Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Experimental depression treatment is nearly 80% effective in controlled study

med.stanford.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 339 posts

Re: Experimental depression treatment is nearly 80% effective in controlled study

#241

Post by andybak »

jjeaff wrote: post #230
neuroma wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great Post, thank you for sharing. I do take issue with the commonly parroted claim that depression can be a chemical imbalance. It's a notion arising from pharma marketing psyops, and is largely without utility. It even risks being an antipattern. The few pros include separating responsibility and thus alleviating some guilt, which often coexists with depression, and annoying spiritualists. Tell me if I missed any.…

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Just that we shouldn't recognize that depression can be a chemical issue because that doesn't help us fix the problem? Are you saying that anti-depressants don't work? So if depression is more about mental models, life choices, and drive and whatever, why do so many people suffer from depression in cycles? There is little change from one day to the next, and yet, many pe…

Not GP and not even sure I agree with them.

However I think there's some semantic issues with "chemical imbalance" that are worthy of examination. Depending on your basic philosophical views regarding materialism and the origin of consciousness, you might be of the view that all mental states are the result of brain states. This is a reasonable view. Considering what we know about brain function and the rather broad meaning of the words "chemical" and "imbalance" arguably all brain states are the result of "chemical imbalance" of some kind.

(I know the brain is also an electrical system but the electrical pathways are deeply entwined with the chemical ones)

Re: Experimental depression treatment is nearly 80% effective in controlled study

#242

Post by magicalhippo »

xapata wrote: post #208
nebula8804 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>For me, a short 3-4 month course of a particular SSRI lets me beat back the worst of it Can you elaborate which one are you using? I was prescribed Wellbutrin/bupropion (along with some therapy sessions) about a month ago and I seem to notice no changes. I'm going to continue to be hopeful but it seems like this wasn't the one for me so just wondering what you were using.

I found medications ineffective, but my last therapist helped me tremendously. If your therapist isn't helping, find a new one. There's no shame in switching.

> If your therapist isn't helping, find a new one.

This has been my experience as well, both personally and through friends.

An important point is that a therapist which works for someone might not work for you, it's rather personal.

Re: Experimental depression treatment is nearly 80% effective in controlled study

#244

Post by aabceh »

jjeaff wrote: post #230
neuroma wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great Post, thank you for sharing. I do take issue with the commonly parroted claim that depression can be a chemical imbalance. It's a notion arising from pharma marketing psyops, and is largely without utility. It even risks being an antipattern. The few pros include separating responsibility and thus alleviating some guilt, which often coexists with depression, and annoying spiritualists. Tell me if I missed any.…

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Just that we shouldn't recognize that depression can be a chemical issue because that doesn't help us fix the problem? Are you saying that anti-depressants don't work? So if depression is more about mental models, life choices, and drive and whatever, why do so many people suffer from depression in cycles? There is little change from one day to the next, and yet, many pe…

Anti-depressant alter your brain chemicals almost immediately once you start taking them but the anti-depressant effects usually come a couple of months after. Which suggests there might be more to the issue than just a 'chemical imbalance'.

Re: Experimental depression treatment is nearly 80% effective in controlled study

#245

Post by jokowueu »

jokowueu wrote: post #188
fnord77 wrote: post #22

is this any different than the theta-burst TMS that's being trialied by other outfits?

TBS is just a higher dose TMS in a short period This is TMS but they specifically targets the subgenual cingulate uniquely for each patient with help of fmri . Usuially they target a location at r13 which is easier but the location of the subgenual cingulate is unique to each person sometimes u are lucky and it's r13 sometimes it's not

I meant the f3 method not r13

Re: Experimental depression treatment is nearly 80% effective in controlled study

#246

Post by baq »

lexapro wrote: post #203
antris wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Depending on the severity of the depression, a depressed person might have problems with even basic things as brushing teeth and showering regularly and being able to do household chores.

There are non-depressed people who also struggle with this, I think.

maybe they are depressed and just don't know it.

Re: Experimental depression treatment is nearly 80% effective in controlled study

#247

Post by giantg2 »

driverdan wrote: post #93
giantg2 wrote: post #88

I wonder what the underlying mechanism is. With the prevalence of magnetic fields in everyday life, I wonder if these could be affecting people negatively from prolonged exposure at lower doses or frequency.

It has no impact thanks to the inverse square law. This is a much stronger field, very close to the brain, done in a targeted way.

Do you have some data on that? How about for people on a degaussed ship?

I understand the inverse square and that this is a very strong field. I was wondering about chronic exposure to weaker fields.

Re: Experimental depression treatment is nearly 80% effective in controlled study

#248

Post by giantg2 »

zarmin wrote: post #110
giantg2 wrote: post #88

I wonder what the underlying mechanism is. With the prevalence of magnetic fields in everyday life, I wonder if these could be affecting people negatively from prolonged exposure at lower doses or frequency.

"Fuckin' magnets, how do they work?"

Not how magnets work. What are their physiological effects that cause these improvements?

Re: Experimental depression treatment is nearly 80% effective in controlled study

#249

Post by giantg2 »

eru wrote: post #164
driverdan wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has no impact thanks to the inverse square law. This is a much stronger field, very close to the brain, done in a targeted way.

To provide an analogy: wifi has more or less the same kind of radiation as a microwave oven. But wifi is much weaker and not inside a faraday cage. So it doesn't cook you.

Ok, so we know that lower exposure doesn't cause the acute effects. What I'm asking about is chronic lower exposure.

To continue your analogy, there is inconclusive data showing that RF exposure could reduce sperm count or be a risk factor for certain cancers.

Re: Experimental depression treatment is nearly 80% effective in controlled study

#250

Post by seba_dos1 »

lexapro wrote: post #203
antris wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Depending on the severity of the depression, a depressed person might have problems with even basic things as brushing teeth and showering regularly and being able to do household chores.

There are non-depressed people who also struggle with this, I think.

Things like ADHD can make it a real struggle, although depression is a frequent comorbidity.
Post reply on HN