Skip to main content

mental health mondays :: are we doing it wrong?

there's a small but growing body of evidence that everything that we know about depression and treating it may be at best misleading. for many years, scientists and psychiatrists have operated on the belief that depression is triggered by the brain's inability to maintain proper levels of the neurotransmitter serotonin. for decades, medicines developed for the treatment of depression have hinged on the belief that in order to overcome the condition, it was necessary to ensure a greater supply of serotonin in the brain. maoi's [monoamine oxidase inhibitors if you feel comfortable pronouncing it] were designed years ago to retard the enzymes that broke serotonin down, leaving more of it to enjoy. newer drugs- developed because maoi's have difficult side effects and can cause significant problems when taken long term- slow the process of serotonin being sucked out of the part of the brain where it is needed for mood regulation, allowing it to baste in its own delicious juices for longer. these ssri drugs [selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors] have become some of the most widely prescribed drugs in north america and there has been a lot of criticism that they are in fact over-prescribed, handed out too soon and to people who may not need them.

now, there are questions about whether or not serotonin even has any effect on depression. a study tracking mice bred without the ability to produce any serotonin [if i think too hard about the creepy implications of that, i'm going to need more than an antidepressant] showed no signs of depression. according to what we "know", that should be impossible, but it turns out that the little buggers were hyper-aggressive and compulsive [perhaps backing the theory that serotonin is important in treating behavioural disorders like ocd and drug addiction], they functioned fairly well under stress.

this is one more disturbing bit of news about a class of drugs that is given to millions every year and whose long term effects are only now coming to be understood. it dovetails with an earlier study [actually an analysis of several studies] that indicated ssri's are don't provide much more help than doing nothing. more interestingly, the study showed that they were only helpful in treating the most severely depressed people and that the milder the case of depression, the less of an effect they had. you would think that the opposite would be the case- that those with the mildest forms of depression would benefit the most, while those who were more depressed would need higher doses or additional treatments to pull them out of their black holes. instead, the results indicate that while having more serotonin is better than nothing, it's more of a bonus than anything else. the real cause [and cure] seems to lie elsewhere.

there are those who have voiced the opinion that the reason that ssri's don't function on people with milder depression is that their serotonin levels aren't what's at issue and that they might be better treated without drugs, rather than toying with neurochemicals that aren't out of balance to begin with. and that viewpoint deserves consideration. but the fact that even the most severely depressed patients saw only a slight improvement from the use of ssri's indicates that there are probably better areas to look for a panacea.

the complexities of the human brain are such that we may never be able to definitively say what causes and what inhibits depression- or rather that, every time we say it definitively, further research is likely to undermine our assumptions. for now, the debate continues and, one hopes, research into better treatments does as well.

[previously]

Comments

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

white trash

yes, my lovelies, i have returned from the dead, at least for the time it takes me to write this post. this is not just another piece of observational drivel about how i haven't been taking care of the blog lately, although i clearly haven't. on that front, though, the principal cause of my absence has actually been due to me trying to get another, somewhat related project, off the ground. unfortunately, that project has met with some frustrating delays which means that anyone who follows this blog [perhaps there are still a few of you who haven't entirely given up] would understandably be left with the impression that i'd simply forsaken more like space to marvel at the complexity of my own belly button lint. [it's possible you had that impression even before i disappeared.]

ok, enough with that. i have a subject i wanted to discuss with you, in the sense that i will want and encourage you to respond with questions, concerns and criticism in the comments or by em…

making faces :: a lip for all seasons [summer edition]

this may seem like an odd time to think about summer, but not to think about coolness. it can be hard to wrap your head around the idea that summer is considered "cool" in colour analysis terms and, in my opinion, reads as the coolest of the cool, because everything in it is touched with the same chilly grey. winter may have the coldest colours, but its palette is so vivid that it distracts the eye. everything in summer is fresh and misty, like the morning sky before the sun breaks through. in my original post on the season, i compared it to monet's paintings of waterlilies at his garden in giverny and, if i do say so, i think that's an apt characterisation.

finding lip colours touched with summer grey and blue is, as you might expect, kind of tricky. the cosmetic world seems obsessed with bringing warmth, which doesn't recognise that some complexions don't support it well. [also, different complexions support different kinds of warmth, but that's another…

i agree, smedley [or, smokers totally saved our planet in 1983]

so this conversation happened [via text, so i have evidence and possibly so does the canadian government and the nsa].

dom and i were trying to settle our mutual nerves about tomorrow night's conversion screening, remembering that we've made a fine little film that people should see. which is just about exactly what dom had said when i responded thusly:

me :: i agree smedley. [pauses for a moment] did you get that here?

dom :: no?

me :: the aliens who were looking at earth and then decided it wasn't worth bothering with because people smoked even though it was bad for them?
come to think of it, that might mean that smokers prevented an alien invasion in the seventies.

dom :: what ?!?!?

me :: i've had wine and very little food. [pause] but the alien thing was real. [pause.] well, real on tv.

dom :: please eat something.

of course, i was wrong. the ad in question ran in 1983. this is the part where i would triumphantly embed the ad from youtube, except that the governmen…