. Depression and probably anxiety disorders are seen as temporary fleeting emotions which would just go away if you tried harder. 

And the most simple explanation would be treatment for anxiety is hard to see if you are correct or not , so it takes longer. Whereas cancer , they can see results quickly via the cancer cells and that science plate thing. They dont need to use it on a person first. Whereas hwo on earth can you test a drug for working on anxiety or depression, without using it on a human?

----------


## compulsive

> Yeah, that is my point. Short term therapy doesn't do anything, and  there are no tests available that prove anything at all, there are only  pills- tried randomly. Been prescribed 6 types of pills, one that I  never tried because I've lost trust in the method and the system and the  doctors.
> 
> oh well maybe 50 years into the future they will find the answers
> 
> There is no way 10 percent of Americans all have the same disease...anywho..



That doesn't mean its all for long lasting severe depression. This is how all the misconceptions are made. Just because a person has minor depression for a short while it doesn't mean that they know what its like to be a long time sufferer. 

There are also a lot of people who get depressed from break ups, some severely which will occur several times in their life time. However this depression fades over time for most. The 10% is not static. Its changing all of the time as people get out of depression. That is what I think anyway. 

I think some might take it because they are stressed. 

There is a lot of bullying in highschool etc, so that would explain the high rate of antidepressants.  

Im actually terrified of seeking help if I were to be completely honest. I cant see any of it as worth all of the pain and struggle (most likely will have a lot of panic attacks, be suicidal etc) given the incredibly low success rate for severe cases and conjoint problems. Also having to disclose taking antidepressants on a job and the impact on employ-ability, increase in insurance premiums, the cost. If the success rate where high then I would actually seek help. Since its not, it is not worth it to do it. I dont like how the results are skewed by using so many minor cases and then saying hey it works.

----------


## Misssy

I Think that if I had more money, then I could get better treatment for anxiety and depression. Feel that it is something that slips though the cracks too easily. Pisses me off...because why wouldn't a person deserve help with this stuff. 

It's like all I can do is complain about it OR take their (cuss word here) PILLS that don't help. 

What has helped in the past is HAVING money, YES that does help. 

And participating in group activities helps me to stop being so internal or something, forces me to be out and about with other people. 

Self esteem helps a lot to give me the motivation to TRY.

----------


## Otherside

> Anxiety and Depression are mainly invisible 
> It's viewed as being "different, weird or negative".... a flaw, a personality flaw, a genetic flaw
> The only people who are impacted by it are those who suffer from it and pills are thought to be the solution to everything
> Why is there no blood test for it?
> No brain scan for it?
> Why don't doctors do a genetic test on people....if it's inherent then why don't they prove it?
> Why do they just put people on a series of pill trials?
> If therapy takes years before it works, why don't health insurers pay for years of therapy.
> Why is it that cancer patients receive tons of treatment but anxiety and depression don't, even if anxiety and depression can also lead to death?
> Anxiety or Depression is never the "cause" of death on a death certificate...it's something that is easy to ignore.



I've seen this come up a few times on here, but I don't know how accurate it is:



It is inherent, they have proven it. There's a lot of people on my mothers side of the family with depression, and I have my suspects about my father being SA. My sister has severe (and I mean severe, panic attack kind) needlephobia to the point that it's affecting medical treatment for a health condition she has (and a somewhat serious one, at times). 

And I don't like to compare anxiety/depression to cancer for many reasons, and it's probably best not to. I've watched several people in my family die from cancer, and have someone who's going through the possibility of being diagnosed with it. Please don't compare the two. I know mental illness can kill you, but it's nothing like having to go through serious surgery, radiation and take drugs that make you feel [BEEP] in order to attempt to get the tumor under control, and then hoping you don't relapse. I have some quite serious mental health issues at times, but please don't compare it to cancer.





> Yeah, that is my point. Short term therapy doesn't do anything, and there are no tests available that prove anything at all, there are only pills- tried randomly. Been prescribed 6 types of pills, one that I never tried because I've lost trust in the method and the system and the doctors.
> oh well maybe 50 years into the future they will find the answers
> 
> http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011...ntidepressants
> 
> There is no way 10 percent of Americans all have the same disease...anywho..



