Amen Clinic
- Thread starter 1engineer
- Start date
it's who he is...
You do understand that antagonism and personal attacks are Thai's raison d'être, don't you?Agreed. No more insults or personal attacks, keep it civil
olice:
NorCalBorn
New member
Zak's a Mod now, I'm pretty sure he get's it just fine.
:driving:/Thread. We got all the answers we need at this point. Go ahead and break out the
Last edited:
Have you looked at the website? It has many examples of scans, what they show, and how they are read.
Who interprets x-rays, and MRI's, and CT scans? Doctors. Who interprets the SPECT scans? Doctors. The Amen clinic has done over 40,000 sets of scans, so they're pretty good at reading them. The 6 locations are staffed by psychiatrists. Not community college psychology majors but actual MD psychiatrists.
The basic procedure is 2 scans, a baseline scan and a concentration scan. You get injected with a (radio isotope?). It is carried through the blood stream into the brain. The amount of this stuff which binds to the areas of the brain depends upon the amount of blood flow through the various areas. (I think) it's measuring the brain's metabolism in both a resting an active state. Some parts of the brain might be running too cool, some might be running too hot. The idea is to cool down the parts that are running too hot and warm up the areas that are running too cool. I think too hot = too much blood flow = overactive. Too cool = not enough blood flow = low function.
For the concentration scan you get the injection, do a task on the computer which requires you to focus and react, the isotopes bind to the active areas of the brain. You get the scan. It sees the isotopes that have temporarily bound in your brain. Voila, an image of your brain thinking.
Exactly 24 hours later you have the baseline scan. You get the injection then go sit in a room for 10-15 minutes with the instruction "don't think". This is the most challenging part of the process. How do you not think? It's funny… "sit here and don't think". I just zenned out and relaxed and did an empty mind open eyed meditation thing. The brain in its resting state will have lower blood flow, lower metabolic rate, fewer isotopes binding, and thus a picture of a less active brain in a baseline state is produced. It's actually pretty simple.
Look at the website. There is lots of info. Lots of FAQ's. Lots of explanations. Lots of images. The SPECT images of heavy pot smokers tend to have distinct characteristics. The SPECT images of people who have suffered some kind of head trauma (an NFL player) have distinct characteristics. The SPECT images of people with ADD have distinct characteristics. The scans of such people tend to show the same characteristics. They are consistent from patient to patient because they have common characteristics because they're brains have been subjected to the same forces or stimuli - heroin, or blunt force trauma, or industrial chemicals, or intense stress like that which triggers PTSD. It's fascinating stuff. This is not voodoo. SPECT scans are no different than x-rays of broken bones or MRI's of the heart or CT scan's of the liver. It is an image of a working brain at a specific moment in time, just as an MRI is an image of a working heart at a specific moment in time.
Last edited:
but…how...
Disregard, I just figured it out. I still like it, pretty clever.
How'd you do that? Are you magic? That's a cool trick.Zak's a Mod now, I'm pretty sure he get's it just fine.
/Thread. We got all the answers we need at this point. Go ahead and break out the
Disregard, I just figured it out. I still like it, pretty clever.
BrianSD_42
New member
One thing I have to agree with Thai on (and that is rare) is that there is little doubt scientifically, medically, that exposure to radiation from scans INCREASES your statistical risk for cancer.
He is right that you will want to avoid unnecessarily exposing yourself when you don't need it (aka unneeded scans) because you may need to get scans later in life and every scan raises your risk.
//
Another way of putting it is this.... do you know why some people < 40, after being bitten by the Black Widow spider decide to forgo the antidote?
The reason is that they are told it can only be used once in a lifetime. So if you are 30 and get bit you have the choice of toughing it out through the pain or taking the antidote. But what if you get bit at 65 when your system is weak compared to healthy??? You can't use the antidote and run a greater risk of major health complications.
I've heard that physicians explain the risks and benefits to patients and a few choose to forgo it.
