I think I said off the bat - these are my pre-existing conditions, these are my current symptoms, I can't make heads or tails bc it can all go either way. I'm not making any assumptions about which came first or how. I can, however, say "this is worse than before" and "this is new" and go from there.

I'm aware of the drug/hormone/emotional disorder interplay - psychopharm's a hobby. However, I've found little in terms of a stimulant's (or anything else for that matter) effect on a concussed brain that would be any different than another brain - besides the obvious, common-sense, fact that ANY detrimental effect/side-effect could be potentiated. While physiological in nature, any concussion is individual and consequently no one could say that in *every* case neurotransmitters x, y, and z are going to be affected in [this] way, proportional to a, b, and c and therefore [these] drugs should be avoided due to [this] specific action. In all the literature and research I've gone over in the last couple weeks, there's been no such claim. If you could point me to any such publication or research (it's likely I'd have access if it's in a journal, even if not open to public), as far as the "long-term neuro-chemical consequences" of a concussion I'm very much be interested and would appreciate it. This is pretty much what I've been searching for and have come up empty handed, so it'd help a lot.


Generally, the effects (short as well as long-term) of brain trauma don't stem directly from any change in neurochemistry, but rather the region of the brain that's damaged and the cognitive/physiological processes those regions of the brain dominate (ex: hippocampus and memory, parietal lobe and sensory functions, etc) - as far as I've been able to dredge up. However, it would follow that: if chemical a is dominant in region x and region x is damaged, chemical a would suffer some variance and consequently any drug affecting said chemical would vary in efficacy, etc etc.

As an aside, and not to sound hostile - just sayin', I don't appreciate the presumption that I've been ill-advised or that my psychiatrist (or myself) is making the wrong decision in prescribing me stimulants. While yes, they can exacerbate anxiety (and have - under specific conditions), one can not say that it is best that they not be described due solely to some umbrella generalization. Unfortunately, I got the best of it all: bp/anxiety/add. It's also common knowledge that they often present co-morbidly and are often treated the same way they would have been otherwise - the trick is just finding the cocktail that works the best.

Both my primary as well as my psychiatrist have been seeing me for years, both have a solid understanding of my present and past conditions (and situational influences/occurrences) and both work together/communicate in my treatment. I would, and do, entrust my life to them both.

That doc in urgent-care, however... no, I wouldn't trust him farther than I could throw 'em! He was profoundly negligent in his assessment (sent me home with a "grade zero" when I didn't even show up until ~3hrs post-injury and could barely stay upright, could hardly fill out the paperwork for admission - couldn't remember the meds I was taking - was slow in response, etc... very negligent). Unfortunately, this happened on a Saturday afternoon and I was SOL, ya know :P


Happy trails
Hopefully this all gets better soon.