Slashdot Mirror


New Drug Helps to Dampen Bad Memories

wile_e_wonka writes to tell us Researchers at Harvard and the Montreal-based McGill University are working on a drug that would allow psychiatrists to dampen painful memories in their patients when combined with therapy. "They treated 19 accident or rape victims for ten days, during which the patients were asked to describe their memories of the traumatic event that had happened 10 years earlier. Some patients were given the drug, which is also used to treat amnesia, while others were given a placebo. A week later, they found that patients given the drug showed fewer signs of stress when recalling their trauma."

255 comments

  1. Would this be the formula? by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 4, Funny

    Would this be the formula: CnH2n+1OH? At least it seems to be popular for dampening memories.

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    1. Re:Would this be the formula? by Timesprout · · Score: 1

      NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, its all coming back to me nowwwwww!!

      --
      Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
      What truth?
      There is no dupe
    2. Re:Would this be the formula? by bl8n8r · · Score: 2, Informative

      > Would this be the formula: CnH2n+1OH?

      acylic alcohol: http://alcohol.alto-infotech.com/

      I'd prefer a nice fat marley.. no hangover. Natural too.

      --
      boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
    3. Re:Would this be the formula? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      depends on which alcohol you plan on drinking:
      Methanol [blindness]
      Ethanol
      Propanol[toxic]
      Butanol[tox ic]
      ethanol is the only relatively safe alcohol since it metabolizes into acetylaldehyde then to acetic acid while methanol goes to formaldehyde [embalming fluid] and finally formic acid [formic meaning from ant, found in fire ant venom] the others either dont metabolize or become quite toxic.

    4. Re:Would this be the formula? by Joebert · · Score: 2, Funny

      There's also the generics' formula, Cr4+Ck

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    5. Re:Would this be the formula? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For those who don't get it this is the general formula for alcohol: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol

    6. Re:Would this be the formula? by tajmahall · · Score: 1

      or H2O, NH3, C2H5, PDQU235 and a pinch of salt

    7. Re:Would this be the formula? by asCii88 · · Score: 0

      You can take this and you'll feel better for sure:
      methyl (2R,3S)-3-benzoyloxy-8-methyl-8-azabicyclo[3.2.1]o ctane-2-carbo xylate

    8. Re:Would this be the formula? by utopianfiat · · Score: 2, Informative

      H3C-H2COH = ethanol
      methanol will make you go blind.

      --
      +5, Truth
    9. Re:Would this be the formula? by fbjon · · Score: 1

      We need more research. None of these are strong enough for goatse.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
  2. You don't look too happy... by joto · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Would you like a drug?

    1. Re:You don't look too happy... by Ed_1024 · · Score: 1

      Well, it sounds like Rohypnol, only for the day after...

    2. Re:You don't look too happy... by sleigher · · Score: 1

      So when people self medicate to forget painful events they are considered abusers ( alcohol / drugs ). But if the researchers give you something that does the same thing it is good? How's that?

      --
      All points of time and space are connected.
    3. Re:You don't look too happy... by DarenN · · Score: 1

      Hmmmm, it IS an interesting point you raise. It also raises the worrying spectre of this being used outside of the scenarios for which it was envisaged (e.g. in the case of a witness for trial, perhaps?).

      The article mentions more detailed research involving rats. I suppose I've one question - does this actually remove memories (as in cause them to no longer be able to be recalled) or does it "smooth the landing", by which I mean disassociate the memories from the intense anguish/pain that they cause. I'd be broadly in favour of option 2, but not too happy about option 1.

      I guess I'm just not comfortable with the thought of being able to alter someone's memories at will.

      --
      Rational thought is the only true freedom
    4. Re:You don't look too happy... by timeOday · · Score: 1

      I hate the idea of everybody being happily drugged up, but it works. I've heard several people say their lives are so much better with antidepressants, and why didn't they start them sooner. I would like to think that life is what you make it, but it seems some do not have an equal shot at happiness because their brains aren't wired for it.

    5. Re:You don't look too happy... by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 1

      We already have that.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoxetine

      But my personal experience with it made me suicidal to the point of having to have someone sit with me and remove all objects I could hurt myself with. So maybe happy pills are a bad idea.

      --
      I like muppets.
    6. Re:You don't look too happy... by Tim+C · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Self-medication is done without training or regard for potential damaging side effects. Self-medication with alcohol and other narcotics also generally has a social impact as well as a negative impact on the user's own life.

      When a trained medical professional prescribes a drug, you have to assume that the drug itself has been through a rigorous testing and approval process, that the medic is well-trained and completely aware of what they're doing, etc. (I know that's not always the case, but it's far more likely than in the self-medication scenario)

      Basically, if you self-medicate, especially with alcohol or narcotics, you're far more likely to fuck up than if you take a prescribed drug.

