Tag: substance p

+A START ON THE TOPIC OF TEARS, CRYING, WEEPING, THE ANS AND ATTACHMENT….

alchemynowLeave a comment

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Well, if I am going to ‘try to think’ about Substance P and pain, I guess it’s a logical next step to ‘try to think’ about crying and tears!  I actually located an entire book devoted to the topic – not about babies or children, but about adults:

Adult Crying: A Biopsychosocial Approach (Biobehavioural Perspectives on Health & Disease Prevention) by Ad J.J.M. Vingerhoets and Randolph R. Cornelius (Mar 15, 2002)

Product Description

Crying is a typical human expression of emotion. Surprisingly, until now little scientific attention has been devoted to this phenomenon. Many textbooks on emotion fail to pay attention to it, and in scientific journals there are hardly any contributions focusing on this behavior. In contrast, there is much interest from the lay public, allowing pseudo-scientists to formulate theories that have little or no scientific basis. Is there any evidence in support of statements that crying is healthy or that not crying may result in toxification? How do people react to the crying of others? Is crying important for the diagnosis of depression, and if so, how? This book aims to fill this gap in scientific literature. Crying is discussed from several perspectives and specific attention is given to methodological issues and assessment. Each chapter provides a review and a summary of the relevant scientific literature.

About the Author

Ad J. J. M. Vingerhoets is Professor of CLinical Health Psychology at Tilburg University, The Netherlands.

Randolph R. Cornelius is Professor of Psychology at Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, New York, USA.

++

Well, in my ignorance on the subject (even though I’ve shed my share of tears in my lifetime) I have never before heard of the ‘lacrimal gland’.  Makes sense that we have one for each eye – and that the actual specifics about these glands sound complicated with all kinds of scientific terms and names.  The only part of the description that sounds even remotely familiar to me has to do with the nerve connection that tears have to the parasympathetic (STOP) branch of our Autonomic Nervous System (ANS).  (Yes, that’s the STOP and GO, stress-calm response control system that has such influence on how we are in our body in the world.)

Well, and then there’s this (from the book mentioned above):

“The lacrimal nucleus receives neuronal input from the frontal cortex, the basal ganglia, the thalamus, and the hypothalamus, as well as from the retina.

“Parasympathetic secretory fibres [sic] from the lacrimal nucleus pass through the geniculate ganglion, synapse in the superior cervical ganglion and then follow the course of the carotid, the ophthalmic artery, and its lacrimal branch to provide sympathetic stimulation of the small arteries within the lacrimal gland.  (page 23)”

Gee, and how come I never knew THIS about crying?  Wait, it gets better!  (Clear as mud!)

“Stimulation of sympathetic fibers appears to have little effect on tear secretion but does act through the regulation of the blood supply of the main lacrimal gland.  Besides the nerve fibers containing the classical neurotransmitters acetylcholine (parasympathetic) and norepinephrine (sympathetic), fibers are present that contain neuropeptides such as Vasoactive Intestinal Polypeptide (VIP), Met- and Leu-Enkaphalin (M- and L-Enk), Neuropeptide Y (NPY) and Substance P [serum] (SP)….  The VIP and the M- and L-Enk nerves in the lacrimal gland are mostly of parasympathetic origin, where VIP and M- and L-Enk coexist presumably with acetylcholine.  NPY in the periphery in most cases coexists in postganglionic sympathetic neurons with norepinephrine.  SP is of primary sensory origin, differentiating from the trigeminal ganglion.  The colocalization in the close association of the peptidergic fibers with the secretory structures of the gland suggests that the neuropeptides are important neuromodulators of lacrimal secretion.  This complex innervation of the lacrimal gland may reflect different populations of acinar cells that are activated separately thus producing a different secretory mix of fluids or proteins in the tears.  Another view is that it represents a necessary redundancy, a safety factor, in the control of tear production.  (page 24)”

This chapter goes on to describe reflex tears, tear gas, “crocodile tears,” along with all kinds of other bits of information about tears I’m not sure I ever want to know.

