dcrmt, I hear and understand what you're saying, but I actually think it's more complicated than that. Biochemistry is incredibly complicated, and nowhere more complicated than in the nervous system. Every chemical reaction affects a cascade of reactions downstream, in complex feedback loops. Nothing is isolated. There are no separate compartments in the chemistry of the body.
It's tempting to try to simplify it and say "serotonin in the synapses does this thing, transporters do this thing, receptors do this thing" as if it were mechanical and predictable and those were all separate parts, but it's not. It is incredibly more complex than that. And that's just talking about synapses. You've got glial cells interacting with everything else, all of it reacting and responding in nanoseconds (literally), causing more reactions to happen elsewhere, causing cascades and loops which then feed back in multiple places. There is no neurotransmitter that acts in isolation. They all affect each other.
And although scientists talk about this stuff as if they understand it (well actually the REAL neuroscientists don't, mostly it's the psychiatrists, who are apparently not reading much neuroscience)--we understand probably less than 1% of what's actually going on. The state of the science is not very advanced, relative to what there is to learn.
We are conditioned to think using mechanical or computer analogies about this stuff, but that is simply not how it works. There are no separate compartments. Everything affects everything.
So the take-away point about these charts for me and probably for Alto as well, isn't really what piece is doing what. It's not really the effect of the drug--we find that the effects of the drugs themselves are highly variable in different individuals, even more so once they have some history of taking psych drugs of any kind, and that makes sense given the complexity involved.
The exciting take-away of these charts is that they make it so brilliantly, visually clear that the effects--whatever they may end up being--increase and decrease in an exponential fashion. We had observed this anecdotally, but to have the data and a visual graph is just absolutely brilliant and priceless. It makes it so much easier for people to understand why they must taper following an exponential/logarithmic curve rather than just a linear decrease. And we can show these charts to our doctors when they say "you're just taking 2 mg, that's such a low dose you can just stop."
I'm thrilled to have this tool. I cannot thank you enough for bringing it here.
"We had observed this anecdotally, but to have the data and a visual graph is just absolutely brilliant and priceless. It makes it so much easier for people to understand why they must taper following an exponential/logarithmic curve rather than just a linear decrease. "
Could you say this is simpler terms.
I left this thread long ago today I find it extremely confusing exponential/logarithmic curve... really what is that?
And I did try to look it up...
Still it does not translate into anything understandable to my brain.
And Alto this
exponential decay in tapering is closer to the descending curve
Maybe I am just flat out stupid I don't know but I don't get what your trying to say.
I thought the graphs showed the amount the body/brain could use had a limit beyond that limit it was a waste of the drug and who knows that the excess does to the body.
And that tapering is easy at the start because the drug was in excess anyway which was off the graph... so effects were not felt till tapering reached the graph where affects were felt.
I do worry that maybe others here especially new folks in hard withdrawal will have trouble with this jargon... I could be stupid often think I am.