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

“No convincing evidence” that depression is caused by low serotonin levels

bmj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 625 posts

Re: “No convincing evidence” that depression is caused by low serotonin levels

#131

Post by harry8 »

chx wrote: post #78
pindab0ter wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because you might have gotten a diagnosis that helped you doesn’t mean everyone has. I for one am actually interested if he can back up that claim. So when you as them to “Go on…”, please leave it at that. There’s no reason to be snarky.

doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.5335 > Findings In this systematic scoping review of 334 published studies in children and adolescents, convincing evidence was found that ADHD is overdiagnosed in children and adolescents. For individuals with milder symptoms in particular, the harms associated with an ADHD diagnosis may often outweigh the benefits.

Hey can you do that and provide something similar about cholesterol? I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

Re: “No convincing evidence” that depression is caused by low serotonin levels

#134

Post by staticman2 »

asveikau wrote: post #69
throw__away7391 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same here. I've seen multiple people after getting along fine for years get prescribed these meds, and within two years end up completely unable to function, hold a job, maintain composure during a conversation (breaking down in tears or becoming violently angry), cook their own food, etc. and need to talk to a therapist multiple times a week. I'm sure "they're doing it wrong", but these were fully licensed doctors,…

Are you sure it isn't the condition that they were seeking treatment for that contributed to these things? I'll give an example, I read once that about 60% of people with bipolar disorder are unemployed. It isn't the diagnosis that does that. So I just read that comment as "they sought treatment and ever since they were a wreck". Seems like the causality could go the other way.

There's some very scary anecdotes out there. I saw one on an obscure subreddit for people suffering from negative antidepressant drug symptoms where a person said they went to the hospital immediately after taking an SSRI due to an adverse reaction and they have had trouble concentrating on things since.

If the person is correct and not dusional they had a statistically unlikely reaction to the drug- presumably too rare to show up in the drug approval process- and it ruined their life.

Re: “No convincing evidence” that depression is caused by low serotonin levels

#135

Post by TulliusCicero »

chx wrote: post #57

There's a significant population of science denying cranks and so those who want to raise legit concerns about the quality and alas, often motivation of medical studies are easily grouped with those. But: 1. There's no such thing as good / bad cholesterol. This is complete baloney and Pfizer lost a staggering amount of money when a drug raising good cholesterol got as far as human trials -- and failed them. There is…

> then eventually find that 30-80% of ASD children are meeting criteria for ADHD. First of all what sort of study is 30-80%? But if the higher end is true, the question strongly arises: are these even two things?

80% of ASD kids meeting criteria for ADHD doesn't mean that 80% of ADHD kids meet the criteria for ASD. ADHD seems a lot more common.

Re: “No convincing evidence” that depression is caused by low serotonin levels

#136

Post by eyelidlessness »

photochemsyn wrote: post #90
eyelidlessness wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The diagnosis and treatment of ADHD in adults but most especially in children is extremely suspect. Go on… (I’m adult diagnosed, for disclosure, but please do go on and tell me how suspect my diagnosis was, how I shouldn’t have been diagnosed as a child, how my medication is harmful. Go on and tell me about my life which you know better than I do.)

I think OP is just saying that 'ADHD' is not that valid of a diagnosis, in terms of any kind of underlying 'pathology'. The fact that many people appear to benefit from the use of 'medication' (i.e. amphetamines and derivatives, from Adderall to Desoxyn(methamphetamine) to Ritalin), is mostly unrelated to any 'diagnosis'. Personally I think all drugs should be legal and people should be able to take whatever they thi…

> I think OP is just saying that 'ADHD' is not that valid of a diagnosis

I understand this in the comment’s expression too, and it’s emphatically wrong.

> benefit from the use of 'medication' (i.e. amphetamines and derivatives, from Adderall to Desoxyn(methamphetamine) to Ritalin), is mostly unrelated to any 'diagnosis'.

You’re incorrect.

> Personally I think all drugs should be legal and people should be able to take whatever they think helps them

I agree, but this has nothing to do with the validity of actual diagnoses of actually treatable conditions.

Re: “No convincing evidence” that depression is caused by low serotonin levels

#137

Post by readthenotes1 »

dymk wrote: post #120
petesergeant wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the pop-culture misunderstandings about "low serotonin" Let’s be clear though, I had an actual licensed psychiatrist say this to me last week. It’s not like people are getting this “pop-culture” information via blog articles…

It's possible the psychiatrist is using "low serotonin" as a simple shorthand meant for the layperson

No post body was provided.

Re: “No convincing evidence” that depression is caused by low serotonin levels

#138

Post by tptacek »

chx wrote: post #88
junofan wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GP also claimed the treatment is extremely suspect yet provided nothing to back up the claim. Does GP think the treatment does not work? AFAIK it is among the most treatable psychiatric illnesses.

doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.5335 > Findings > In this systematic scoping review of 334 published studies in children and adolescents, convincing evidence was found that ADHD is overdiagnosed in children and adolescents. For individuals with milder symptoms in particular, the harms associated with an ADHD diagnosis may often outweigh the benefits. What I mean is that we feed children Ritalin without a second thou…

This study comes nowhere close to supporting the claim you made upthread, that "The diagnosis and treatment of ADHD in adults but most especially in children is extremely suspect". The claims it makes are much narrower than your claim (in particular, it focuses on mild ADHD cases, and the "harms" it discusses from medication are subjective, like the diagnosis providing "an excuse for problems".

Re: “No convincing evidence” that depression is caused by low serotonin levels

#139

Post by tptacek »

chx wrote: post #98
photochemsyn wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think OP is just saying that 'ADHD' is not that valid of a diagnosis, in terms of any kind of underlying 'pathology'. The fact that many people appear to benefit from the use of 'medication' (i.e. amphetamines and derivatives, from Adderall to Desoxyn(methamphetamine) to Ritalin), is mostly unrelated to any 'diagnosis'. Personally I think all drugs should be legal and people should be able to take whatever they thi…

You got it. The shakiness of this entire thing also shows in how the medication for ADHD is chosen: by trial and error. For real.

That's how medication for all sorts of things is chosen.

Re: “No convincing evidence” that depression is caused by low serotonin levels

#140

Post by techdragon »

dymk wrote: post #120
petesergeant wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the pop-culture misunderstandings about "low serotonin" Let’s be clear though, I had an actual licensed psychiatrist say this to me last week. It’s not like people are getting this “pop-culture” information via blog articles…

It's possible the psychiatrist is using "low serotonin" as a simple shorthand meant for the layperson

Or like many practicing medical professionals in many specialties where the patient demand is high enough to fill their week ... they don't have time to keep abreast of current research in their field and since they aren't required to, they just don't. There is usually some required ongoing professional development but that is in no way designed to ensure they keep up with current research consensus, more that they don't continue doing things the old way when we know about newer better ways.
Post reply on HN