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?

fun-raising

no, i am not dead, nor have i been lying incapacitated in a ditch somewhere. i've mostly been preparing for our imminent, epic move, which is actually not so terribly epic, because we found a place quite close to where we are now. in addition, i've been the beneficiary of an inordinately large amount of paying work, which does, sadly, take precedence over blogging, even though you know i'd always rather be with you.

indeed, with moving expenses and medical expenses looming on the horizon, more than can be accounted for even with the deepest cuts in the lipstick budget, dom and i recently did something that we've not done before: we asked for help. last week, we launched a fundraising campaign on go fund me. it can be difficult to admit that you need a helping hand, but what's been overwhelming for both of us is how quick to respond so many people we know have been once we asked. it's also shocking to see how quickly things added up.

most of all, though, the ex…

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 …