He is right that you will want to avoid unnecessarily exposing yourself when you don't need it (aka unneeded scans) because you may need to get scans later in life and every scan raises your risk.
//
Another way of putting it is this.... do you know why some people < 40, after being bitten by the Black Widow spider decide to forgo the antidote?
The reason is that they are told it can only be used once in a lifetime. So if you are 30 and get bit you have the choice of toughing it out through the pain or taking the antidote. But what if you get bit at 65 when your system is weak compared to healthy??? You can't use the antidote and run a greater risk of major health complications.
I've heard that physicians explain the risks and benefits to patients and a few choose to forgo it.
Thai
Elite Member
Interesting...how are those two questions insults? When you talk with someone on something like this, it is useful to know where they are coming from in terms of age and level of education. This topic is about medical issues, not about cars nor a TV show. Medical issues are complicated, especially when talking about validity of a medical study.
How you read that as an insult is beyond me...but then again, you are part of the Cal folks who don't always see my side of the argument, right?
It is one thing to interject something useful...it is another to take a cheap shot just to get back at me. Pathetic and sad, no?Agreed. No more insults or personal attacks, keep it civil
Zopperman...you're back! You know...you should take your own advice in the other thread. It is weird...you told me in a PM to let it go...but you were the one that edited my post and left yours alone in a way to insult me. You kept at it...and then took the "high road" by editing out my post. Classy dude. (Hint: sarcasm.) It took a post by me in public and 2 PMs before you edited your post to take out direct insults to me.
And before you go in a group hug with some folks here who do not like me, you may want to know the HISTORY behind some of these folks. SV_Dude made the same mistake early on.
As Ron Burgundy would say..."Stay classy zopperman."
Thai
Elite Member
Hey dapslappy, in all this love affair b/w you two, did you even realize that NorCalBorn equate SPECT to a colon flush?!! :lol:
Unlike him though, I back what I say with proven medical facts.
Last edited:
Thai
Elite Member
See...this is why i ask for your education and age. You miss my point(s)...you did not just miss the boat, you miss the freaking dock!
No, i dismiss the study not only because it was published in an alternative journal, but more for the design of the study and who the authors were. THINK. READ MY POST ABOVE AGAIN. READ MY ANALOGY. Ain't rocket science dude.
What school level? My 6 year old son is going to school too...but that does not mean that he understands jack about this topic. Of course, i know that you could lie about it, but i was hoping that you have the same standard as what you claim Dr. Amen has.
A blinded study is a very effective study, more so with double-blinded...and probably the best way to understand the effectiveness of a treatment modality. (Of course, this type of study can't be done all the time either because of logistic and/or ethical consideration.) And this is what Dr. Amen was afraid a blinded study would show. It would show that SPECT scan intepretation to be widely inconsistent and not effective in guiding treatment. And thus, he went dead silent when asked to do so.
Observational study with the author being one tied financially (and professionally) to the result and done on his own premise is NOT legitimate by any standard. You claim to know all this from schooling, yet fail to realize this part????? It is not obvious to you how bad this study is???
THAT alternative medicine journal who published the study should be slap in the face for doing something this stupid. But then again, the journal probably had financial gains from publishing it.
Like people who refuse cancer treatment (as mentioned in abortion thread), no one can stop you from getting SPECT scans. It is your life. My main point here and in the Depression thread is more about the OTHER folks who read these threads. Educating them with solid facts and medical evidence is my goal. I encourage you to look at this link: www.xrayrisk.com : Radiation Risk Calculator -- Calculate Radiation Dose and Cancer Risk
Funny statements. You did not even investigate into the article you posted because you took it at face value? Really? :nono:
You claim to have gone to school at unknown level...and know what a scientific study is and what it entails...yet, you took the study as authoritative just because you are in love with Dr. Amen? Do you see your bias here??? Are you seriously blind?
