Skip to main content

mental health mondays :: when drugs go retro

the new hotness?
one of the most common complaints about antidepressants is that they take so long to work. adjusting the taps in the bubble bath of your brain is something that takes several weeks- usually around four, but up to eight is not uncommon- during which time you might well be left feeling just as horrible as you were before, but with the added bonus of side effects: lethargy, somnolence and insomnia, nervousness, sweating, farting, nausea... what a time to be alive. in cases where the danger is acute to the patient or to others [those around the patient], doctors generally deal with this by sedating the sufferer within an inch of their life, so that they're much too calm to think about hurting anyone and so that reaching for the razor blade to slice your wrists is just way more effort than you're willing to put into anything.

our friends at science, however, appear to have found something that might address this. that's right, science has discovered a drug- something so new that they're not even willing to give it a name- that appears to fight depression in rats within twenty-four hours. my first reaction upon hearing that was that it was great news, even more so since it apparently achieves this miracle without creating a lot of side effects that are going to make you want to stop taking the drug, which is the problem with a lot of psychiatric medications to begin with. [that's not quite true. my first reaction was to feel sorry for all the depressed rats and to think about what a shitty, shitty job it must be to have to make them depressed in the first place. i'm picturing some forlorn phd student reading shopenhauer and holding the little wheel so that it will not budge, no matter how hard the rats try to run on it.]

but before we start to get all excited, i have a few questions. actually, i have a lot of questions, and none of them are getting answered because the drug is in such an early phase that the manufacturer isn't even telling us anything meaningful about it, since that would allow their competitors to develop something similar. for the moment, all they're willing to share is that, unlike "traditional" medications for depression that work by adjusting levels of serotonin in the brain, this drug works on a completely different neurotransmitter: gaba.

that sounds awesome, but what the manufacturer [and everyone who published what looks like the company's press release with minimal adjustments] doesn't mention is that there are literally dozens of drugs that manipulate gaba already on the market and that many of them are older than the serotonin reuptake inhibitors that this new drug would supposedly be replacing. barbiturates work on gaba. so do benzodiazepines. for that matter, substances that affect gaba are found in certain species of mushrooms [ibotenic acid], common plants [skullcap] and seawater [bromide]. so saying that the drug works by targeting gaba rather than serotonin says absolutely nothing about what makes it new, different, or more effective.

because gaba-modulators are so widespread in pharmacology and the world, it's difficult to generalise about them. if we look at the one category that's generally used for mental health applications- the benzos- then it's worth noting that they're both fast and effective already and while they do have some side effects, the real problem is that they're addictive and can be harsh on your liver. those are really the important things that need to be tested before this gets anywhere near your mouth and stomach.

so yes, this looks like it could be promising. but it also looks like it could be the start of an insidious marketing campaign to get people excited about the properties of a new drug that might just be a new twist on something we've had access to for a long time...

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 …