Drugs for enlightenment?

[com7fy8]

I don't think that one physical substance could reset your brain.

What can really help is to get the right quality and amount of sleep. Going by what I have read and meditated about this > I am not an expert, but possibly God has enlightened me; so I will offer >

Sleep is an extremely complicated process. Different parts of the brain are involved. So, if you use only a chemical to help you go to sleep, by shutting you down, it is possible the drug is also shutting down, at least somewhat, the extremely complicated process of sleep. And God made sleep, and I can see how sleep is a miraculous process which can not go right except with God.

So, it is wise to pray and submit ourselves to God, in order to get the best sleep we can. I think it is good and wise to prepare for sleep by quieting down and getting clear of stuff which is of lust and fear and unforgiveness and other anti-love things, so we get the spiritual benefit which sleep can include and so this helps our physical process of sleep.

Because sleep, according to what I have read and meditated, is not only rest, but it is a process of removing all the built-up chemicals of the nerve endings which have accumulated during our active day. It is like getting all the empty envelopes and messages off of our work desk at the end of the day, so they don't get mixed up with all the mail coming in the next day. I think it could be like steam cleaning the message spaces between nerves, so the next day's new chemical messengers won't be mixed up with leftover stuff from the day before.

So, a drug is not going to make this happen. A drug possibly, in my opinion, can add to all the chemical stuff which has added up during the day in the brain messaging system.

Also, then, it is possible that bringing in a psychedelic substance . . . on top of what God has created quite capable of doing things right . . . could be helping to confuse things, of the sleep process as well as while we are awake.

But I have done things to mess myself up, over the years; so my sleep ability maybe has gotten messed up. So, I just offer myself to God, and do the best I can to at least stay on my bed and rest, even if I don't sleep. Don't fight with it, but be patient and be prayerful, and keep feeding this to myself. This in my case seems to be helping. And loving is good; love any and all people, and love can help everything lolololol

 

[Silmarien]

Cognitive based therapy and other psychological interventions have a comparable effectivity though, so I really don't understand why we aren't focused on them.

The materialism of neuroscience and the pharmaceutical industry!

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I think a huge part of the problem is that depression is a collection of mental illnesses with similar symptoms and no objective measure. For example, scopolamine patches seemed to work extremely well and extremely fast for me (like 30 minutes or less) - but only 50% of the time. The rapidity especially made me suspicious of a placebo effect, but I read about the patches and apparently they are designed to release a large amount at first and then a tiny amount to maintain steadystate. That matched my experience of their effectiveness. After the first 30 minutes the depression was either entirely gone or it wasn't going to work at all. After the depression was removed in the first 30 minutes I could remove the patch and the depression would not return for several days or longer.

So I think scopolamine does work for me, but why 50%? Probably it's because I experience at least two different kinds of depression. If I had a good way to distinguish those two types of depression I suspect that I could get 100% success rate with the scopolamine patches.

I think this is why we have so much trouble treating depression. We need to distinguish the different types first using somewhat objective measures and then choose the correct treatment.

The problem is that DSM criteria are frankly very genetic. There is no test that could be done or criteria applied, with any form of specificity. We don't know what causes depression and really when it is or is not a pathological process, as opposed to physiologic. The broad acceptance of the neurotransmitter imbalance theory has not really helped here, as people are less inclined to question what tends to be presented as orthodoxy. There aren't many attempts to define it properly, and the DSM and ICD has become the standard. I don't think a process that is so variable between patients, dependant on symptomology rather than actual signs one could pick up on examination, could be distinguished or really have any sort of objectivity to it.

That said, I agree the clinical entity of 'depression' likely entails a spectrum of processes that may be quite different from one another. This is essentially syndromic management that medicine is doing, since we really don't know much about the pathophysiology. It is how porphyria or obesity (Metabolic Syndrome or Pickwickian Syndrome) is managed symptomatically, for something with diverse causes.