I don't think they do. There's different types of depression-Major Depressive Disorder, Bipolar depression, Psychotic depression, dysthymia, atypical depression...some people can have the symptoms of more than one which leads to a somewhat double depression. =/





> Its not invisible, you are just told to shut up when ever you want to discuss things others dont understand. God forbid you want to have emotions about something others dont understand. 
> People know it exists, they just dont care. Cancer gets more funding because you can die from it. Depression and probably anxiety disorders are seen as temporary fleeting emotions which would just go away if you tried harder. 
> And the most simple explanation would be treatment for anxiety is hard to see if you are correct or not , so it takes longer. Whereas cancer , they can see results quickly via the cancer cells and that science plate thing. They dont need to use it on a person first. Whereas hwo on earth can you test a drug for working on anxiety or depression, without using it on a human?



Okay, meaning no offence here, but trust me, they're gonna do more tests on cancer drugs that "on that plate thing". Drugs take years to get approved, whatever they're for. The cancer drug will have gone through trials, there will have been patients that have been willing to trial and go through the trialling process. Before that, it will have gone through several safety tests, animal testing, even before it got anywhere near humans. The same as with any anxidty/depression drug.

And please stop comparing anxiety/depression to cancer!!! Yes, mental illness is shit, but please don't compare it to something like that.

Edit-And I'm just gonna say, if  you think people don't get blamed for having cancer like people get blamed for having mental illness, then trust me, there's blame out there. There's people who say if you have lung cancer, it's your own stupid fault for being a smoker, or if you have cervical cancer, it's because you had unprotected sex. Both of these, are BS. I don't think it's fair to blame anyone for whatever illness they have, mental or otherwise.

----------


## compulsive

From what I can see I have answered the question and then pushed in personal grievances/mood swings where i could and things that dont belong here and made it one. No one can actually tell but me Ive realized. Anyway then it turned out to sound like this. I am sorry for what I wrote. I didn't intend it to be that way. I do recognize cancer is a serious illness where people live in agony for years and they fight through chemo even though it has massive side effects because they value their lives. Whats said is said though. 


What I meant 2. was they can use cancer cells to test for things and come up with possible options quicker than having to work with trials on people. Where as cell research should be impossible with anxiety as anxiety is only occurring in a functioning brain. So therefore cancer treatments would come out quicker because you could see the cancer cells dying? 

Im sorry I was actually wrong.

Its the opposite. Because cancer takes years to kill it takes years to see the results, but with anxiety drugs if they are correct you could see relatively quick progress when tested. More research also goes into cancer also because they need to try lots of things at once due to the large time lag. Cancer research seems to have begun in the late 1800s or before. Then improved more and more since the early 1900s. Cancer research has been going on for 100 years+ and the concept behind Chemotherapy ( the original similar concept ) was discovered in 1890. In relative terms cancer research is not really given more attention, nor are treatments developed faster. That's actually really slow.

There seems to be hope on the horizon for cancer patients. So maybe in 10 years from now treatment wont be so painful for patients. It looks promising this time. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...r-disease.html . They have done a human trial and now are going for a bigger one. Theres actually 2 treatments  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2972708.html in the running this one is only starting human trials now. 

well that's all I could find recently anyway.

----------


## Otherside

> From what I can see I have answered the question and then pushed in personal grievances/mood swings where i could and things that dont belong here and made it one. No one can actually tell but me Ive realized. Anyway then it turned out to sound like this. I am sorry for what I wrote. I didn't intend it to be that way. I do recognize cancer is a serious illness where people live in agony for years and they fight through chemo even though it has massive side effects because they value their lives. Whats said is said though. 
> 
> 
> What I meant 2. was they can use cancer cells to test for things and come up with possible options quicker than having to work with trials on people. Where as cell research should be impossible with anxiety as anxiety is only occurring in a functioning brain. So therefore cancer treatments would come out quicker because you could see the cancer cells dying? 
> 
> Im sorry I was actually wrong.
> 
> Its the opposite. Because cancer takes years to kill it takes years to see the results, but with anxiety drugs if they are correct you could see relatively quick progress when tested. More research also goes into cancer also because they need to try lots of things at once due to the large time lag. Cancer research seems to have begun in the late 1800s or before. Then improved more and more since the early 1900s. Cancer research has been going on for 100 years+ and the concept behind Chemotherapy ( the original similar concept ) was discovered in 1890. In relative terms cancer research is not really given more attention, nor are treatments developed faster. That's actually really slow.
> 
> ...



