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

Most people on antidepressants don’t need them

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 167 posts

Re: Most people on antidepressants don’t need them

#91

Post by aa-jv »

fragmede wrote: post #87
aa-jv wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"normal" or "good", either way you become a "culturally acceptable" drug addict who must purchase a prescription for a drug made specifically for the purpose of creating a market of addicts.

Well yeah it's "culturally acceptable" because of they low abuse potential, which is to say there are real actual differences that go into making it culturally acceptable. No one is crushing up their SSRIs and snorting them and going in to sex work to pay for the habit the same way heroin users do, because, well it's not a drug addiction as recognized by the psychiatric industry.

>psychiatric industry

The same people reaping massive profits are telling you whether or not you should think of these drugs as 'normal' or not.

Nothing is normal about a lifetime addiction - whether the high you get is a party high, or a "I am feeling normal, where normal has been defined for me by a high priest who actually happens to also be my pimp" ..

Re: Most people on antidepressants don’t need them

#92

Post by sirsinsalot »

dvt wrote: post #84
sirsinsalot wrote: post #43

Like it or not, you are your neurology. You are your synaptic structure, you are your neurotransmitters. This trick of conscious self awareness doesn't trump neurology. You can't meditate out of physical systems malfunctioning any more than you can meditate away a broken leg. These drugs are like casts for broken bones. Just because you can't see the broken system doesn't make it less physical. Get a cast. Heal the a…

> These drugs are like casts for broken bones. Just because you can't see the broken system doesn't make it less physical. They're absolutely not like this. In fact, doctors themselves will tell you we aren't 100% sure how or why they work, and so will a Psychology 101 class. That's why medication is generally given in conjunction with counseling/therapy.

You can be unsure of exactly how they work, but be able to verify that they do (unsure in a scientific sense can still be quite sure. MRI imaging to verify is hard.).

The cast analogy of a "supporting treatment" stands.

I mean, the fact the comments here exist on a forum primarily concerned with engineering is astounding.

Medication is given with counselling and therapy because that too can enact change on neurochemisty through self direction when the system isn't in functional collapse.

For a broken leg you might have metal pins and physio. For a broken leg we wouldn't be having these odd discussions, and the brain is fair more complex.

Maybe everyone should stop taking psych 101 and counting themselves experts in neurochemistry and neuropsychiatry then dishing out poor advice.

Admittedly the US health care system is broken by perverse incentives and so on, but let's not turn that into an attack on the science and efficacy of the drugs themselves for many people.

Re: Most people on antidepressants don’t need them

#93

Post by qzx_pierri »

4ggr0 wrote: post #59
cameronh90 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree. I believe we have no idea how these drugs work at the moment. For one, serotonin receptors are _everywhere_, notably the gut, which also has a strong relationship with emotional state. And as you point out, they don't just affect serotonin. Given we have a whole bunch of drugs that attempt to be serotonin selective, but where each one affects different people in different ways, it seems likely to…

> Why would a huge chunk of the population have a imbalance of brain chemicals? That's what I think about from time to time as well. I have ADD and take meds for it. But I'm pretty sure that I only need these meds to be able to work in an open-space, corporate IT environment with dead-lines, responsibilities etc. Without meds I get overwhelmed and panicky quickly, when taking them they turn me into kind of an office…

Same here, man. It’s for the reason you described in your first paragraph. Working in a soul sucking corporate office space is so painful for certain personality types.

For me at least, I’ve always thought it would be cool to be a delivery driver or someone who’s out and about everyday moving around… but I stuck with IT because it makes astronomically more money.

So sitting at a desk all day will require me be medicated because my baseline preference is to be up and moving, working with my hands, talking to people, etc.

I think a lot of people with ADHD that’s severe enough to require medication are just people who don’t do work that truly fits their personality.

Which if we’re being honest, sitting at a desk all day is not natural. I never needed Adderall when I was working in a warehouse in college, or when I was a city guide that was supposed to walk around downtown and greet people.

tl;dr Unnatural lifestyles require unnatural supplements.

Re: Most people on antidepressants don’t need them

#94

Post by fragmede »

aa-jv wrote: post #91
fragmede wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well yeah it's "culturally acceptable" because of they low abuse potential, which is to say there are real actual differences that go into making it culturally acceptable. No one is crushing up their SSRIs and snorting them and going in to sex work to pay for the habit the same way heroin users do, because, well it's not a drug addiction as recognized by the psychiatric industry.

>psychiatric industry The same people reaping massive profits are telling you whether or not you should think of these drugs as 'normal' or not. Nothing is normal about a lifetime addiction - whether the high you get is a party high, or a "I am feeling normal, where normal has been defined for me by a high priest who actually happens to also be my pimp" ..

My life-long addiction to food and water and oxygen would like to disagree.