@Quid est Veritas? it's interesting how in the US the medical people seem to think that the depression problem has already been solved with the serotonin drugs. I don't know how many times I have been scolded for not taking antidepressants. "Depression is easily curable" "We have wonderful new antidepressants - have you tried the newest ones?" "Maybe you didn't take them long enough." "Maybe you didn't have the right dosage."

There is never an acknowledgement from them that "maybe they don't work all the time for everybody".

So the result is that I am essentially accused of wanting to be depressed. It's similar to being told to "put on a happy face".

Also, I think the antidepressant drugs often make people worse or even somewhat addicted. Just give the patient more and more of the same if it isn't working. The only solution IMO is to do-it-yourself. In the US the patients are just nameless faceless statistics rolling down the assembly line to the medical community.

I have noticed this tendency myself. It is a very much mistaken one. The problem is that antidepressants are much easier than pushing life-style modification and such. It is the same reason why antihypertensives are pushed for more than excersize and decreased salt diets. It is a path of least resistance. Chronic conditions often need drugs, but seldom can they be effectively managed thereby alone, and on occasion they aren't even necessary.

There is far too much trust in findings and theories that have far less substance than they at first appear to hold. People misunderstand EBM. I think doctors should be taken en masse at congresses and taught EBM from scratch, to oppose such silliness and attitudes you mention.

There is also the problem in the US of the profit motive. Antidepressants are big earners for pharmaceutical companies, and although I am not their enemy, they are certainly pushing hard for very narrow views on depression. A big problem here is that the idea of long-term melancholia or sadness as an entity termed Major Depressive Disorder, has obscured the gradations therein - and with it a lot of real pathology. Psychiatry in general, and Depression in particular, highlight a lot of conceptual errors in the profession. One can only hope the newer generations of doctors will fix the cul-de-sac their elders backed them into, but I fear a lot of ideological and departementalism needs to be overcome. I myself have a few times been shocked when things that I have taken for granted in medicine, turned out to have complete feet of clay. I am not too optimistic though, as opinions seem to be ossifying.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The materialism of neuroscience and the pharmaceutical industry!

The pharmaceutical industry certainly has incentive to push for pharmaceutical options.

EBM has actually shown us the comparative efficacy of psycho-social approaches, without any of the dubiousness that antidepressants statistically have. Similarly, MRI studies and so forth, has shown the dramatic changes that can take place in neural architecture from such approaches as well.
While there is a mechanistic assumption of materialism, this is expected if we are to attempt to address it from within methodological naturalism. Certainly 'neuroscience' is not really pushing antidepressants, as they have investigated alternate treatments, albeit from the perspective of neuronal functioning. As stated before, we still don't really have any measure of what is actually going on here, and in my experience Psychiatrists are more wedded to neurotransmitter imbalance theories than the neurologists are.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Also, I think the antidepressant drugs often make people worse or even somewhat addicted. Just give the patient more and more of the same if it isn't working. The only solution IMO is to do-it-yourself. In the US the patients are just nameless faceless statistics rolling down the assembly line to the medical community.

I forgot to mention, but antidepressants do cause variable outcome. There is a tendency for a bump in attempted suicides after initiating antidepressants - some ascribe this to increasing will to do something after the crushing anhedonia, but others have hypothetised an initial disruption of baseline function that slightly worsens depression by negative feedback mechanisms. So some people do get worse first or show no improvement.