I'm sorry to, I am a bit sensitive on the issue of cancer lately what with someone pretty close to me possibly having prostrate cancer, and the health service over here have pretty much been useless and told him that "he's going to have to learn to live with it" or some other BS. I reread my post, and I probably did come across as harsh there, so sorry.

I suppose you _could_ see the cancer cells dying in a petri-dish, but it wouldn't show you what side effects it was likely to have. If you look at the leaflets for any medication you'll see a whole list of them, for mild ones to pretty serious, life threatening ones. Antidepressants for example-a lot of people expierence the dry throat side effect, sexual dysfunction, or "feeling like a zombie", but there's a rarer quite serious side effect that can happen occasionally...something called Serotonin Syndrome which is pretty much life threatening, and is when the level of a persons serotonin rises to dangerously high levels. The only way when it comes to it that you can see the effect a medication will have on a human and work out whether the success rate is worth the side effects/risk, is to test it on humans. It won't even get to that stage unless they're pretty sure it's safe to use. Even so, there has been times when they've been wrong.

----------


## Misssy

Well something that is inside a person's skull is invisible. Invisible to everybody except for the few people that have MRI's. And since I don't walk around with an MRI it is INVISIBLE. Also people don't give a rats [BEEP] anyways. Even if it was visible. A person could wear a stupid t-shirt that showed their messed up brain...and nobody would care at all really it is invisible. Everything in life is invisible except for money, and blood and sex and war. That is what people see. Eyes are black and full off pools of greed and lies anyways. And why won't my room mate lock the front door. 

yeah part of the reason why I waste so much time on the internet is because I want to live behind locked doors

doors with deadbolts, and maybe extra locks. 

I think I just woke up my lame room mate by locking the door --dang well if she had locked it in the first place then the noise of it wouldn't have woken her up. go back to sleep little money grubbing room mate

OH AND BACK TO my point, you can't see it! it is nowhere, it is nothing, it doesn't even exist....how convenient

----------


## compulsive

What I really really dont understand is why they do group therapy, but not group exposure therapy (social anxiety disorder or other anxiety disorders). Or even someone helps you while you do exposure therapy. I just cant understand how its beneficial for someone to tell you go do this in therapy. Correct me if im wrong but essentially they are giving you CBT and you do exposure therapy all by yourself is what it sounds like. 

I dont understand because exposure is harder than CBT, why is the patient doing it all by themselves? Yet they invent all of this new technology, but no one thinks hey maybe if I support this person while they are doing the exposure it will help them a lot. Hey maybe human beings feel comforted with support in a terrifying situation? No. We dont know that for certain, need to do extensive testing first,   :O_O: . If someone can do it by themselves after reading a book then pretty much any understanding sympathetic person after reading a book can help someone do exposure therapy for anxiety disorders. 

When I goggled group exposure therapy all I got was a post traumatic stress exposure therapy group trail, which was *very successful* despite the risk of triggering etc.

----------


## Misssy

Yeah, there should be more exposure therapy.

----------


## WintersTale

It's the invisible disease, and something that a lot of people believe doesn't really exist.

It's sad how the mental health services are in this country. Awful.

----------


## whiteman

Therapy really hasn't done much for me. I don't even know why I still go. I guess it's something to do. I like my therapist. She's done more for me than any other therapist has. She's given me some handouts and exercises, and that's more than any other therapist has done, but overall I've gotten worse since I've been in therapy. It seems like a lot of therapists don't like their clients. 

SSRI's are pretty much useless. I think I've tried almost every one. Benzos work for a while, but quickly you build up a tolerance, and they don't work anymore.

Exercising is good. It works. 

Creative projects work. It doesn't matter what it is. If it's creative, I love it.

When I was at university and I was getting good grades and I thought there was a good future before me I was better.

Owning my own business works. It's my only option. I can't work for someone else because of my multiple disabilities, both physical and mental.

Having a routine helps.

Having goals is huge. I live for my goals.

----------

