4 ms·
Notice how Wellbutrin - the 1970s state of the art - is what we're stuck with. Precisely because research has been curtailed - yes, internationally. Progress st
by asciilifeform 17y ago
Notice how Wellbutrin - the 1970s state of the art - is what we're stuck with. Precisely because research has been curtailed - yes, internationally. Progress stands still.
Also compare the side effects you listed with those of the wildly popular SSRIs.
And yes, any hypothetical drug which reliably makes you feel better will be addictive in some sense of the word. Deal with it, and move on with life. Addiction is only the bugaboo it is claimed to be when the thing you are addicted to is actually harmful. Most people don't consider themselves "drug addicts" for using caffeine, for example.
The focus should be on developing drugs which do the mood-lifting job, don't produce tolerance, and don't damage your internal organs. There is no evil spirit which manipulates the universe to make this goal impossible. It is simply considered undesirable by our Puritan rulers (and the outposts they have built inside our own heads.)
Reply to Edit:
> Do you have a citation for a law or policy statement that shows that there is indeed such an outlawing? I see Google Scholar citations that suggest that research is ongoing, and there is more planned.
Check out the Federal Analogues Act (US) and its foreign equivalents. Any drug which is chemically similar (with a very liberal definition of "chemically similar" that provokes howls of laughter from chemists) to a currently banned drug is instantly placed into "Schedule I" - "no medicinal use" - and is outlawed, in such a way as to make research nearly impossible and certainly unprofitable. But the real problem lies with our society's perception that a drug which gives you pleasure is an unambiguous and unmitigated evil all in itself, regardless of whether it has harmful side effects. Few of the research drugs in the papers you've seen will be permitted on the market, for this reason. Certainly none of the ones which actually work will be.
By deliberately marketing antidepressants which only work subtly and sometimes, the pharmaceutical industry continues to uphold the ruse that they are actually treating an ordinary disease, like leukemia. But we know how to build antidepressants which work on everyone. It isn't being done because if it were, the smoke would clear, and we would be forced to admit that we are actually treating unhappiness. Unhappiness caused by stimuli which ought to make a sane person unhappy.
- tokenadult 17y agoBut we know how to build antidepressants which work on everyone. It took me a while in my offline personal life for the very evident counterexample to come to mind. In fact, it is well known that human mood can go wrong in two ways: by being too low (depression) but also by being too high (mania). To date, there isn't any medication that reliably raises the mood of individuals in normal mood states without subjecting some of those individuals to severe risk of psychotic mania. Anyone proposing policy reform as to this issue should be aware of this fact. Here are some reading references for HN participants who would like to know more about the medical research on mood disorders: Depression: Causes and Treatment, 2nd Edition http://www.amazon.com/Depression-Treatment-Aaron-T-Beck/dp/0812219643 http://www.amazon.com/Depression-Treatment-Aaron-T-Beck/dp/0... (a very recent book, by the inventor of cognitive therapy) or http://www.amazon.com/Manic-Depressive-Illness-Disorders-Recurrent-Depression/dp/0195135792/ http://www.amazon.com/Manic-Depressive-Illness-Disorders-Rec... (a very authoritative textbook with extensive references to primary research literature).