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?

long suffering

i've been meaning to write this post for a while, but, every time i get started, something happens that makes me rethink portions of it, to add or subtract or consider a different way of looking at things. the post was originally going to be my take on a #metoo statement, but i ended up making that post on my personal facebook page. [it's not that i don't love you all, but there are a few things i'm not comfortable putting in the entirely public sphere.] but beyond joining the #metoo juggernaut, i wanted to write something about the wave of sexual assault revelations that continues to swell over the north american media landscape that wasn't about me. then i realised that that was a little more complicated than just writing "so, lotta sex rapes happenin' these days, ain't there?" or whatever it was that i was going to say.

so i tried writing something about just a part of it: the media coverage or the entertainment industry or the politicians or …

jihadvertising?

i keep seeing this ad for tictac candies:



am i the only one who finds the suicide bomber clown at the end a little unnerving? all the nice natural things like the bunny and the [extinct] woolly mammoth and the fruit get devoured by a trying-to-appear-nonthreatening-but-obviously-psychotic clown who then blows himself up. congratulations, tictac, i think this ad has landed you on about a dozen watch lists.

oh and by the way, showing me that your product will somehow cause my stomach to explode in a rainbow of wtf makes me believe that doing consuming tictacs would be a worse dietary decision than the time i ate two raw eggs and a half a bottle of hot sauce on a dare.

making faces :: getting cheeky

blush might just be the last thing that a beauty lover comes to appreciate, seeing as it can be a matter of slight degrees that separates one product from another, and it's most difficult to tell from just swatching a product how it's going to look. and it did take me a long time to appreciate that, despite loving my refined pallor and believing that my natural rosy flush was more than enough of a blush for me, blush is my friend. it softens, sculpts, perfects and, although you might not see it at first blush [yuk yuk yuk], it is something that subtly harmonises with the other colours in a look to make it "complete". yes, it's the most tricky thing to pull off when you're wearing something that doesn't mesh with your own undertones. but it's also the thing that can take a face from gloomy to glowing with a swish of the magic wand known as a makeup brush.

highlighters are an even trickier lot, since many of the more brilliant ones have a tendency to e…