But what about tears of grief and sadness?  OK, here it is:

“Of all the vertebrates, including the primates, humans alone possess the psychogenic type of reflex secretion, designated as crying or weeping.  This affective lacrimation is controlled in the frontal cortex and in the anterior portion of the limbic lobe of the brain.  There is no evidence of any animal other than humans shedding tears due to emotion rather than stress or irritation, despite many anecdotal reports about pets and other animals.  Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) may show tears, wetting the surrounding lids, because a groove in the skin, continuous with the medial canthus of the lids, drains the tears onto the face….  Lacrimal puncta for normal drainage of tears are not visible.  The aquatic mammals such as seals, dolphins and whales secrete a watery mucus to protect their eyes from sea water.  The overflow of these tears due to lack of a drainage system may have been misconstrued as emotional tears.

“Patients with a proven decrease or absence of conjunctival sensory nerve impulses in the Schirmer test will give a history of having copious tears during emotional stress.  The Schirmer test was applied for the first time as an objective test for psychogenic reflex tearing by Delp and Sackeim (a987).  In their study on the impact of psychological manipulations of mood on tearing, lacrimal flow was assessed before and after mood manipulations intended to produce states of happiness and sadness.  Lacrimal flow, at least among women, appeared to be responsive to manipulations of mood and may be an index of aspects of affective experience that are incompletely or poorly assessed by self report techniques.  (pages 26-27)”

“…all terrestrial animals produce tears, but there is an evolutionary divergence in the composition of tears and pronounced species differences have been described in this respect….  Causes for these differences remain as yet unknown, but an explanation might be that they are attributable to adaptation to the changing environment during the evolution of the various animals.  Emotional or psychogenic tears are in fact reflex tears, where the stimulus is emotional rather than irritant-induced.   (pages 27-28)”

“Crying has no direct biological function in the protection of the eye and may serve no physiological purpose whatever.  All animal species can survive in their natural environment without the capacity of crying. Darwin (1872/1965) gave the subject of weeping much thought in his masterpiece The expression of the emotions in man and animals, but he nowhere ventured a suggestion as to how it has come about in the evolution that man is the only animal that weeps.  Montagu (1960) proposed the hypothesis that in man weeping established itself as an adaptive trait in that it served to counteract the effects of more or less prolonged tearless crying upon the nasal mucosa of the infant.  Early in the development of man, those individuals who were able to produce an abundant flow of tears would be naturally selected in the struggle for existence, since the tears acted to prevent mucosal dehydration, whereas those who were not so able would be more likely to succumb more frequently at all ages and leave the perpetuation of the species to those who could weep.  (page 28)”

“Frey et al. (1986) demonstrated the presence of prolactin in the main lacrimal gland and in tears and suggested that this substance may function to stimulate tear production.  This might help explain, in part, why male and female children have similar crying behavior (Bell & Ainsworth, 1972; Maccoby & Geldman, 1972), but women cry more often than men once they reach adulthood….  Serum prolactin levels in male and female infants and children are not significantly different; it is only after the age of about 16 that female prolactin levels exceed those of males….  Prolactin is dramatically increased during pregnancy….  (page 29)”

“Newborn babies secrete tear fluid already in the first day of their life…although they do not demonstrate weeping overtly.  Premature infants, however, may fail to secrete tears at birth, depending on the degree of prematurity….  In most cases, crying with tears starts at about six weeks of age…when the efferent nerve supply to the main lacrimal gland is completely established.  Crying thus seems to be both phylogenetically and ontogenetically a late development in the human species.  (page 30)”

++

In this book of 352 pages I’ve read enough to know that other than the citation mentioned (in the excerpt above) to the work of Bell & Ainsworth, 1972 I need to look elsewhere to find information on the link between emotional pain, crying and human attachment.

I got lucky!  I found this:

THE MEANING OF CRYING BASED ON ATTACHMENT THEORY

Judith Kay Nelson, Ph.D.

Published in Clinical Social Work Journal

Vol. 26, No. 1, Spring 1998

ABSTRACT: Crying is inborn attachment behavior which, according to attachment theorists John Bowlby and Margaret Ainsworth, is primarily an appeal for the protective presence of a parent. Infant crying triggers corresponding caretaking behavior in the parents. These reciprocal behaviors help establish and maintain the parent-child attachment bond.

Crying continues throughout life to be a reaction to separation and loss, to carry an attachment message, and to trigger caretaking responses. Crying can be classified according to the stage of the grieving process to which it corresponds: protest or despair. The absence of crying when it would be expected or appropriate corresponds to an unresolved grief reaction representing detachment. Each type of crying and noncrying elicits different caretaking responses with interpersonal, clinical, and cultural implications.

