The psychiatric drug crisis • Hacker News Board

Re: The psychiatric drug crisis

#151

Post by lutusp » Mon, Sep 09, 2013, 2:50 AM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #145

lutusp wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Honest question, what's the difference between 'appear' and 'apparently' to you? They have similar etymologies, but their current meanings are diverging. An apparent difference may not be visual -- at least, not to the degree that an examination of the word's history would lead one to believe. An appearance of difference still is primarily visual. And yes -- this is to some degree splitting hairs.

Interesting. I don't focus on visuals at all when I say 'appear'. Well, certainly not more than with 'apparent' or other similar words.

You know, this might just be my personal reading of these words. When I hear "apparent" I don't necessarily think of its connection with the visual, I think "evident", in spite of the etymological connection with the visual Latin root. But to me, "appear" cries out for a visual interpretation, much more so than for "apparent".

Again, I think this may be splitting hairs -- I might be making too much of this.

"Apparent" in a thesaurus: http://thesaurus.com/browse/apparent

"appear" in a thesaurus: http://thesaurus.com/browse/appear

Quite a difference.

Re: The psychiatric drug crisis

#152

Post by DannyBee » Mon, Sep 09, 2013, 8:32 AM UTC

chimeracoder wrote: post #143

DannyBee wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is true my psychiatrists are not on insurance plans. This is a larger problem with how mental illness treatment is funded/supported. I was diagnosed as a child about 27 years ago (IE well before the current "popularity"). My treatments did change. I learned to cope with some aspects, the medications I used changed (I am on a non-stimulant now, Straterra, that works as well as my stimulants did). Besides being able…

> I am on a non-stimulant now, Straterra, that works as well as my stimulants did That's interesting - thanks for sharing. IIRC Strattera is relatively new; I wonder if the drugs themselves are getting more effective, or if the most effective drug for a person changes over time based on physiological changes or external factors. I don't have any personal experience to compare it with, but of my friends who have been…

"That's interesting - thanks for sharing. IIRC Strattera is relatively new; I wonder if the drugs themselves are getting more effective, or if the most effective drug for a person changes over time based on physiological changes or external factors."

Yes, Straterra is relatively new. I became immune to ritalin (well, roughly) after taking it for so many years, and Adderall, even in the XR version, started becoming less and less effective for me. This is apparently normal, and medication switching is common over long term treatment.

My doctor said she could up the dosage, but that she'd rather try Stratterra first, given the advantages of that vs high-dose stimulants

Note that 20 years ago, the common viewpoint was that adult adhd did not exist, that it simply "wore off" as you got older.

Straterra has worked fine for years so far, and i have not seen any of the gradual reduction effect that was completely obvious in all the stimulants over time.

I'll drop you a line.

Re: The psychiatric drug crisis

#153

Post by tsotha » Tue, Sep 10, 2013, 4:27 AM UTC

danmaz74 wrote: post #137

tsotha wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a drug designer's perspective, though, this is a problem. If you don't know why the current drugs work you're going to have a lot of trouble improving them.

Yes, but to know "why" (I'd much rather say "how") current drugs work you don't need to know "why" people get certain illnesses - that's my issue with the article. Their logic is: low serotonin levels aren't the cause of depression - so raising serotonin levels will not eliminate the cause of depression - so doing that isn't useful. That's a naive (and wrong) logic. Your heart going into fibrillation is not the cause…

>Yes, but to know "why" (I'd much rather say "how") current drugs work you don't need to know "why" people get certain illnesses - that's my issue with the article.

Well, that's true. But I think he makes a reasonably compelling argument that we don't in fact know why the current generation of drugs works.