11–20 of 51 posts
There's nothing wrong with bolstering the Psychiatrist's armamentarium with a novel drug that could help with clinical edge-cases of depression. This article was unfairly biased.
"Could" is nowhere close to good enough for a drug with potentially serious side-effects.
There's nothing wrong with bolstering the Psychiatrist's armamentarium with a novel drug that could help with clinical edge-cases of depression. This article was unfairly biased.
And why not just regular old ketamine instead of a dangerous, untested new derivative? The whole system is broken beyond repair.
Holy shit: > there are concerns about the drug’s withdrawal effects after three of the study’s participants committed suicide within 20 days of its end It doesn't say how many people committed suicide from the control group, but regardless, 3 suicides sounds pretty bad for an anti-depressant. Who would approve a drug like this? The cynic in me says an addictive drug with severe withdrawal effects is exactly what phar…
and then having to stop the thing that works and return to a crappy mind state. Only it is worse because I now have withdrawal symptoms on top of my severe depression, which already put me at risk for suicide.
In my opinion, the issue isn't that there is dependency nor that there is withdrawal effects. After all, these are things that happen and despite the risks, might still be the best available choice for relief. The bigger issue is that we didn't do enough to help folks during this time. We should have provided adequate medical care to keep folks safe. Perhaps we should wean folks off in a better manner and/or provided better psychiatric care to this vulnerable group of folks after trials ended.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And why not just regular old ketamine instead of a dangerous, untested new derivative? The whole system is broken beyond repair.
It is being tested and it's not a "dangerous, untested new derivative", it's a enantiomer of ketamine, it's literally 50% of the molecules in ketamine. And why don't we just use normal ketamine, why test any new drug, to see if it works better than what we had before.
I’m not a biologist or a chemist. Why does this imply the chemical is as safe? What is the benefit? It seems like a blatant patent grab to bypass the low profit margins of ketamine. Is there evidence otherwise?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is being tested and it's not a "dangerous, untested new derivative", it's a enantiomer of ketamine, it's literally 50% of the molecules in ketamine. And why don't we just use normal ketamine, why test any new drug, to see if it works better than what we had before.
> it's a enantiomer of ketamine, it's literally 50% of the molecules in ketamine I’m not a biologist or a chemist. Why does this imply the chemical is as safe? What is the benefit? It seems like a blatant patent grab to bypass the low profit margins of ketamine. Is there evidence otherwise?
The doubt is not so much the safety but is the benefit of the enantiopure version worth the cost.
Holy shit: > there are concerns about the drug’s withdrawal effects after three of the study’s participants committed suicide within 20 days of its end It doesn't say how many people committed suicide from the control group, but regardless, 3 suicides sounds pretty bad for an anti-depressant. Who would approve a drug like this? The cynic in me says an addictive drug with severe withdrawal effects is exactly what phar…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And why not just regular old ketamine instead of a dangerous, untested new derivative? The whole system is broken beyond repair.
It is being tested and it's not a "dangerous, untested new derivative", it's a enantiomer of ketamine, it's literally 50% of the molecules in ketamine. And why don't we just use normal ketamine, why test any new drug, to see if it works better than what we had before.
Water is H₂0. Hydrogen peroxide is H₂0₂. I wouldn't substitute one for the other.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is being tested and it's not a "dangerous, untested new derivative", it's a enantiomer of ketamine, it's literally 50% of the molecules in ketamine. And why don't we just use normal ketamine, why test any new drug, to see if it works better than what we had before.
> it's a enantiomer of ketamine, it's literally 50% of the molecules in ketamine I’m not a biologist or a chemist. Why does this imply the chemical is as safe? What is the benefit? It seems like a blatant patent grab to bypass the low profit margins of ketamine. Is there evidence otherwise?
There's nothing wrong with bolstering the Psychiatrist's armamentarium with a novel drug that could help with clinical edge-cases of depression. This article was unfairly biased.
The problem is that we have a drug that has a similar mechanism of action, and that we know is more effective than eskatamine. That's ketamine infusions.
We don't use that because it doesn't have a licence for this use, and because infusions are expensive and time consuming. But also, it's off-patent and so it's hard to make money from it.
Eskatamine only exists to bring a patentable medication to market, and so far the testing we have show it doesn't work particularly well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is being tested and it's not a "dangerous, untested new derivative", it's a enantiomer of ketamine, it's literally 50% of the molecules in ketamine. And why don't we just use normal ketamine, why test any new drug, to see if it works better than what we had before.
A lot of chemicals are "50%" of each other but completely different. That's not how chemistry works. Water is H₂0. Hydrogen peroxide is H₂0₂. I wouldn't substitute one for the other.