Similarly, serotonin and noradrenaline are strong drivers of addiction in metamphetamines and some antidepressants like MAOIs have similar effects.
SSRIs have withdrawal symptoms since the body upregulated the receptors it had blocked, so people do become dependant upon them and would feel ill if they were to abruptly go without. Such drugs should be tapered to lower doses before stopping them

 

[cloudyday2]

@Quid est Veritas? , do you have any information on the effectiveness of tricyclic antidepressants? One article mentioned that the promising results of scopolamine and ketamine hint that the abandonment of tricyclic antidepressants in favor of the serotonin antidepressants (to reduce side effects) may have been throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

EDIT: Here is a links I found discussing that hint:

The efficacy of scopolamine is very interesting because the potent blockade of muscarinic receptors was a property of tricyclic antidepressant medications, the oldest type of antidepressants. With these medications, the muscarinic receptor blockade was mostly viewed as the cause of unwanted side effects, such as constipation, sedation, and memory impairments. Newer antidepressants, such as serotonin reuptake inhibitors or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, were explicitly designed to avoid blocking muscarinic receptors. Yet, the current data raise the possibility that this strategy may have increased safety and tolerability of these medications at the expense of providing effective and timely relief for depression symptoms.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100301111407.htm

 

[bhsmte]

@Quid est Veritas? , do you have any information on the effectiveness of tricyclic antidepressants? One article mentioned that the promising results of scopolamine and ketamine hint that the abandonment of tricyclic antidepressants in favor of the serotonin antidepressants (to reduce side effects) may have been throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Likely a good idea to seek out a professional who is highly trained in this area and has a good level of experience.

In the psyche field, this can vary quite a bit as these folks are becoming more and more specialized to specific areas. Pharma can be the proper solution, but this is a moving target, as more information becomes available and most importantly, how each potential solution would fit your specific situation.

 

[bhsmte]

I think a huge part of the problem is that depression is a collection of mental illnesses with similar symptoms and no objective measure. For example, scopolamine patches seemed to work extremely well and extremely fast for me (like 30 minutes or less) - but only 50% of the time. The rapidity especially made me suspicious of a placebo effect, but I read about the patches and apparently they are designed to release a large amount at first and then a tiny amount to maintain steadystate. That matched my experience of their effectiveness. After the first 30 minutes the depression was either entirely gone or it wasn't going to work at all. After the depression was removed in the first 30 minutes I could remove the patch and the depression would not return for several days or longer.

So I think scopolamine does work for me, but why 50%? Probably it's because I experience at least two different kinds of depression. If I had a good way to distinguish those two types of depression I suspect that I could get 100% success rate with the scopolamine patches.

I think this is why we have so much trouble treating depression. We need to distinguish the different types first using somewhat objective measures and then choose the correct treatment.

Treating psychological issues is always extremely complex. There are a multitude of variables in play (some we don't understand well) and it is very difficult to pin down the underlying cause.

 

[bhsmte]

I don't know if this topic is allowed. I guess I will try and see.

Basically I've had depression most of my life. The antidepressants that I have tried don't work. I've found some helpful supplements, but even when I feel "good" I can't see any purpose to life. I suspect a God might exist, but I feel indifferent towards this God.

I've read that psilocybin can sometimes "reset" a person's brain and give them a renewed since of purpose. When I was younger I experimented with other psychedelic drugs, but I seemed to be immune to some of them and others only made me feel more depressed. It could be that my neurotransmitters are different from most people.

Anybody had any luck with this strategy?

EDIT: Again if this topic is against the rules, just delete it. I'm sorry, and I don't mean to break the rules.

Have you every tried exercise as a form of dealing with the depression?

For me personally, I have found my greatest moments of clarity and well being, are during and after a good 3-4 mile run. Likely from, the additional delivery of oxygen to the brain and the release of other natural substances the body produces during the right level of physical exertion.

 

[cloudyday2]

Have you every tried exercise as a form of dealing with the depression?

Yep. I try to ride my exercise bike about an hour each day, but this is a struggle sometimes. I've been doing some form of cardio at least an hour every day for about 30 years, but it is getting harder now that I am older and I work longer hours than in the past.

In the past if I exercised then I was o.k., but now it is like I have put a thin layer of paint over a crumbling wall. In other words, I feel "o.k." but I keep musing about the future and always coming back to suicide as the only sensible solution and wondering what others see in life and so forth. There is no hope or pleasure the last few years. If I exercise I don't feel shaky and dizzy and all that, but I can't get away from the depressed outlook on life. ... Actually it might be that I have lost most of my spiritual faith in the past few years.

