Hey Betsy, whatever you do don't stop the philosophy crap, it's such a big part of discussion, love it.

Hey Jeanne, I'm thinking of it like this, 2 scenarios (a little tongue in cheek, but I hope you'll see what I'm getting at):

Imagine a GP who has tried all the usual pain meds on an RSD sufferer with little success. Would he be keen to give you a med that made you just "feel better", even if it doesn't touch the pain?
You bet. Because it would be a quick fix and they could get on with seeing other patients. And you *would* be feeling better. Not all better, but better.

Imagine a psychiatrist who has tried all the usual pain meds and mind tricks on an RSD sufferer with little success. Would he be keen to give you a med that made you just "feel better", even if it doesn't touch the pain?
You bet *not*. Because for a psychiatrist it would be *just* a quick fix. And if it worked he wouldn't have any patients. So you wouldn't be feeling better, any better.


There's a lot of debate between the psychiatric community and the brain researchers on this subject, its validity, ethics, etc. but since all emotions do come down in big measure to the balance of chemicals....as Mike suggested, any bottled "feel better" that works is just fine by me, I'd drink old dishwater if I knew it would help.

My moods are more precarious every day, yet I need to be as upbeat as possible. Feeling better makes me want to go out, move around, be more active and (very important in my case, I can be a hermit) interactive. On the days I'm in a good mood, that's how I feel, on less good days I'm less active, on down to just not wanting to get up or answer the phone. But the pain's there on all of those days, ya know...

I doubt if this proposed new med would actually come under the heading of "mood enhancer", but it sounds like it would have a similar result by lessening the negatives. So...bring it on Dr. Apkarian et al, the sooner the better, far as I'm concerned.

all the best