    7. Re:You don't look too happy... by Jarjarthejedi · · Score: 1

      "The article mentions more detailed research involving rats. I suppose I've one question - does this actually remove memories (as in cause them to no longer be able to be recalled) or does it "smooth the landing", by which I mean disassociate the memories from the intense anguish/pain that they cause. I'd be broadly in favour of option 2, but not too happy about option 1."

      I'm not really happy with either one to be honest. Sure, there are some events so traumatic, and people so traumatized, that it can be treated as a disease and healed as such. However the ability to disassociate pain from memories, or even get rid of painful memories, just has way too much potential for abuse. Have a bad memory about ? (Replace with your favorite "seemed like a good idea at the time, I'll never do that again") Disassociate the pain, that way when you look back on it you won't feel bad at all and the next time you feel like doing it it won't seem like such a bad idea.

      If, and this is a pretty iffy if if that makes any sense at all, this is only used for the most traumatic of events and people who can't handle the trauma then it may be a good thing. There are cases where this would be beneficial. However this is just far too dangerous in my opinion. Small traumatic memories are the best way to learn from your mistakes, if you do something stupid, and it hurts, you don't do it again. The day you can get rid of that pain is the day you never learn from your mistakes. We're already moving towards as a responsibility-free society, where many mistakes can be recovered from with only a little work, no where near the amount that should be done (debt and bankruptcy being a good example). This is a slippery slope, if these drugs can be kept in the hands of those who absolutely need them to function then fine, but they seem to dangerous to me, what if you could not only remove the problems of extreme debt through bankruptcy, but also the trauma of it. How would you ever learn to not spend to much?

      --
      There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
    8. Re:You don't look too happy... by Bemopolis · · Score: 1

      Yes I would —I recently sat through Eps I-III.

      --
      "I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
    9. Re:You don't look too happy... by sleigher · · Score: 1

      I am not referring to long term self medication. When my dog died last week I drank whiskey and beer to help me deal with the loss of my best friend. The amount of alcohol that I drank would have put me in the binge drinking category and would probably have psychologists saying I have an alcohol problem. I don't have an alcohol problem. I agree with you that self medication is rarely if ever the right thing to do because of the risk of fucking up. However I do think that it's funny to have a doctor help you suppress stress and other emotions with a drug from a pharmaceutical company but say it is not ok to do the same thing yourself with alcohol. Put the risk of dependence and abuse aside.

      --
      All points of time and space are connected.
    10. Re:You don't look too happy... by hedwards · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't necessarily go so far as to suggest that trained professionals really understand the consequences of this type of treatment. Screwing with memory is an inherently risky business, one which should only be undertaken in the most severe of occasions. We already have therapeutic techniques which allow for the effective treatment of PTSD, and more recently a bump in the effectiveness and practicality of exposure therapies. This drug basically serves no meaningful purpose beyond the lining of the pharmaceutical corporations pocket books.

      Treatments available currently are slow, but they are known to be both safe and effective. Utilizing the natural processes already built in by design to correct the underlying dysfunction. Using drugs whether legally prescribed medications or illicit drugs is not something which promotes self awareness, nor does it teach an individual how to cope with sudden resurgences of symptoms and ways of avoiding similar problems in the future.

      Most psychiatric medications have a purpose and proper formal testing, but they as of now have yet to prove that any of the medications do anything other than just cover over the existing problems. There is no actual evidence which demonstrates that the medications are actually doing anything related to the initial dysfunction.

    11. Re:You don't look too happy... by Original+Replica · · Score: 1

      disassociate the memories from the intense anguish/pain that they cause.

      If we remove the association of pain with the memories that caused them will we begin to find those causes less abhorrent? Would torture or child abuse that doesn't do permenant physical damage become acceptable, because we can "make it all better"? If all the damage is psychological, and that can be fixed, where is the crime in the currently heinous crime of sexual abuse of minors? I'm not advocating any of this, quite the opposite, I'm trying to show the possible downside of disassociate the memories from the intense anguish/pain that they cause.

      --
      We are all just people.
    12. Re:You don't look too happy... by JohnnyGTO · · Score: 1

      The AMA hates competition.

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
    13. Re:You don't look too happy... by octal666 · · Score: 1

      Combined with therapy, and in the use described, it doesn't seem to me as bad as you say.

      --
      DON'T PANIC
    14. Re:You don't look too happy... by diskis · · Score: 1

      Yes. Alcohol makes you forget things temporarily. It all comes back the day after. Makes you want to drink more, to forget again. But in countries not run by pharmaceutical companies, psychiatrists can combine medication and therapy to actually cure.