It is like me saying that the Prius is a sports car because i love Toyota and Toyota says so! Hell, they even have a picture of a Prius taking a corner. Done deal. It must be true then! :lol:
Last edited:
Thai
Elite Member
You do know that ignorance is YOUR raison d'être, don't you?
zopperman
Moderator
I stepped in here before as a warning to keep it topical and civil.
If we can't act like mature adults, we can't have this thread. I'll give it ONE more chance to turn around. Any more flaming, personal attacks, or egging people on WILL result in the thread being closed, at the minimum. Please get back on topic.
Last time I'm going to say it
:focus:
If we can't act like mature adults, we can't have this thread. I'll give it ONE more chance to turn around. Any more flaming, personal attacks, or egging people on WILL result in the thread being closed, at the minimum. Please get back on topic.
Last time I'm going to say it
:focus:
1engineer
Moderator
You guys...
[MENTION=100699]dapslappy[/MENTION]: The whole point of this thread was to debate the Amen Clinic. I have done some research on it (outside this thread) and I would not go to, or take a family member, nor would I even recommend it to a friend. Too many red flags pop up. It, in my mind is pseudo science and I am being generous even including the word science in there. However I do know it has helped some people.
I get it. You went there and got help. Unfortunately you are just one guy. Becoming a fan boy just because it helped one guy is not going to win any arguments or sway any customers. Thai is also correct to point out physical dangers in addition to the possibility of getting taken for a ride too.
[MENTION=2]Thai[/MENTION]: You make many valid points in your arguments. Even as a layman I understand the importance of correct documentation and studies. In my world it would be like someone building a machine that could possibly do harm (or death) without doing any calculations.
With that said and even with your valid argument, I'm sure that clinic has helped many people. Who knows why? Maybe even just the placebo effect of going, kind words being spoken or they lucked up and got the dosage right. Who knows? I can argue the logic but not the results. If you gave me three drugs to dispense and each of those three drugs had a possibility of three dosages, even a dumb engineer would get it right some of the time if I tried it 1,000 times.
[MENTION=55855]zopperman[/MENTION]: Please don't take this the wrong way man but you still have a way to go before you can lecture some of us as "acting like mature adults." It's one thing to get passionate about a 4Runner and moderate an argument about such nonsense. It's quite another thing entirely to moderate a discussion about life and death treatment and the complex philosophies behind said arguments. Think about it.
I wholeheartedly agree that some threads have to be closed due to inflammatory comments with no hope of returning to civility. However if you allow some topics such as this to be posted then it would be better to have the thread facilitated instead of moderated, such as I am doing with this post.
zopperman
Moderator
I'm not lecturing anyone, I'm saying that the personal attacks that are starting to pervade this thread need to stop. It has nothing to do with the topic, it has to do with people being disrespectful and violating the rules. I know it's a complex topic, but it's best to keep a topical discussion and not let personal feelings or vendettas against other members get in the way of the discussion thereof.
I am trying to facilitate the thread by keeping everyone on topic, within the rules, and not name-calling and whining. That's why I posted two warnings to keep it friendly. If you want to have a heated discussion and disagree with each other, totally cool - however, i'm not going to allow a thread to continue when other members are being called "pathetic and sad." I don't see how that is fostering any type of discussion of the complex topic. I don't particularly care what Thai or dapslappy think each other's raison d'etre is and it doesn't need to pollute the off topic section with banter and whining. Like you said, it's a complex topic for adult discussion, keep it that way without making it personal or turning it into a diatribe against certain members or making otherwise aggressive comments.
I hope that you all think this is fair. Keep it civil and I'll keep it open.
I am trying to facilitate the thread by keeping everyone on topic, within the rules, and not name-calling and whining. That's why I posted two warnings to keep it friendly. If you want to have a heated discussion and disagree with each other, totally cool - however, i'm not going to allow a thread to continue when other members are being called "pathetic and sad." I don't see how that is fostering any type of discussion of the complex topic. I don't particularly care what Thai or dapslappy think each other's raison d'etre is and it doesn't need to pollute the off topic section with banter and whining. Like you said, it's a complex topic for adult discussion, keep it that way without making it personal or turning it into a diatribe against certain members or making otherwise aggressive comments.
