
The Enigma of Gloom: On George Scialabba’s “How to Be Depressed” - lermontov
https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/the-enigma-of-gloom-on-george-scialabbas-how-to-be-depressed/
======
oska
I think the last paragraph is worth quoting in full:

> The book ends with Scialabba’s own advice for depressives. In contrast to
> the political and economic themes set forth in the earlier sections and the
> clinical diagnoses of the documentia, this last chapter is personal, with
> deeply compassionate advice both to the suffering and those who live with
> and care for them. Friends, food, water, rest, exercise, caregivers, and
> reading are ways to take control, and if all else seems lost, remember what
> he calls a truth “close to a scientific certainty; depressions virtually
> always end.”

~~~
saargrin
does anybody have a link to amazon product page for caregivers?

i seem to have run short on these

------
teddyh
See also CGP Grey’s _7 Ways to Maximize Misery_ :

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO1mTELoj6o](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO1mTELoj6o)

------
wombatmobile
It is difficult, perhaps impossible, to describe the experience of severe
clinical depression to anyone who has not had it. Gerald Russello's review of
George Scialabba's book makes a valiant start.

For those who are not moved by this, and wonder to themselves why George
didn't just take a pill, consider also reading another book, written in a
different mood, mode, and format by Robert Whitaker, an American journalist
and author, who writes primarily about medicine, science, and history.

Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs, and the Astonishing
Rise of Mental Illness in America
[https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7799587-anatomy-of-an-
ep...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7799587-anatomy-of-an-epidemic)

During the past fifty years, when investigators looked at how psychiatric
drugs affected long-term outcomes, what did they find?

~~~
throwaway_pdp09
> what did they find?

IDK, what did they find? Why not post some links?

Looking at your reference, here's the top liked review (in part)

"

I would have given this book four stars if not for the fact that I felt the
Mr. Whitaker was overly antagonistic in his writing, and at times even
dishonest in his presentation of "facts."

His citations are frequently careless, and he cherry-picks not only the
studies he presents, but also the which ones he provides access to through his
website. At one point I checked a cited quote to find that he found it in a
blurb on a book jacket! Unprofessional. " (reviewer gives 2 stars out of 5)

"

As for my depression, I was prescribed pills and they worked. They weren't a
cure but they were the first and very major step out of the blackness. I
presume you're taking an anti-medication stance, well please be aware that
they work for some people. Sure they have a cost but it's probably a lesser
cost than killing yourself.

~~~
wombatmobile
For a synopsis, see wikipedia:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomy_of_an_Epidemic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomy_of_an_Epidemic)

"Whitaker begins by reviewing the discovery of antipsychotics, benzodiazepines
and antidepressants. These were discovered as side effects during research for
antihistamines (specifically promethazine), gram negative antibiotics
(specifically mephenesin) and the anti-tuberculosis agents isoniazid and
iproniazid respectively. The psychiatric mechanisms of action of these drugs
were not known at the time..."

He goes on to show, by citing studies, that the drugs were not efficacious in
treating depression - quite the opposite. The mechanisms cause disease and
chronic dependencies. But the drugs earn billions for big pharma, who covered
up the studies and spent millions on spin and obfuscation. The story is akin
to the corporate tobacco experience.

~~~
throwaway_pdp09
They worked for me and they prescribe them because they work - or can. They
aren't THE answer, they are AN answer - for some people. Please don't dismiss
them.

> But the drugs earn billions for big pharma, who covered up the studies and
> spent millions on spin and obfuscation

Having worked in the area, this is something I have no trouble believing. And
believe me, the side effects of anti-depressents are something I am aware of
acutely. They could be very tough indeed.

Edit: from your link (and thanks!): "Whitaker acknowledges that psychiatric
medications do sometimes work but believes that they must be used in a
"selective, cautious manner. [...] And honestly, they should be used on a
short-term basis."[12]"

This is something that makes acute good sense to me.

Edit: let me draw a comparison with painkillers for the body (antidepressants
might perhaps be likened to painkillers for the mind). Body painkillers are
good, they're useful, but if you need them long-term, someone needs to start
looking for some root cause. Some unfortunate souls will develop chronic
persistent pain that will need them to take physical painkillers for a long
period or even their whole lives, but these should be the rarity. Same with
antidepressants.

~~~
wombatmobile
> They worked for me and they prescribe them because they work - or can. They
> aren't THE answer, they are AN answer - for some people.

I'm glad you got a constructive result! Thank you for clarifying,
throwaway_pdp09. As with many medications, efficacy is specific to (in this
case unknown) personal aspects of biology. If they knew how to test for who
would be helped and who wouldn't be, the drug therapies could be targeted to
exclude the patients who would be harmed.

> Some unfortunate souls will develop chronic persistent pain that will need
> them to take physical painkillers for a long period or even their whole
> lives, but these should be the rarity. Same with antidepressants.

The striking differences between those and the drug studies reported in
Whitaker's book are (a) the percentage of subjects who obtain negative
results; and (b) the rapidity and irreversibility with which these drugs
induce dependency.

Whitaker details and examines the ruse peddled by drug companies - that
depression and bi-polar are the result of "chemical imbalances" which are
"restored" by the drugs. If only it were that simple! But there is no evidence
to support that global advertising myth.

In fact, the drugs induce upregulation of neurotransmitter receptors within
weeks, which is responsible for chronic dependency, confusion, and tragically
in some people, psychosis upon withdrawl. For a better, more detailed and
nuanced response, read the book (which quotes the studies).

~~~
throwaway_pdp09
Yeah, I'm glad they worked too...

> If they knew how to test for who would be helped and who wouldn't be...

I am pretty sure there is work in this area. More precisely targeted
treatments can only be a win.

I don't dispute whitaker's findings (well especially since I haven't read his
book! Nor will have time too sadly) but what trifle I've picked up indicates
he's making sense.

> In fact, the drugs induce upregulation of neurotransmitter receptors within
> weeks, which is responsible for chronic dependency, confusion, and
> tragically in some people, psychosis upon withdrawl.

It's difficult to address this. All I can say is that I did not find most of
these problems, and of psychosis I think I got that while taking the drug, not
upon withdrawal. And note this: that psychosis was not a bad thing at all. One
side effect I'd happily live with again, even at the cost of memory loss and
whatnot. Just a data point.