    15. Re:You don't look too happy... by diskis · · Score: 1

      That one makes you feel dull, no real purpose in that. Try a happy drug instead.

    16. Re:You don't look too happy... by Otter · · Score: 1
      I suppose I've one question - does this actually remove memories (as in cause them to no longer be able to be recalled) or does it "smooth the landing", by which I mean disassociate the memories from the intense anguish/pain that they cause.

      The latter.

    17. Re:You don't look too happy... by Torvaun · · Score: 1

      What a wonderful way to train terrorists. Now you don't even need to find people who believe this is all for the best, you can just kidnap someone and have them brainwashed in a fairly rigorous couple of weeks. Do this mentally scarring thing. If they don't do it, you abuse them. If they do it, you make all the mental scarring go away, and reward them. Classical conditioning, with a lot less effort involved in making bad things seem good.

      --
      I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
    18. Re:You don't look too happy... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Why yes, thank you.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    19. Re:You don't look too happy... by coleblak · · Score: 1

      So, does that mean a rapist is in fact helping the victim by rendering her/him unable to remember the event? Because, if so, I see some fucked up lawsuits in the near future.

      --
      77 HITS
      Really Long Off Topic Combo
    20. Re:You don't look too happy... by (negative+video) · · Score: 2, Informative

      We already have therapeutic techniques which allow for the effective treatment of PTSD, and more recently a bump in the effectiveness and practicality of exposure therapies.

      Requiring the person to spend hundreds of dollars and take dozens of hours off work.

      This drug basically serves no meaningful purpose beyond the lining of the pharmaceutical corporations pocket books.

      A 10 day course of propranolol has a full retail price of $4. And most of that is the overhead of having a pharmacist count out the pills.

      Using drugs whether legally prescribed medications or illicit drugs is not something which promotes self awareness, ...

      We're not talking about stopping awareness, we're talking about stopping excessive amygdala-based aversive fear conditioning, which is an involuntary, unconscious process.

      ... nor does it teach an individual how to cope with sudden resurgences of symptoms and ways of avoiding similar problems in the future.

      The goal is to reduce resurgences, not paper them over with coping training. And regarding future avoidance, just how often are you planning on repeatedly raping or burning the same person?

      Most psychiatric medications have a purpose and proper formal testing, but they as of now have yet to prove that any of the medications do anything other than just cover over the existing problems. There is no actual evidence which demonstrates that the medications are actually doing anything related to the initial dysfunction.

      RTFA. The study described demonstrated lasting psychiatric changes, of a character reasonably believed to be improvements, in humans. Incidentally, propranolol has been around for decades and has a long history of benefits for several acute and chronic neuropsychiatric conditions.

    21. Re:You don't look too happy... by (negative+video) · · Score: 1

      The article mentions more detailed research involving rats. I suppose I've one question - does this actually remove memories (as in cause them to no longer be able to be recalled) or does it "smooth the landing", by which I mean disassociate the memories from the intense anguish/pain that they cause.

      The human study used a drug** that seems to quench overactive aversive fear conditioning, without mucking about much with verbal and other memories.

      The rat study used a drug that appears to prevent new memories from being formed while the drug is working. It does not erase memories, though. It is a real hammer-and-tongs drug that blasts important signaling pathways, so it probably will never see general psychiatric use in humans--the side effects are likely to be too nasty or fatal.

      **Propranolol, already well studied in humans for other purposes.

      I'd be broadly in favour of option 2, but not too happy about option 1.

      Option 1 has its place. Not many people want memories of having their skin scrubbed away with a wire brush without anesthesia (severe burn treatment) or being nearly poisoned to death (cancer treatment). (Interestingly, the drug tested on rats might be an anticancer drug, so impaired memory formation might turn out to be a godsend.)

    22. Re:You don't look too happy... by superiority · · Score: 1

      It doesn't make you forget, it just weakens the link between emotions and a memory. Consider: if you lost your car keys and were late for something important, you would probably get frustrated. A month later, recalling the event, you feel nothing. A rape victim, however, may have severe problems in intimate situations, because of the shame and fear she feels whenever something triggers her memory of the rape (this situation is a factor in post-traumatic stress disorder, BTW). The drug wouldn't affect one's recollection of the event, just emotions strongly associated with it.

      (NB: I did not RTFA, but I did watch that episode of Boston Legal, so I think I'm pretty well-informed)

    23. Re:You don't look too happy... by Xtravar · · Score: 1

      I disagree. I know more about the things I put in my body than my doctors ever have... because I actually care what I'm putting in my body.

