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?

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 …