I hope that you all think this is fair. Keep it civil and I'll keep it open.
Thai
Elite Member
Agreed. No more insults or personal attacks, keep it civil
Zopperman, before you "intervene," i don't see much of what you're talking about. The problem here is that YOU and NorcalBorn (intentionally? or ignorantly?) misinterpreted my questions to dapslappy. I don't care either way, but you guys are clearly in over your head and miss the point.
Now, we all know why YOU intervene (aka from your recent disgruntled interaction with me)...but don't make it obvious dude!
Keep it fair. I don't see why you suddenly become the cop here in this subforum...SV_Dude has been doing a good job since he's got the tone of this subforum.
Now, like your horrid bias in the other thread where you intentionally edited out me and not your own post, i hope that you notice that i only called dapslappy ignorant (b/c it's true) after he threw insults at me. Same with NorcalBorn's false pretenses.
Thai
Elite Member
1engineer, NEVER said otherwise. In fact, you can read what i wrote on page 2 of this thread:
Is Dr. Amen competent? 100% YES. Is he and his staff knowledgeable and helpful? Likely. But, is he ethical in recommending at least 2 SPECT scans as part of diagnosing the condition? No. A physician first rule is...DO NO HARM. I believe in that. Now, if a lot of benefit is to be had with little harm, then it is good. Can blood pressure pill do harm? Of course if taken incorrectly or unmonitored. BUT, if taken correctly, the benefits outweighs the harm.
SPECT? Well, up to now, there has NOT been any benefit noted in medical literature in what Dr. Amen uses it for. None. The ONLY one speaking of such benefits is the same one that gets cash for such procedures from unknowing patients. Radiological society condemns its use as such. Medical society condemns its use as such. SPECT introduces UNNECESSARY radiation exposure to the patient with no documented benefits. That is doing harm. That is unethical.
Of course, Dr. Amen also proudly boasts that he SPECT scanned all his kids and playing mates! WTF?! Maybe i should withdraw the competency statement!
Last edited:
1engineer
Moderator
1engineer, NEVER said otherwise. In fact, you can read what i wrote on page 2 of this thread:
Is Dr. Amen competent? 100% YES. Is he and his staff knowledgeable and helpful? Likely. But, is he ethical in recommending at least 2 SPECT scans as part of diagnosing the condition? No. A physician first rule is...DO NO HARM. I believe in that. Now, if a lot of benefit is to be had with little harm, then it is good. Can blood pressure pill do harm? Of course if taken incorrectly or unmonitored. BUT, if taken correctly, the benefits outweighs the harm.
SPECT? Well, up to now, there has NOT been any benefit noted in medical literature in what Dr. Amen uses it for. None. The ONLY one speaking of such benefits is the same one that gets cash for such procedures from unknowing patients. Radiological society condemns its use as such. Medical society condemns its use as such. SPECT introduces UNNECESSARY radiation exposure to the patient with no documented benefits. That is doing harm. That is unethical.
Of course, Dr. Amen also proudly boasts that he SPECT scanned all his kids and playing mates! WTF?! Maybe i should withdraw the competency statement!
Hey [MENTION=2]Thai[/MENTION], I made that comment about helping with no insinuation towards your position. I made it for my own edification. Jeez! Quit being so jumpy lol! My whole point was both of you make salient points.
Thai
Elite Member
The 2nd part of the post was not directed at you...it was meant for emphasis on what i wrote earlier. I only quoted you to show you that i agree with you about Dr. Amen and his staff.
I do not and have not disputed that one is exposed to radiation via the SPECT scan.
From the Depression thread started by BlackWorksInc (http://www.toyota-4runner.org/off-topic/155321-depression.html):
This is from my post #48:
From the Amen Clinic website in FAQ's http://www.amenclinics.com/about-us/spect-frequently-asked-questions:
"The typical effective dose of radiation from one SPECT scan (based on patient mass) is on the order or 250-300 mrem (millirem). Two of our SPECT scans are roughly equivalent to, or a bit less than, one CT scan of the abdomen or pelvis (about 0.7 to 1.0 rem, depending on protocol).