      Doctors care about "getting the job done", some of them about kick-backs. Take this medication and get out of my office, really, is the mantra of psychiatrists.

      The problem is that people get lazy and they assume the doctors know what they're doing and have the magical cure (especially from these stupid commercials), or they assume that because other people are taking something that it's safe, or they assume that because the FDA said "okay" then it's safe and effective.

      --
      Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
    24. Re:You don't look too happy... by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      "So when people self medicate to forget painful events they are considered abusers ( alcohol / drugs ). But if the researchers give you something that does the same thing it is good? How's that?"

      You seem unaware of the level of propaganda the US employs to keep the status quo in the WOD. The latest i've heard is that my dog hates me and wants to start his own country because i occasionally smoke.

  3. Can it be used offensively? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    An old girlfriend who dumped me, I'd like to erase the memories she has of how painful it was to be with me, so she will give me another try.

    1. Re:Can it be used offensively? by kenjishikida · · Score: 1

      sorry, we were talking about what? ;-)

      --
      [] Leonardo Kenji Shikida
    2. Re:Can it be used offensively? by GreggBz · · Score: 2, Insightful
    3. Re:Can it be used offensively? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead, you use it on yourself to help find a new girl and move on. If there was a drug to assist in this type of endeavor 25 years ago, I surely would have tried it. Instead, I did it the old-fashioned way. With near-zero effort, I could easily have that girl back today. No thanks!

    4. Re:Can it be used offensively? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can I have some so I can forget those painful posts on Slashdot about the iPhone?

    5. Re:Can it be used offensively? by Seumas · · Score: 1

      People seem to be overlooking this drug. I don't see how this is such an amazing new discovery. It does NOT erase memories. It only lessens the trauma and stress involved in recalling those memories. Sort of a selective prozac. Wake me up when you can actually do something USEFUL. Like ERASE memories. What's the point of reducing the pain associated with a memory if you still have the memory itself?

      Not to mention, things should hurt. I'm sorry if something terrible happens in a person's life, but events and situations help build us for better or worse and it seems ridiculous to only let your mind experience the neutral and positive memories.

      Even the original LiveScience article had this terribly wrong -- suggesting that this allows a CIA agent to have his memory erased, so that he only remembers vaguely caring about the CIA and security, but nothing else. They seem to have removed that completely wrong statement in the current version, though.

    6. Re:Can it be used offensively? by cyberwench · · Score: 1

      The "things should hurt" idea only works when people are to some extent functional. If someone's been damaged to the point where they are completely non-functional, it seems pretty horrible to say "sorry, there's a drug that could lessen the pain and allow you to go on living your life while still retaining your memories, but we're not going to give it to you because you should be capable of learning from this experience and moving on."

      "Suck it up" just doesn't work in some cases. I would think retaining memories would be more important than erasing them - like you say, our experiences do make us what we are - but it only works if they're not crippling.

      --
      ~ Leilah
    7. Re:Can it be used offensively? by Seumas · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying people should "suck it up", but negative experiences, memories and emotions have just as much value and importance as positive or neutral ones. If you're molested by your creepy uncle or priest or you're shoved in lockers and poked with hot tongs in highschool, doesn't your resulting emotion and reactions and memories and stress and trauma related to recalling those things contribute to forming who you are?

      I really do not like the idea of a world where only positive and neutral experiences, emotions and attitudes are valued and anything else needs to be extracted. I've had plenty of bad experiences and while I would certainly have preferred they never existed, those events as a child and my recollection of them to this day are a large part of who I am, what drives me, my accomplishments and how I treat people in this world.

      I can see how there may be a certain degree after which a person may need this sort of thing done, but where is that line? And how certain are we that it's not going to have an ill effect? I strongly believe that there is a natural order of things (I believe that couples who can't have children may not be able to have them for a particular biological reason imperative to the long-term health of the species, for example) and while I don't necessarily have any problem with man intervening, that doesn't mean it can't contradict or interfere with something that has a natural benefit in some way. I have to be curious about whether or not trauma that is so sever that it prevents you from being a productive member of society or from making it through each day without tremendous difficulty may impact the individual that way for a reason?

      I'm not trying to be heartless. I'm just posing questions. I surely don't want people to suffer, but if there weren't a reason for it why would we not have evolved to the point where we are not so emotionally fragile already?

    8. Re:Can it be used offensively? by fbjon · · Score: 1
      The line is determined by those who prescribe and administer the drug. One would hope. Rape victims are the obvious target group, because while this won't erase any memories, the traumatic effect is reduced. That means instead of being fscked up by negative memories, they're merely "normal" negative memories.