Re: Most people on antidepressants don’t need them

#95

Post by sirsinsalot »

swayvil wrote: post #89
sirsinsalot wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really, I'm just saying you are your neurons and their configuration and function. If not, what are "you"? There's nothing else but the state and mechanics in your brain and their interface with the world. I appreciate for some, this fact is scary. For some, it undermines odd outdated ideas of soul or spirit. That doesn't make it less true. Sometimes this complex, organic, non-deterministic, environment coupled,…

You are merely reiterating your argument, with an accusation of fear and religion on top.

Your comments were not a rebuttal of mine, just a vague "doesn't sound right to me".

So ..

Re: Most people on antidepressants don’t need them

#96

Post by edanm »

aa-jv wrote: post #86
cameronh90 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree. I believe we have no idea how these drugs work at the moment. For one, serotonin receptors are _everywhere_, notably the gut, which also has a strong relationship with emotional state. And as you point out, they don't just affect serotonin. Given we have a whole bunch of drugs that attempt to be serotonin selective, but where each one affects different people in different ways, it seems likely to…

>Why would a huge chunk of the population have a imbalance of brain chemicals? Because they are all members of a society whose food production is controlled by 2 or 3 mega-corporations, who also, incidentally, have an interest in selling pharmaceutical products to make people feel better about their lives ..

That's quite a huge accusation, do you have any evidence to back that up at all?

Cause if I understand the implication correctly, you're basically saying that the 2-3 megacorps who control food production (which is already far from true, IMO) are literally poisoning people to cause them to need antidepressants.

Re: Most people on antidepressants don’t need them

#97

Post by cameronh90 »

aa-jv wrote: post #75
cameronh90 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe I was quite careful in what I said rather than pimping antidepressants. Each time I start a course of antidepressants, I am genuinely worried what the outcome will be. Messing with your brain chemistry isn't something to do lightly. But equally, for many people, possibly including myself, it quite literally saves their life. However, I must take umbrage at your characterisation of how considering a course o…

These drugs ruin lives just as efficiently as they 'improve' them. Be very, very careful if you are going to advise people that they should overlook the evidence of this fact, "because they're great for me so you should try them too!". Yes, you are pimping these drugs in so doing.

It's very rare that these drugs ruin someone's life. For the most part, if they don't work for you, you just stop taking them and try something else instead without any long term side consequences.

There is the very well known risk of suicide in adolescents in particular, which is printed in a black box warning on all of these drugs. This potential side effect usually very early on in the treatment, and usually occurs in people who already had suicidal tendencies. Discontinuing the drug immediately typically resolves this. Responsible doctors will weigh up this risk and ensure that everything is done to make this less likely.

Other things are like sexual side effects can persist for some time after discontinuation, but nearly always resolve eventually. Serotonin syndrome is another risk but the chance of that is fairly low unless you take other serotonin-affecting drugs.

Should these risks be weighed up when considering treatment? Absolutely. Does that make the drugs harmful overall? Absolutely not. Look at some of the people who've experienced permanent nerve damage as a result of quinolone antibiotics - yet they are still on the market because sometimes there is no alternative besides death.

Re: Most people on antidepressants don’t need them

#98

Post by aa-jv »

edanm wrote: post #96
aa-jv wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why would a huge chunk of the population have a imbalance of brain chemicals? Because they are all members of a society whose food production is controlled by 2 or 3 mega-corporations, who also, incidentally, have an interest in selling pharmaceutical products to make people feel better about their lives ..

That's quite a huge accusation, do you have any evidence to back that up at all? Cause if I understand the implication correctly, you're basically saying that the 2-3 megacorps who control food production (which is already far from true, IMO) are literally poisoning people to cause them to need antidepressants.

Are pharmaceuticals food?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2021/...

Americans eat the most hyper-processed food on the planet. They're also over-prescribed with anti-depressant pharmaceuticals. Causation/Correlation? You decide: move outside the scope of Bayer's and Monsanto's reach, and see for yourself how less depressed you feel on a daily basis after a few months of real food ..

Final word: Nestlé.

Re: Most people on antidepressants don’t need them

#99

Post by mrweasel »

cameronh90 wrote: post #21

Statements like this need to be worded very carefully. In many people's minds, saying something like "most people don't need antidepressants" quickly becomes "antidepressants are useless". Many people who may benefit from them get scared away. Speaking as someone who has been on/off antidepressants for GAD+OCD for the better part of a decade, I've had countless people tell me that antidepressants are useless and just…

> Statements like this need to be worded very carefully.

I had a whole thing typed up, but deleted it, because I really only had one question: How would you word it differently?

To me it seems a carefully worded as possible, while still alerting to the fact that a class of drugs with terrible side effects are being massively overprescribed.

Re: Most people on antidepressants don’t need them

#100

Post by amai »

Try Vitamin B1 as antidepressant:

Cheap and basically no side effect: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26984349/

Especially some B1 analogues like Benfotiamine and Sulbutiamine are promising: https://nootropicsexpert.com/sulbutiamine/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B1_analogues

Post reply on HN