This amount of exposure is well below the cut-off level (10.0 rem) for any known potential or observable health risks. For more information on radiation you can visit the Health Physics Society website at www.hps.org"
This from my post #58:
"What I DO have is a deep desire to pay forward the gift which was bestowed upon me; the profound good fortune to be where I am today BECAUSE of the diagnostic accuracy provided by the SPECT Scan. I consider the nominal exposure to radiation far far far outweighed by the ACTUAL benefit provided by the SPECT Scan and its proper interpretation.
Nominal radiation exposure OR a lifetime of depression? I chose nominal exposure. I gained life. A real life. A connected life."
You refer to unnecessarily exposing oneself to unneeded scans. Of course one should not unnecessarily undergo any unneeded procedure. Both thekid and I received effective constructive life changing diagnostic and medical treatment from the Amen Clinic. Each of us was there because of real medical/psychiatric issues which had derailed our lives. I did not go on a whim to see if I could get a brain tune up. When I dislocated my shoulder skiing I got an MRI. I would not have had an MRI if I did not injure my shoulder.
It is difficult to understand what it is like to suffer from depression. It just wears you down. Day after day, week after week, year after year. It is hard to appreciate how hollow and grey and disconnected one's existence becomes. I assert the nominal exposure of a SPECT scan is a minuscule risk to accept for the benefit received.
The SPECT scan was necessary. A clinical diagnosis is made on the basis of knowledge obtained by medical history and physical examination alone, without benefit of laboratory tests or x-ray films. It was not working for me. Yes, the various doctors were able to clinically determine that I was depressed, but they were unable to make a more specific diagnosis. There are a wide range of depressions manifested by a wide spectrum of chemical imbalances and interactions; a little too much of this, not enough of that, etc.
I went through the common process of Rx roulette. Try this, see how effective it is. Ok, up the dose. Hmmm, not the result we were looking for. Now try this. Ok, better result, but still some issues. Now add this. Now increase dose of first and add the second over the next 4 weeks. Some of these medications are slow metabolizers which require several weeks to reach full effectiveness and require several weeks to dissipate when going off them. Time drags along as one follows the doctor's advice based upon his/her best guess of how one's brain chemistry is out of whack and needs adjusting. While some improvement is better than no improvement, it is still a partial treatment. The SPECT scan allows a more focussed treatment for a better result.
The SPECT scan of a brain in action provides the same value as an MRI of a dislocated shoulder. It is not used instead of a clinical diagnosis, it is used as part of the diagnostic procedure. I accept the nominal risk an MRI exposes me to for the diagnostic accuracy and detail it provides. I accept the nominal risk a SPECT scan exposes me to for the diagnostic accuracy and detail it provides.
Last edited:
2 SPECT scans IS the procedure.
2 SPECT scans IS the procedure. A baseline scan and a concentration scan. This is clearly and simply explained on their website.
Thai
Elite Member
Here is a fascinating article about neuroimaging in Psychiatry: Brain Scans as Mind Readers? Don't Believe the Hype
Quotes:
Robert Rubin, professor and vice chair of psychiatry at UCLA... "To determine the utility of these findings, you have to go to the critical next step, which is to come up with specific imaging criteria for depression, scan a large number of people, and then read the scans blindly — that is, without having met the patient. You can then determine the accuracy of your test. To my knowledge, nobody has done such studies for depression or for most any psychiatric disorder other than Alzheimer's disease."
While chatting with Rubin, I find myself comparing my assessment meeting with Amen to experiences I've had with shrewd palm readers. Like them, Amen made vague pronouncements that could apply to anyone: "You're happier when you're busy." When he made specific statements about my moods and life events, they seemed to be based on information he obtained the old-fashioned way — by asking questions. He already knew about my family history of depression and my mother's suicide when he mentioned a "predisposition to depression" and "significant trauma." Occasionally, he was completely off the mark, like when he saw neural signs of temper problems. In fact, when my wife and I argue, my calmness is exasperating, leading her to ask, "Do you even have a pulse?"