      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    9. Re:Can it be used offensively? by elrous0 · · Score: 1
      Screw that. I just want me one of those cool "lost time" guns from Looker.

      Come to think of it, I wouldn't mind having Susan Dey from Looker either.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  4. Do you remember GroundHog day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The comedy about Bill Murray reliving the same day over and over until he found how to get the chick he was after. Now we can the same, but with drugs.

    Yes, lock me up, and take me away, I'm a danger to society.

  5. Question.. by ThisIsWhyImHot · · Score: 1

    If the memory couldn't be completely 'erased' wouldn't it still have negative effects on the person through their subconcious? It's also painful memories that help shape a person's personality so wouldn't eliminating them have negative effects on the person?

    1. Re:Question.. by jimbug · · Score: 1

      I'm sure we can make some personality-altering drugs. Side effects include losing your friends.

      --
      Bite my shiny metal ass.
    2. Re:Question.. by beadfulthings · · Score: 1

      You make a good point, but I don't think that's how it's supposed to work. If you sit back and call to mind some pleasant incident in the past--maybe a childhood picnic or family holiday--your recollections will be pleasant but somewhat hazy and lacking in details. Memories of the Christmas when you got some much-desired gift will be clearer but still not too sharply detailed. Because of the way they're collected, memories of traumatic incidents remain sharp, clear, and are often rendered in excruciating detail. You can try this for yourself even if you don't have a terrible trauma; it could be something bad that happened at school, some embarrassment or humiliation, or that broken arm you suffered in second grade.

      What they're trying to do is to blunt the sharpness and clarity of traumatic memories, rendering them hazy or distant as other memories. Since the memories have a way of re-surfacing at any time and causing havoc in the mind of the sufferer, this might be a good idea. On the other hand, the old conventional wisdom is that when we experience a trauma or loss we need to re-process and work through it at various stages of our lives. So if you lost a parent in a terrible accident at age six, you might have to re-work the memories in adolescence, early adulthood, at the onset of middle age, and even in old age. Each life stage will bring a different perspective and help in remaining healthy and stable. People whose experiences are suppressed and swept under the rug tend to have worse problems as they go on. I can't help wondering if blunting the force of these kinds of terrible memories might interfere with that re-visiting.

      --
      "Here's what's happening. You're starting to drive like your Dad..." - Red Green
    3. Re:Question.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've broken my arm, and been in two rather destructive car accidents, but i don't remember either very well.

      I have no trouble remembering factual things, things i've read, things i've learned, but my memory gets hazy just after a week or so. I don't remember much of my childhood, school, and i'm only 22.

    4. Re:Question.. by MrShaggy · · Score: 1

      Chronic, meet Blunt-Man. You have a lot in common

      --
      I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them.
    5. Re:Question.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry! Only people without a personality would take such drugs

  6. Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Researchers at Hashcake and the Vancouver-based McBong University are working on a drug that would allow psychiatrists to dampen painful memories in their patients when combined with aroma therapy.

  7. Eternal Sunshine by creepynut · · Score: 1

    Lacuna Inc. anyone?

    So let me get this straight, they give people a drug and it reduces their bad memories? Seems pretty dangerous to me.

    1. Re:Eternal Sunshine by megaditto · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      On a positive note, rape might now be downgraded to a misdemeanor.

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    2. Re:Eternal Sunshine by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 1

      It doesn't reduce the memories, it reduces the physiological stress associated with them. You can still remember, but your blood pressure doesn't go up to unhealthy levels when you do. Seems better to me...

    3. Re:Eternal Sunshine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't reduce the memories, it reduces the physiological stress associated with them. You can still remember, but your blood pressure doesn't go up to unhealthy levels when you do. Seems better to me...


      Systematic Desensitization achieves the same result, but no drugs.
    4. Re:Eternal Sunshine by s.bots · · Score: 1

      It would help me shed those painful memories of goatse... the horror... Any way to get that image out of my head is more than welcome.

    5. Re:Eternal Sunshine by MikeFM · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, for some of us that'd set us back to prenatal mindsets. I think Eternal Sunshine was convincing enough that doing this is a bad idea. IMO there is just about nothing as bad as someone you cared about forgetting you.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    6. Re:Eternal Sunshine by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

      On a positive note, rape might now be downgraded to a misdemeanor. How does that constitute a "positive note"?
      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    7. Re:Eternal Sunshine by megaditto · · Score: 1

      Simply 'bad' memories aren't really worth targetting. I think the real target are the memories of horrific, traumatic experiences that severely disrupt people's lives. These memories interfere with your abilities to function as a human being: think cocaine addiction in reverse!