“In order to establish effectively and maintain the attachment tie, crying, as well as other attachment behaviors, triggers a reciprocal set of responses in others known as caretaking behaviors.”

Well worth a read!

No doubt more posts on this topic coming!

see: +MORE LINKS ON TEARS, CRYING AND WEEPING

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

+SUFFER IN SILENCE

alchemynow2 Comments

Why did I sleep so poorly and wake before dawn today?  What do I do with the millions of thoughts, swarming around like gnats, each untouchable?  I try to swat them away.  I do not want to hear them.  I don’t want them to be a part of me.

I used to have an inner directive about my research and writing that I could in the end say things about the consequences of severe abuse from birth that I knew no therapist would ever tell a client — because they didn’t know them.  Now I laugh a macabre laugh.  Nobody can afford any therapy any more.  There is no access.  How do those of us who had such a terrible mess made of the first 18 years of our life get help for anything that happened to us, let alone for the difficulties those experiences back then cause for us now?

Or is none of it supposed to matter?  Do we just need to do what my sister calls it, “Put on your big girl panties,” and get on with our lives, moment by moment, the best that we can?

I get the feeling that I have so much information buried, hidden just below the surface — but I am supposed to leave it there?  Leave it untouched, waiting for future generations to discover in their own time, because we have too much on our plates in the world right now and it is all too much for anyone to hear?

++

I have a very clear idea at this moment about how this all can work.  I walked away from my research and my computer and my writing and remembering 5 months ago.  I simply pushed back my chair, got up, walked away and didn’t turn back — until now.  It happened the instant I knew I had found what I was looking for:  ‘substance p’.

SEE search:

http://www.google.com/search?q=substance+p&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3RNFA_enUS270US307

Substance P is a neurotransmitter related to the sensation of pain.  It works the same way if we are feeling something as physically wrong for us as it does if we feel something as emotionally wrong with us.  That means to me that our sadness is not something to spurn and discard.  It is a part of us we need to cherish and learn from.

 

++

 

Partly my mission up until that point was to show that our nation’s reliance on pharmaceuticals to treat ‘depression’ and ‘anxiety’ was no different than a reliance on anything that we use to take away our perception of pain.  I knew there really was no difference between psychological pain and physical pain because both are indications to the body that there is something hazardous affecting an individual within their environment, and both elicit an immune system response.

 

I knew that we run the risk of basically saying to one another and to ourselves, “That’s OK.  Go ahead and keep your hand in the flame.  Take these pills.  You will not feel it.  But by all means don’t take the pain seriously as a signal to you that there’s something wrong with your life.  Don’t try to find out what it is, what caused it, how it affects you.  Don’t change anything.  Just ‘remain productive,’ get on with your life, quit whining and complaining.  Nobody cares and neither should you.”

 

++

 

So in my own life I turned away from my studies and from my writing, and tried to create a sanctuary for myself, tried to forget everything I am and everything I’ve become as a result of early, chronic, consistent, terrible abuse.  After all, our society tells us, “That’s all in the past now.”  That’s a lie.  It is NOT in the past.  Everything that has happened to us remains right here in the present instant, accumulated in our body, in our body’s memory, and affects every interaction that occurs all the way down to the molecules in our body and how our genetic code is continually manifesting in our bodies.

 

So what?

 

We are not supposed to ask the questions.  We are not supposed to know the answers.  Thinking is supposed to be carefully modulated so that we avoid knowing the truth.  Be a nation of smiley faces, plugging along, separating the good from the bad, letting people ‘get what they deserve’.  Don’t pity ourselves?  Don’t ever think you had it worse than anyone else because we all know how much worse other people have it?

 

The more we don’t know our own reality the more we separate ourselves from ourselves, and hence from one another.  Are we simply a glamor culture founded upon the powers of distraction and the pursuit of not knowing the truth?  Every time an important question bubbles to the surface of our awareness we are supposed to turn away and forget it.  If we can’t do this by ourselves, then we better go get some kind of pill to help us.

 

Where’s the salvation in that?  Where’s the learning?  Where’s the connection to reality and to what is really going on?  Where is the taking of new information and using it to create a better world?  Are questions and wondering forbidden?