 

[cloudyday2]

In spite of many claims that, "we don,t do this for a reward".

It is the reward that makes it worthwhile,
so even if we "suffer" a little while, it is good to know that He will recompense.

Also,
"He whom He loves does He chastise."

Thereof, "Pain is real, suffering is optional."

Don,t know about anyone else,
but no one told me it would be a picnic.

If this is all there is, then keep it.

Do you have any specific hopes after this life? I have read that Judaism includes reincarnation along with resurrection. Somewhere I read that Jews must be reincarnated until they have fulfilled each of the laws at least once. Just curious

 

[Robban]

Do you have any specific hopes after this life? I have read that Judaism includes reincarnation along with resurrection. Somewhere I read that Jews must be reincarnated until they have fulfilled each of the laws at least once. Just curious

Yes,
It is about the only thing that makes any kind of sense.

Not all need return,


There was a mother who gave birth to a girl,
she became the sunshine of the neighborhood,
she shone like a sunbeam.

At the age of five she passed on,
the mother was torn to pieces,
she stormed the heavens,
"Why, why, why?"

A voice was heard from the heavens,

"If I had asked if you were willing to give birth to a sunbeam of a girl,
but she will only become five years.
What would you have replied?"

"No, no" replied the woman.

The voice from the heavens told her,

"I know, that is why I never asked you."
what would you have replied?"

 

[Chesterton]

Likely a good idea to seek out a professional who is highly trained in this area and has a good level of experience.

@cloudyday2 I have to disagree with bhsmte. You should seek out an amateur who is poorly trained in a different area and has no experience.

 

[Sarah G]

@cloudyday2 I have to disagree with bhsmte. You should seek out an amateur who is poorly trained in a different area and has no experience.

Lol your comment made me laugh out loud for the first time today (and it's 9pm!) so thank you!

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

@Quid est Veritas? , do you have any information on the effectiveness of tricyclic antidepressants? One article mentioned that the promising results of scopolamine and ketamine hint that the abandonment of tricyclic antidepressants in favor of the serotonin antidepressants (to reduce side effects) may have been throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

EDIT: Here is a links I found discussing that hint:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100301111407.htm

As I said before, most antidepressants have similar levels of efficacy, in spite of vastly different modes of action. This was what prompted Kitsch to investigate the whole group of drugs broadly in meta-analyses.

TCAs were abandoned as the first line drugs because of their narrow therapeutic range. They are very dangerous in overdose, prolonging QT on ECG and thus leading to heart attacks and cardiovascular incidents.
Giving depressed, often suicidal, people a potent drug that can easily kill you in overdose - that is not very wise. Seeing that the efficacy is not far off safer antidepressants like SSRIs, it made sense to largely move to the latter. TCAs weren't completely abandoned, as they were often given to the elderly, as they also function as a sleep aid, and have important functionality in control of chronic pain.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Sorry, but "materialism" is currently one of my trigger words, having to deal with Anthroposophists throughout my professional life.

I'm sure there's much to criticize about the pharmaceutical industry, but to deny that medication plays a HUGE part in curing many mental conditions is on par with vilifying vaccinations.

Of course, substances alone cannot possibly remove the causes that made you ill to begin with. But neither can chemical imbalances in the brain be always cured by therapy alone.
People suffering of depression in particular have a hard time being told to "just pull themselves together".

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I'm sure there's much to criticize about the pharmaceutical industry, but to deny that medication plays a HUGE part in curing many mental conditions is on par with vilifying vaccinations.

Well, that's the thing: they are not on par. Vaccinations have a lot of strong evidence in their support, with consistent data and clear confidence intervals. They clearly work, statistically speaking and from the viewpoint of EBM and medical science. The physiology at play is well established, too.

Antidepressants have ambigious data. The confidence interval is narrow. The Meta-analyses show placebo effect possibly to blame, except Sertraline. Even the theory upon which they are based, of chemical imbalances, is very weakly supported. So while they are perceived to work and patients show improvement on them, it is possible this may be unrelated to the drugs themselves.

So no, really not on par. Equating the two sound more like the antivaccine argument, as if trying to denigrate clear and definitive evidence there, with the far more dubious claims of antidepressants - and therefore casting doubt on the fairly effective system of EBM.

Of course, substances alone cannot possibly remove the causes that made you ill to begin with. But neither can chemical imbalances in the brain be always cured by therapy alone.
People suffering of depression in particular have a hard time being told to "just pull themselves together".

We haven't established 'chemical imbalances in the brain' are responsible here. That is the theory, based on Reserpine and antidepressants, but in vivo evidence is lacking and the deductive analyses from EBM is highly equivocal.
'Therapy alone' approaches have a very similar effectivity to antidepressants, actually. There are some fascinating studies in this regard. This was part and parcel of why Kirsch thought to investigate antidepressants as a class, for it is possible most of their effectiveness are essentially acting on psychological grounds (Kirsch is a professor of Psychology).

Edit: I am speaking of course of antidepressants here. Drugs such as the antipsychotics or Lithium are an important and well-supported intervention for other mental health issues like Schizophrenia or Bipolar Mood Disorder, in fact perhaps imperitive. Their evidence is far more definitive though, but even here, psychological interventions are also an important component of treatment. Mental illness always requires psychological methods and social involvement; in addition to any pharmaceutical treatment that may or may not be required.

 

[cloudyday2]

Antidepressants have ambigious data. The confidence interval is narrow. The Meta-analyses show placebo effect possibly to blame, except Sertraline. Even the theory upon which they are based, of chemical imbalances, is very weakly supported. So while they are perceived to work and patients show improvement on them, it is possible this may be unrelated to the drugs themselves.

I think the source of the problem is the failure to distinguish between different types of depression. It's a shame that the medical field has become so hidebound that we can only solve our problems now through alternative medicine.

But I am happy that I have found some things that seem to help my type of depression. I saw my therapist yesterday and she could see an improvement. Up until yesterday she had been dismissive of the supplements I have tried, but now she is more interested in what I am taking and how it affects me.

EDIT: FWIW, I have noticed that the supplements that affect GABA seem to improve my vision so that it is less fuzzy. (I have an astigmatism)

ALSO: These supplements are not like vitamins. They take effect in 20 minutes and then they dissipate in a few hours. That is why I am able to analyze their effects on me more easily.

 

[holo]

There are two issues: enlightenment and depression. Sometimes I think that a durable sense of purpose coming from enlightenment might fix the depression. I'm not interested in enlightenment for its own sake.

But maybe trying to love other people would gradually enlighten me and then fix the depression.

In my view and experience, love and enlightenment are two sides of the same coin. The more I love someone, the clearer I see them (flaws and all). And the clearer I see people, the more I love them. The more you see of people's history and circumstance, the less likely you are to judge them or attribute their shortcomings to a flawed personality.

The same goes for looking at yourself, of course. So whether you go for love or enlightenment, the other will follow.

About psychedelics, yes, they can transform you completely. There are a lot of studies now demonstrating how safe and effective they are. Shrooms have done wonders for me. And I mean wonders, two trips did for me what several therapists and four or five different medications couldn't. And for all intents and purposes, they're safe to use. I don't know if I'm allowed to say it, but I highly recommend you give them a shot. Read up on it and bring a sober friend if you can.

 

[FireDragon76]

Enlightenment in Buddhism is more about escaping suffering than anything else, so it looks like it's precisely what you want.

I do have a friend who got over a depressive funk while experimenting with LSD, but I think there are better options out there.

That might be due to an increase of neuroplasticity due to psychedelic drugs. But there are other ways to do that, such as meditation or any activity that involves psychological absorbtion.