      Some people that go through rape, sustained torture, etc. can eventually put it past themselves and come out on top (though still 'changed,' e.g. John McCain). And some just cannot move on and need serious therapy.

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    8. Re:Eternal Sunshine by megaditto · · Score: 1

      Gee Foo, thanks for ruining the joke.

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    9. Re:Eternal Sunshine by tronbradia · · Score: 1

      1) This whole thing is old news (but then again, it is my school where this happened) 2) They do indeed claim to have inspired the movie: http://www.mcgill.ca/headway/spring2006/news/#4 Also on that page, my comp sci prof obsessively repeats how he did this: http://www.mcgill.ca/headway/spring2006/news/#2

    10. Re:Eternal Sunshine by lintacious · · Score: 1

      The lesson to be learned from Eternal Sunshine is that history repeats itself. Especially if you don't learn from it. So if a person has no associated memories with something terrible, then they may begin to think that the terrible thing is not so terrible. Also, they would never be able to learn from the first situation.

    11. Re:Eternal Sunshine by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      "The lesson to be learned from Eternal Sunshine is that history repeats itself. "

      I don't know about that, what i saw was that no matter what our experiences we should learn from them and except them as they make up who we are. There wasn't enough time to pass in the movie to be about history but a lot of situations where people who had gone through a relationship, instead of dealing with the outcome and growing from it, pretended like it never happened.

    12. Re:Eternal Sunshine by lintacious · · Score: 1

      And by pretending it never happened, the same pattern occurred because the person had erased the lesson from the first time.

    13. Re:Eternal Sunshine by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      "the same pattern occurred because the person had erased the lesson from the first time."

      Yes in one case it did, in another it didn't in the case of the doctor and the receptionist.

      I think it also speaks a bit to fate/soul mates.. even with their entire history erased they still met each other the same way, had the same attraction and ended up together.

      As i re-read your first post i see what you were saying though and I tend to agree more with it than i first did...there was something that bugged me about it when i first read it but i don't seem to remember why.

    14. Re:Eternal Sunshine by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      I'd classify this the way I classify easy-weight-loss solutions such as stomach banding. It gives you a quick fix but doesn't solve the mental issues at the root of the problem. I healthy mind should be able to rid itself of such trauma just as a healthy mind should be enough to make a person lose weight.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
  8. Obligitory Brain Candy by Mr.+Flibble · · Score: 1

    Mrs. Hurdicure: [looking at drug] What will this do?

    Dr. Cooper: Well, it reaches into your brain "chemically," and then it locates your happiest memory "chemically," then it locks onto that emotion and freezes it "chemically," and then it keeps you happy, happy.

    Baxter: Chris? She's depressed, not stupid!

    --
    Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
  9. Aldous Huxley would be proud. by devilradish · · Score: 1

    and this constitutes the mandatory Brave New World reference.

  10. this just seems like a bad idea by jt418-93 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    it's important to remember the bad times, so you don't end up there again. something about those who can't remember history repeating it.....

    --
    -.no
    1. Re:this just seems like a bad idea by dave420 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or what about folks who kill themselves because they can't live a day without being caught up in bad shit that's happened? They won't have a chance to learn from their bad times, as their bad times will have killed them. I'm not having a go at you, but bad memories aren't always afterschool-special-type memories, but often some really fucked up shit that reaches down to every atom in your body and flatly refuses to let go, even slightly. Stuff like this drug might actually help some folks try to live a normal life again.

    2. Re:this just seems like a bad idea by aukset · · Score: 1

      Yeah, except, you really have no idea what trauma does to a person psychologically and physiologically. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is a big deal for a reason. For these people, they have no choice but to remember, and remember chronically. Its not just a painful memory, but it includes the ENTIRE fight or flight response from the body when these memories are triggered (and triggers are everywhere). It does absolutely no good for a PTSD sufferer to retain these memories.

      In any case, I do not believe the drug actually "deletes" memories as per the headline. The summary itself mentions that the rape victims still recalled their trauma, and were able to relate it to others, but showed fewer symptoms of stress while doing so. You might say the drug decouples the traumatic memory from the stress response mechanisms.

      --
      No sig now
    3. Re:this just seems like a bad idea by AutopsyReport · · Score: 0

      Stuff like this drug might actually help some folks try to live a normal life again.

      Or how about a drug called "Time"?

      --

      For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.

    4. Re:this just seems like a bad idea by thePsychologist · · Score: 1

      So you're saying rape is the victim's fault?

      --
      "What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." Ralph Waldo Emerson
    5. Re:this just seems like a bad idea by Nutty_Irishman · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between remembering the past and suppressing traumatic memories. Everyone has their bad times, but some people have such traumatic experiences that it elicits a highly emotional response that makes it extremely difficult to live a normal life. If you want a more tame example, try asking a recovering drug addict how difficult it is to repress his cravings when someone/something triggers a previous drug memory.