 

++

 

For example, what if I were to ask important questions like, “What is the difference between the experience of abuse for the child that is singled out in a family as the chronically abused one, and the siblings who are the witness abuse survivors? What is the difference between them in regards to the long term brain and body changes they each receive as a result?  Is there a possibility and risk that by our unwillingness to ask these questions and to look for the answers on the bigger level that we are saying there is no difference between them, and that a witness and a victim are in effect ‘the same thing’?  Where, in this picture, do the perpetrators fit in?”

By being willing to pay close attention  to the lessons of trauma we can become  crystal clear about cause and effect, culpability and accountability.  Both witnesses to abuse and victims of abuse have their shared portion of experiences related to peril.  In addition, they each also have their own experiences that are distinctly different.

 

Is there in effect a forbidden zone, a boundary in our thinking and learning that says, “STOP here, beyond this point there is no passing?”  Is that part of what continually keeps the after effects of trauma alive and well, running just under the surface of our culture like a poisoned and toxic ground water that remains so close to the surface that the well being of at least half or our citizens is being jeopardized on some level daily — and nobody is really supposed to care?  Does the adage, ‘pay lip service’ apply here as we all like to decry violence and abuse but will not do anything individually to stop either the actions or the effects — not even within ourselves?

 

++

 

“Chin up.  Suffer in silence.  Don’t admit the truth.  What you don’t know can’t hurt you.  Don’t make such a big deal of it.”

 

Is this really all about not wanting to separate the victims from the not victims because somehow the not victims carry some sense of guilt, shame and responsibility for what victimized the ‘others’ in the first place?  Or is it that we live embedded within a culture that insists it is right in saying that “People get what they deserve?”

 

That leaves the not victims exonerated from whatever guilt they might be carrying so that they never have to dig down and take the guilt out and look at it.  It leaves the victims holding the bad bag feeling as if somehow they deserved what happened to them and they have no right to complain.  Not ever.  “Don’t rock the sinking boat?”

 

++

 

That leaves us with a vast gray area where people who really do suffer somehow just have ‘bad genes.”  When all else fails and there is no other logical explanation, blame genetics.  Who cares that research is showing how nasty early experiences trigger most of these genes to misbehave as they had to and continue to adjust for a person’s survival in a hostile, toxic and malevolent world?

 

We make choices as a society just like we make them individually.  If nobody calls anybody on their behavior, where is the balance, reason and health in that?  Pharmaceutical companies who make billions off of the results are the monster engines powering health research — physical and mental-emotional health.  We don’t question this.  We literally BUY their results as if they came straight from the God of the universe.  The power is in the pills?

 

The word ‘pharmaceutical” stems from the Greek word ‘pharamkos’, which was the chosen sacrifice that was killed after all the ills of a people were projected onto it.  Kill the pharmakos, all troubles of the people are vanquished.  Blame the victim, ‘de-capacitate’ the victim, shut them up, make them go away and all will be well for everyone else.

 

What if the sacrifice doesn’t want to BE the sacrifice?  What power do they have to resist?  True mental health and well being is being treated like an obsolete technology itself.  Who cares if vinyl records disappear off the market as they are being continually replaced by newer and better recording technologies?  All that matters is that we have access to the music itself.  Well being for the masses?  Who cares if it has been replaced with tiny pills in throw away (well, maybe in some places recyclable) bottles?

 

Shouldn’t we all just be so grateful?  We don’t have to suffer.  We don’t have to work at well being.  We don’t have to ask the tough questions and find the tougher answers.  Access to well being has been equalized and guaranteed to all?  And if we refuse to take the pills?  If we dare to question Big Brother’s machine?  Well, who first asked “If a tree falls in the forest and there’s nobody there to hear it does it make a sound?”

 

I have always thought that question was ludicrous.  A tree falling and hitting the ground makes vibrations, dislodges and upsets all manner of life that exists within its branches, etc.  Only egocentric humans would assume that the world revolves around us.  I can personally say anything I want to about how the abuse I suffered was preventable, that I would rather it had never happened in the first place, that it changed the development of my brain and body into being one geared for the most efficient survival in a life-and-death threat world, and that this childhood created a lack of well being in me that operates on my molecular level.  Who wants to hear this noise?

 

Better that I either suffer in silence — which is what I am doing if nobody hears a sound I am making — or shut up, pop my pills, and get to work fitting in here.  I mean, how productive is the truth?

 

++