Hacker News Reader

Comment by GavinMcG | Hacker News Reader

I'm all for news about novel treatments to common difficulties such as depression. That said, it would be best if there were substantive support for something before it's spread around as a solution.

Especially given the reproducibility questions that have come up in a range of fields lately, it seems a little premature to publish this anecdote. Even more so because this is exactly the sort of thing people may try at home.

This time, that might not be so terrible. And there is the disclaimer that you shouldn't pull an all-night without clinical guidance. But that's not likely to be heeded, and it's a bad practice to be contributing to in terms of scientific literacy and trust.

View on HN

> this is exactly the sort of thing people may try at home.

I would actually strongly urge people who suffer from depression to experiment (while observing and adjusting diligently) with all kinds of things. Usually, when you suffer from depression, it's because you have lost some sort of balance - a happy life is about a rich mix of a lot of things, and sometimes you need to search and experiment to discover what is/was missing in your life for too long (and no doctor is ever equipped and able to give you the full solution you personally need).

So go on, experiment and search until you find your way back to your equilibrium.

> I would actually strongly urge people who suffer from depression to experiment

Do you say the same about eg cancer?

> (while observing and adjusting diligently)

Depression is an illness that affects a person to observe and adjust.

> Depression is an illness that affects a person to observe and adjust.

This is true to some extent. I'd say it depends on the severity of the case. Yes, sometimes you depend on strong guidance from a doctor, because your brain is just completely out of order. But this is never the full and only answer to the source of the problem.

I haven't said that treatment needs to be guided by a doctor.

For clarity: I think telling people with depression to experiment with hallucinogens is fucking dangerous.

Why? Can you describe the dangers you're thinking of?

Which is why I always insist on "...if you have fully educated yourself on the matter and follow each and every one of the rules" (and this includes: don't touch it if you have schizophrenia or psychosis running in your family). It was btw how I managed to end depression while stopping meds completely.

Also: cost = $30 for 1 dose + testing kit; compare that to the price of months/years of meds (this should be relevant especially for US citizens which do not benefit from a sane/affordable health care system). Not to mention their oftentimes heavy "side" effects which can even become permanent, such as the loss of libido, etc.

Depression isn't cancer. That's not to be confused with making light of it, or saying it isn't an illness. "Experimenting" won't be easy/doable for everyone suffering from depression, and for many people the experimenting should be done with the help of one or more professionals, but ultimately experimenting is all you can do. Maybe that means trying different antidepressants until one works for you, maybe therapy, maybe life changes... depression affects different people differently, and for different reasons, and it's common knowledg that different people need to treat it in different ways.

> and it's common knowledg that different people need to treat it in different ways.

Sure. Parent poster is suggesting people with a potentially fatal illness try experimenting with random hallucinogens.

Doesn't that strike you as irresponsible?

No. It worked for me.

You can't claim the scientific high ground based on how things "strike you".

I was responding specifically to what you quoted, and didn't commit to memory your parent's comment - which I guess has now removed the mention of hallucinogens. (I do remember seeing "LSD" when skim-reading, so not questioning your assertion that it was mentioned.)

As to specifically experimenting with hallucinogens: there's growing evidence that they can be helpful in treating depression, from anecdotes to studies - most recently, a couple of days ago: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/dec/01/magic-mushro...

Should people be recommended to try these sorts of drugs without proper guidance and likely supervision? Generally I'd say no. But if they can provide people with the help they need, and the legal system doesn't allow for a formal way of using them, I do support people discussing their use, ideally with disclaimers about potential risks and how to use as safely as possible.

I absolutely would say that if you can come up with an experiment that has reasonable risk, some connection to your cancer, and has measurable effects or lack of effects, you should go for it.

Good luck finding an experiment that fits those criteria for cancer, though.

Pulling an all-nighter to see its effects on your depression fits all that. It's low-risk: it doesn't interfere with your doctor's orders and plenty of people have survived all-nighters without ill effects. It's connected to depression in that it affects the brain, which we believe to be connected to depression. And it has measurable effects or lack of effects in that you can take stock of your mood at intervals after doing it.

There is nothing unscientific about anecdotes. The problem with anecdotes isn't that they are unscientific, it's that the scientific claims they allow you to make are very, very small.

Anecdotally, I've found that Vitamin D3 helps me with motivation. That's a very small claim, but it's a scientific claim because I've experimented extensively with supplements to improve my motivation. However, "I've found that Vitamin D3 helps people with motivation" would not be a scientific claim, because I've only experimented on myself, and don't have enough evidence to extrapolate to the rest of humanity.

Personal experimentation is a useful tool. It's how we know our personal preferences, fears, and hangups, which nobody else can tell us. Applying scientific process to it allows us to avoid some of our biases. We just have to be careful not to extrapolate our results to other people.

Do you think incumbent drugs companies with significant interest in keeping their expensive drugs on the market would let a free, anyone-can-do-it therapy see the light of day?

Sunlight is a perfect and free remedy for jaundice and vitamin D deficiency, and yet the pediatrician will prescribe blue light therapy and vitamin D medicine and tell you to keep the baby out of sunlight.

Scientific literacy and trust are conflated with industry interests, especially in medicine.

It's not 'perfect'. Vitamin D deficiency has been detected in Hawaian professional surfers.

Yeah I'm not so sure that this could be a sustainable treatment, even if we assume it has some temporary mood-lifting effect.

Speaking as someone who's now suffered through a series of major depressive episodes over the past year and a half, the only effects 2 nights+ sleep deprivation has had on me are: worse mood, dis-inhibition (sort of like being drunk), and mild auditory hallucinations. No long-term benefits that I've noticed, other than a bit of insight into the nature of (mild) hallucination (difficult to explain, but they're more like 'misinterpreting' things, rather than straight up imagining things that are not there).

EDIT: I really would advise who is suffering from depression, if you're hell-bent on the DIY approach I wouldn't start with this one. Frankly, it could be dangerous. Maybe start with one of the more proven approaches: exercise, diet, mindfulness meditation or regular and sufficient sleep.

It isn't just one anecdote: there are dozens of studies spanning decades that demonstrate TSD (total sleep deprivation) and PSD (partial sleep deprivation) are effective in treating depression depression in the short term.

Are you arguing that the information should be held from the public or what exactly would have you done differently if writing the public report?

Given that it's not completed research, yes. If were the "public report" of completed research, I wouldn't have commented on not spreading information around until it's substantively supported.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com