      I think most of us should be very grateful that the bad times we often dwell on are a walk in a park for some people.

    6. Re:this just seems like a bad idea by dave420 · · Score: 1

      And if time is not enough? Or if, as I said, they kill themselves because they simply can't stomach an undefined length of time they have to suffer through?

    7. Re:this just seems like a bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This really isn't close to a "Score:5 Insightful". Please mod down as overrated (or similar).

    8. Re:this just seems like a bad idea by JhohannaVH · · Score: 1

      Thanks Dave, for having a brain and seeing that well, some of us don't live princess poopy-pant lives. :) I've been lucky to have come through as well as I have and I had to learn to deal with those horrible events in different ways. I can't tell you what a blessing such a treatment may have had upon my life - I might actually be normal. Wait.... I don't want to be normal, now. :) But, I might have had an easier time of climbing up to where I am today. Blessed with someone who loves me enough to put up with my bullshit, I've come a LONG way since then. And none of it has been easy or reasonable to put up with either. There are some baaaaaaaaaaad fuckers out there that do far more psychological damage than their physical harm does, and no amount of 'therapy' can get rid of it for some of us. PTSD affects far more than just military vets, too, and when we can learn to accept that and learn to treat it, maybe we can make the world a better place for them and for us.

      --
      Sorry man... the Internet pooped on me.
    9. Re:this just seems like a bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, like being brutally beaten and gang raped at the age of 6, then tortured by threats with swords and knives. Boy, lesson learned I'm never going to do that again.
      Although for most of my life my mind has successfully blocked these memories from my conscious mind, it did not stop the simmering anxiety and horrifying nightmares that got progressively worse.
      Even at age 30, having severe anxiety attacks, feeling trapped, frightened beyond all measure, for no reason at all. Actually it was my mind trying to deal with these memories, and eventually they came out. Having to take medication on the onset of these attacks that shut me down for 20+ hours and waking up with no personality or feeling. Each time feeling part of me being erased.
      At least I now know why my life has been so screwed up.

      I love it how people who have never had any real experience can make such statements.
      My favorite is, "It's all in your mind, get over it."

      Posted AC for obvious reasons.

    10. Re:this just seems like a bad idea by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Or what about folks who kill themselves because they can't live a day without being caught up in bad shit that's happened?
      I don't think Propranolol will help people who have killed themselves. Besides, how would you get them to take it?
  11. File this under B... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tag it 'braincandy'. ;)

  12. Oh yeah by SpiffyMarc · · Score: 3, Funny

    I saw this movie. While they are administering the procedure, Elijah Wood steals your underwear and Kirsten Dunst hits on an old guy.

    Count me out.

  13. But at what cost to your soul? by decipher_saint · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So, you take a drug and make something traumatic in the past go away. My philosophical question of the day is thus:

    If reality is perception, and the basis of perception is memory and you can alter memory, are you changing your personal reality and in effect, changing who you are? Is the only cure for trauma personal metamorphosis?

    I can understand that there are people who are so traumatized by past events that they require medical attention but is effectively erasing those events from memory the best solution? I guess a follow up question is a drug like this something that will be abused and furthermore, how can I get some of this to dab on past potential girlfriends I said stupid things to?

    --
    crazy dynamite monkey
    1. Re:But at what cost to your soul? by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 1

      I doubt it would work as such, since rape victims often have other effects which the pills won't deal with. Eating disorders and insomnia are both common side effects.

      --
      I like muppets.
    2. Re:But at what cost to your soul? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a concept! The perfect addition for date rape drug cocktail! Lemme ask you if you don't know you were assraped in an alley did it really happen?

    3. Re:But at what cost to your soul? by capologist · · Score: 1

      If reality is perception, and the basis of perception is memory and you can alter memory, are you changing your personal reality and in effect, changing who you are? ...is effectively erasing those events from memory the best solution?

      The events aren't erased from memory. The subject can still recall and describe the event. However, certain stress/trauma symptoms are reduced.

