Skip to main content

mental health mondays :: oops

thanks very much to dom for alerting me to this fascinating article from salon/ scientific american. for those of you pressed for time, here's a tl;dr version:

"we may have been wrong about that whole lack of serotonin causing depression thing. oops. love, science"

for many years now, psychiatric medicine has relied on the model of the neurochemical imbalance to understand and treat depression and anxiety disorders. and while this particular article only relates to the insufficiency of serotonin reuptake inhibitors as treatment, it's pretty clear that the same thing would apply to drugs that regulate the amount of norepinephrine and/ or dopamine in the brain as well.

the short, over-simplified version is that while drugs that help delay the reuptake of neurotransmitters associated with pleasure and reward do indeed make depressed people feel better, they aren't actually treating depression, at least not its cause. because it turns out that depleted serotonin in the corridors of your noggin is an effect of the fact that your brain is producing fewer neurons and nerve contacts. and that, my friends, is the real reason you're depressed.

it is not uncommon for medicine to start out treating the symptoms of a disease and to gradually move onward to the cause. in fact, it would be anomalous for it to happen the other way. as we observe a disease for longer and understand its progression better, the drugs developed to combat the disease come closer to the epicentre of the death star. most times, we start out just trying to stop the symptoms we see on the surface.

what is surprising is how long its taken for this research to take place. development of drugs to treat major depression, anxiety and other mental disorders has been more or less at a standstill for decades, with "advances" chiefly comprised of tweaks on previous formulas, especially providing long-release versions of existing drugs. to put that in perspective, aids has been identified, grown to an epidemic, its symptoms treated with a variety of harsh drugs, triggered a massive shift in attitudes towards safe sex, had its spread curtailed in the western world and come to be a manageable condition at various stages, all in the time we've been tinkering with prozac. [note :: i am not saying that all aids victims have access to proper treatment or education, only that the potential to eliminate the virus if caught early enough or mitigate its damage to a great degree exists.]

i'm not claiming to know why this is the case. the brain is an unfathomably complicated piece of machinery, as is evidenced by the fact that we discover entirely new things about it virtually every time we attempt to validate anything we actually think we know. check the prescribing information sheet on any psychiatric drug and you'll find a line that says something like "the mechanism of action is thought to be..." science isn't even trying to convince you that it knows how this thing really works. and while testing out the efficacy of a new sinus medication is likely only to result in a more snot/ less snot check sheet, playing around with the inner workings of your brain requires a little more in the way of due diligence. no one wants this stuff rushed to market.

and you certainly can't argue that there's no money in it. the amount of money in psychiatric drugs is staggering. so unless someone offers some pretty convincing proof that cauliflower cures depression, there is probably more than enough financial incentive to do this sort of work.

i am interested to see how long it takes for this research to spur the development of a newer class of drugs, to see if getting our slacking neuron-producers off their butts represents a great leap forward.

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

don't speak

you might think that it sounds dramatic, but linguistic genocide is something that happens. people in power will go to great lengths to eradicate certain languages, not just for the sheer joy of making the world a lesser place, but as a way of beating down the culture that's associated with it. language has a unique reciprocal bond with culture, and every group that has attempted to break down another has recognised that forbidding a cultural group from communicating in their own language is an extremely effective way to tear apart their culture.

there are lots [and lots and lots and lots] of examples of this sort of thing, some successful, some not, but far too many to cover in one blog post. however, i thought it was worth looking at some languages that have been the subjects of active repression, and what the political consequences of that have been.

devastation :: the native north american languages :: it should come as no surprise that the largest genocide in history [by a ma…

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …