[swores]

Wow, TIL, thanks!

Any idea if the logic I wrote about is also true? Or is it the same as how many doctors will talk about SSRIs working because depressed people "have too little serotonin", a myth that remains commonly believed despite research not backing it up?

[skissane]

It is possible multiple processes are at work-it is possible that SSRIs increase violence risks independently of their antidepressant effect, and simultaneously their antidepressant effect also increases it. The two explanations aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive

[cupcake-unicorn]

Sure, but if that's what's going on, it should be researched further and taken seriously during prescribing. 100% guarantee that when psychedelics hit the market, doctors will fall prey to overstating the harms from studies like this while turning a blind eye to the wealth of evidence of greater likelihood of harms in prescriptions they churn out without blinking an eye.

I'm not anti medication, and I'm not saying that there are cases where the benefit doesn't outweigh the harm, but I do think the potential harms of each medication should be thoroughly investigated equally. Large companies with the ability to withhold damaging trials, sway the public opinion, and have a giant PR team and legal team at their disposal shouldn't be impacting our understanding of the real risks and science.

[skissane]

> Sure, but if that's what's going on, it should be researched further and taken seriously during prescribing.

Well I mean, it is, at least to some extent. The FDA has officially put a "black box" warning on antidepressants that they can increase the risk of suicide, especially in the young, and so have its counterpart agencies in several other countries. All doctors know about it – whether they all take that risk seriously enough is a matter of opinion, some are much more hesitant about prescribing them than others are. And it remains an active area of research.

> 100% guarantee that when psychedelics hit the market,

Here in Australia, they only let psychiatrists prescribe them (started in July last year for psilocybin and MDMA), and only for individually approved psychiatrists who have completed a training programme in psychedelic treatment. This is similar to our existing restrictions on prescribing psychostimulants–which most Australian states only permit psychiatrists and paediatricians to prescribe absent special approval–albeit even stricter. They'll likely relax the rules over time, but very unlikely non-psychiatrists will ever be legally allowed to prescribe them (outside of exceptional circumstances).

From what I understand, the approach in the US is different, as far as the DEA is concerned, theoretically, any doctor can get a DEA number which lets them prescribe any Schedule II/III/IV controlled substance. However, in practice, there are a number of drugs which very few US doctors would dare write a script for, even though by the letter of the law they are allowed to do it, because they don't want the "extra attention" the DEA will give them if they do – methamphetamine is a good example. (Technically, any Australian doctor can legally write a script for methamphetamine, but it is almost impossible to fill, because unlike the US, it isn't approved for sale in Australia–not because it is a controlled substance, rather because it lacks our equivalent of FDA-approval–the only way to actually fill the script would be to get a government permit to import it for an individual patient, and there is zero chance they'd approve such a permit unless the prescriber was a senior psychiatrist.)

[PedroBatista]

Seems like a pretty good system as letting doctors prescribe “psychedelics” can mean everything under the Sun.

Also the training and approval is paramount, they are doctors not magicians and many don’t even have a good understanding of nutrition let alone this type of drugs.

[cupcake-unicorn]

No problem, I like to spread awareness of this stuff! BTW here are a few more RCTs about the relationship https://www.madinamerica.com/2021/03/antidepressants-still-l...

Honestly it's hard to say and I'm not even sure if you'd be able to study this empirically in this population. I do think that's why doctors fall prey to this bias, and especially so in a stigmatized population. "Ah, they were likely to have these symptoms anyway". It would be interesting to do a wider study, but there already was a history of these companies withholding damaging trials and results so I doubt it would be done, especially given that suicides have occurred in these trials.

I really do believe that these classes of medications are treated differently due to the great power the industry has on this issue. If you look up the background of NAMI it's quite suspect and reminds me about how doctors were getting textbooks that were written by the opioid prescribing company. NAMI goes on to inform public opinion and then this stuff becomes "fact". I'm glad the "too little serotonin" thing is being examined but it was crazy to see how many weirdly defensive memos and articles there were out when it first came out. I see I'm getting downvotes on my original comment but I do think it's extremely important to examine these intuitions and where they came from, because as we've seen some of this stuff has been based on profits/trial P-hacking/junk science.