"All right," I say to Rubin. "Let's assume that Amen really has no solid evidence that imaging can diagnose conditions. But he does seem to make some people feel better when they are in distress."
"Oh, I'll give him that," he says. "It's a fantastic placebo effect." I'm reminded of a recent study in which Yale researchers gave participants various nonsensical explanations of human behavior. Half of the time, the researchers added the phrase "Brain scans indicate" before the explanation, and then inserted the spurious finding. When this brain-speak was added, participants judged the explanations more satisfying.
According to UCLA neurologist Marc Nuwer, who assessed the QEEG [like SPECT claims] field for the American Academy of Neurology, these findings mean little. "Running large numbers of statistical tests routinely causes large numbers of randomly encountered purported statistical abnormalities' that are of no clinical significance." The only way to see whether these so-called profiles are valid is to choose one derived from such studies and then see if the profile actually correlates with a diagnosis. The best study along these lines couldn't establish a correlation. Nuwer calls it "a total failure."
Most neuromarketers are using these scans as a way of sprinkling glitter over their products, so that customers will be persuaded that the pictures are giving them a deeper understanding of their mind. In fact, imaging technologies are still in their infancy. And while overenthusiastic practitioners may try to leapfrog over the science, real progress, which will take decades, will be made by patient and methodical researchers, not by entrepreneurs looking to make a buck.
Quotes:
Robert Rubin, professor and vice chair of psychiatry at UCLA... "To determine the utility of these findings, you have to go to the critical next step, which is to come up with specific imaging criteria for depression, scan a large number of people, and then read the scans blindly — that is, without having met the patient. You can then determine the accuracy of your test. To my knowledge, nobody has done such studies for depression or for most any psychiatric disorder other than Alzheimer's disease."
While chatting with Rubin, I find myself comparing my assessment meeting with Amen to experiences I've had with shrewd palm readers. Like them, Amen made vague pronouncements that could apply to anyone: "You're happier when you're busy." When he made specific statements about my moods and life events, they seemed to be based on information he obtained the old-fashioned way — by asking questions. He already knew about my family history of depression and my mother's suicide when he mentioned a "predisposition to depression" and "significant trauma." Occasionally, he was completely off the mark, like when he saw neural signs of temper problems. In fact, when my wife and I argue, my calmness is exasperating, leading her to ask, "Do you even have a pulse?"
"All right," I say to Rubin. "Let's assume that Amen really has no solid evidence that imaging can diagnose conditions. But he does seem to make some people feel better when they are in distress."
"Oh, I'll give him that," he says. "It's a fantastic placebo effect." I'm reminded of a recent study in which Yale researchers gave participants various nonsensical explanations of human behavior. Half of the time, the researchers added the phrase "Brain scans indicate" before the explanation, and then inserted the spurious finding. When this brain-speak was added, participants judged the explanations more satisfying.
According to UCLA neurologist Marc Nuwer, who assessed the QEEG [like SPECT claims] field for the American Academy of Neurology, these findings mean little. "Running large numbers of statistical tests routinely causes large numbers of randomly encountered purported statistical abnormalities' that are of no clinical significance." The only way to see whether these so-called profiles are valid is to choose one derived from such studies and then see if the profile actually correlates with a diagnosis. The best study along these lines couldn't establish a correlation. Nuwer calls it "a total failure."
Most neuromarketers are using these scans as a way of sprinkling glitter over their products, so that customers will be persuaded that the pictures are giving them a deeper understanding of their mind. In fact, imaging technologies are still in their infancy. And while overenthusiastic practitioners may try to leapfrog over the science, real progress, which will take decades, will be made by patient and methodical researchers, not by entrepreneurs looking to make a buck.
