• H&R Moderators: VerbalTruist

Reverse anti-depressant theory

rollingstoned!

Bluelighter
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
441
Location
NJ (at the trainstation)
So I was thinking that most anti-depressants made nowadays are pretty much made to be used at a consistent rate (e.g. every day). This way the pharm companies make money and if the user stops using them, they feel depressed and go right back, in most cases at least. I think this is completely fucked up. My theory is to make the patient more depressed instead of more happy. Of course, the patient must have no way of committing suicide as this would completely defeat the purpose. So say a patient would normally be fixed with an ssri (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor) that they have to take every day. Well instead of giving them an ssri which they have to take every day, you give them an ssre (selective serotonin reuptake enhancer; which does the complete opposite of an ssri). Well when the patient comes off said ssre, they would be not depressed anymore because they're used to being synthetically depressed. Anyone have thoughts on this?
 
Well I'm saying that if a person responded well to an SSRI, then put them on an SSRE. If a person responded well to a DRI, put them on a DRE. Or if someone responded well to a GRI (gaba reuptake inhibitor), put them on a GRE. The point is you find which neurotranssmitters makes the person happy, and then you do the complete opposite and put a strain on those systems. When the get off the reuptake enhancer, they will be happy. I feel this would a be a true "cure" since the person would be happy forever without drugs.
 
^ This is very flawed reasoning. You are relying too much on big-pharma marketing that has become "conventional knowledge".

The truth is that no single transmitter can be pegged down for a given effect. It is not a simple "more serotonin", "less norepinephrine"...etc.

Mood and cognition are emergent phenomena that is more than the sum-total of ALL transmitters EVERYWHERE at this point in time. And THAT is constantly in flux.
 
^Yes- we get the impression that drugs have a precise effect on consciousness but it is more like giving a piece of machinery that is acting up a whack on the side. Might work, might make things worse, might not do much of anything. I like how as SSRI patents ran out more and more papers came out that admitted they don't really do much. http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2008/01/a_study_finds_antidepressants.html
 
The root of the issue is how acceptable it is from a doctor's standpoint to deliberately intend to do harm in a situation where the person is depressed. That's the pharmaceutical equivalent of pushing someone who's afraid of water into a pool. I personally see depression as bad trip, something that makes me afraid. Treating the brain like an experiment is just that: an experiment. I'm really not sure, the way pharmaceutical companies operate, whether or not current treatment strategies are even legal from a basic business law or contract law perspective. Then again it would be crazy to suggest that there is major criminal activity taking place in front of everyone's eyes.
 
I'm not saying serotonin is the only neurotransimitter that needs more or less. I know humans are different and need different fixing. I also know that some humans aren't feeling good with their natural chemistry. So if someone feels "right" with more gaba, then you give them less gaba. This way they don't have to take gaba drugs everyday. Just 4 or so weeks of hell for a lifetime of peace. I understand you have to nail down what neurotransmitter systems need more or less, but instead of relying on a drug to fill that need the person's need of more of a substance, their bodies would be doing it instead. Why? Because the mind has suddenly become synthetically depressed and now it's not being depressed anymore.
 
The root of the issue is how acceptable it is from a doctor's standpoint to deliberately intend to do harm in a situation where the person is depressed. That's the pharmaceutical equivalent of pushing someone who's afraid of water into a pool. I personally see depression as bad trip, something that makes me afraid. Treating the brain like an experiment is just that: an experiment. I'm really not sure, the way pharmaceutical companies operate, whether or not current treatment strategies are even legal from a basic business law or contract law perspective. Then again it would be crazy to suggest that there is major criminal activity taking place in front of everyone's eyes.

Well then call me crazy, Balls <3
 
You wouldn't be pushing them into a pool because they would have to be under constant survelliance and free off any possible ways of committing suicide. Once the drugs are stopped, they are not in hell anymore and hence happy. Or is that too hardcore of treatment for someone who will be depressed for the rest of their lives?
 
Well I'm saying that if a person responded well to an SSRI, then put them on an SSRE. If a person responded well to a DRI, put them on a DRE. Or if someone responded well to a GRI (gaba reuptake inhibitor), put them on a GRE. The point is you find which neurotranssmitters makes the person happy, and then you do the complete opposite and put a strain on those systems. When the get off the reuptake enhancer, they will be happy. I feel this would a be a true "cure" since the person would be happy forever without drugs.
tolerance to the "good" things can come more quickly than the "bad".. euphoria goes away quicker than side effects eg. it'd take quite a lot of pain for quite some time before any beneficial receptor changes occur, and even then it would be taking a drug that makes you worse for months or years, and then only having a month or two of relief.

i don't know if it'd work but i imagine in many cases the brain would adapt to the changes and cause the beneficial adaptations like you say (*IF* it's as simple as a neurotransmitter system dial, which depression usually isn't) but if you're depressed you may not have that adaptabilty subjectively and you may just make yourself a fuckload worse. if you have anxiety or insomnia and need gaba, stressing your body even more and ramping up the anxiety will not help at all (just like w/d from gaba drugs does not help at all)
 
I'm not saying serotonin is the only neurotransimitter that needs more or less. I know humans are different and need different fixing. I also know that some humans aren't feeling good with their natural chemistry. So if someone feels "right" with more gaba, then you give them less gaba. This way they don't have to take gaba drugs everyday. Just 4 or so weeks of hell for a lifetime of peace. I understand you have to nail down what neurotransmitter systems need more or less, but instead of relying on a drug to fill that need the person's need of more of a substance, their bodies would be doing it instead. Why? Because the mind has suddenly become synthetically depressed and now it's not being depressed anymore.

But you still miss the point. It is not an issue of "more gaba". It is an issue of how much gaba, where (what part of the brain), when, and at what rate, as well as the same for all the other transmitters - all together.
 
As a variant of Hanlon's Razor, you're assuming malice where there is simply "no one-shot permanent cure exists.". Consider that many reasonable treatments for non-mental problems have to be taken/used/applied perpetually as well (glasses, prosthetics, insulin, allergy and asthma medications, antacids, ...). This seems to be the rule rather than the exception (the major conditions that can be "cured" once and for all that I can think of off-hand are infectious diseases and some physical injuries. And that laser stuff instead of glasses maybe, I have no clue about it).

No, it's not "pharma" holding back permanent cures for all those above diseases. You're attributing godlike powers to them if you think it's possible to keep a secret (here: the cure) on a scale as enormous as this.
 
Yes I am attributing godlike powers to them. Imagine a cure (50 bucks) vs a lifetime of 50 buck treatments per day. That's a lot of money lost and a lot more people living on earth. Why don't they have cures for cancer? Well they kinda do. But they don't want people knowing about even these semi treatments for sake of money, and other reasons imo...

You take a criminal and throw them in prison for 50 years, they sure as hell will appreciate life a lot better than they did 50 years before.
 
yeah i see your point, but someone proly wouldn't want to wait to get off it to feel better its all bout instant gratification. thats why people stop taking the meds some of the times.
 
Yeah it's just not as simple as more of such-and-such a neurotransmitter = more of such-and-such a mood. FWIW there is an SSRE on the market, Tianeptine, and it is - get this - an antidepressant.
 
Top