      I'd put it in the same category as other psychoactive drugs that address emotional problems. Now there are those who say that any such drugs that may lead to emotions being other than what they would "naturally" be somehow undermines the user's individuality, but I certainly don't feel that way.
    4. Re:But at what cost to your soul? by stonecypher · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If reality is perception

      It isn't. This is easily demonstrated by beating a coma victim to death. They won't perceive your actions, but they'll still die. If you really want to try the schroedinger's cat falling in a forest line of things, make a robot do the beating. The coma victim will in fact die without being measured.

      and the basis of perception is memory

      It isn't. There are a variety of individuals with brain injuries that impede or destroy memory. They can still perceive you, and remarkably, they're often still able to function to a degree in the real world.

      are you changing your personal reality

      There's no such thing as a personal reality. Put down the Led Zeppelin, and if you're well educated in Philosophy, climb out of the barrel. You can make all the solipsisms you want, and yes, it's particularly difficult for me to convince you that I exist, when you can just claim that every sense by which you're detecting me is faulty.

      That said, this isn't The Matrix, and you can be affected without being aware of it. As the old saying goes, the bullet you don't hear is the one that killed you.

      and in effect, changing who you are?

      This ... is a difficult point. On the one hand, yes, in many ways we are created and defined by our experiences. On the other hand, though, in many ways we aren't. Consider for example that thing that Ripley's Believe It or Not always does when they're out of material, where they find two twins who were seperated at birth, and point out how they wear the same kind of clothes and the same teeth are missing and their girlfriends both have the same weird deformities and whatever.

      Are you removing part of who you are? Maybe. But, look, what about if you lose your fourth toe? You lost a little bit of who you are there, too, and you're a different person for it. Sure, it's a trivial tiny difference, but it is a difference. These things have a scale. I was changed as a person when I got my elbow injury. Not in a huge way, sure, but it's real. I stopped working out because the stress on my elbow is no longer safe. I used the scar to impress each of two different girls.

      So, you remove a traumatic memory. Does that change a person? Sure. But, then, change isn't always a bad thing, and there's such a thing as changing back - or, at least, there may be now. Consider the case of someone coming back from a brief tour in war, with shell shock. They can't talk, they can't sleep, they scream every time there's a loud sound, and seeing a gun on TV leaves them crying for hours. Don't laugh; there are people who were wounded psychologically in just such a way.

      Say you could remove those memories. Say that turns them back into (almost) who they were before the war. Is that a change? Yes. But maybe you might do better to think of it as a "change back." This drug is apparently thought of for trauma. Rarely is it the case that those changes caused by trauma are beneficial. I'm no psychologist, but can see the case for this maybe becoming an important tool in repairing serious psychological damage.

      Is the only cure for trauma personal metamorphosis?

      Of course not. People come back from trauma every day. That there are other ways, though, doesn't mean that this way isn't important. There are something like 30 ways to remove an ulcer. Half of them are in use today. One might expect there to be only one, but the human situation is complicated; sometimes you need to do it through the mouth, sometimes through the butt, sometimes with a remote control robot, sometimes by just opening the stomach.

      Different situations need different solutions.

      I can understand that there are people who are so traumatized by past events that they require medical attention but is effectively erasing those events from memory the best solution?

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    5. Re:But at what cost to your soul? by decipher_saint · · Score: 1

      If only they had a drug that would force you to agree with me, from my point of view change would be a good thing and you wouldn't disagree! :-)

      --
      crazy dynamite monkey
    6. Re:But at what cost to your soul? by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      Buhuhuhuhuhu. That's quality comedy. Friended.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    7. Re:But at what cost to your soul? by Jackmn · · Score: 1

      It isn't. This is easily demonstrated by beating a coma victim to death. They won't perceive your actions, but they'll still die.
      No, you'll perceive them as dying. Beyond the evidence provided by your perceptions you still have no idea as to whether or not they exist. Your mind experiment doesn't demonstrate anything.
    8. Re:But at what cost to your soul? by Elemenope · · Score: 1

      This would be a real philosophical conundrum only if our memories, being formative of our personalities (and hence 'ourselves') were perfect inerrant reproductions of the events that generate them. They aren't (in fact, not even close), and so destroying a memory of an event, while possibly being dangerous to the integrity of the personality as such, isn't in any sense 'erasing an event in the past', but only a highly distorted and in the case of traumatic memories highly adrenaline-charged reproduction of the impression of the event by the individual. Regardless of whether or not we remember an event, it still happened in reality, and there are other lateral consequences to events such as these besides the memory impressions they create (I think Mr. Alphonse pointed out a few above). If our personalities are composed of a collection of these mostly fictitious reproductions, then substituting one for another is not as morally charged as one might think, especially if we are the ones to choose to do it.

      All the Eternal Sunshine jokes aside, the movie really only makes an argument against abuse of this capability; the memory of an ex- boyfriend/girlfriend in most cases does not qualify as sufficiently debilitating to qualify as a memory that should be altered/removed.

      --
      All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
    9. Re:But at what cost to your soul? by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      Beyond the evidence provided by your perceptions you still have no idea as to whether or not they exist.
      Try again, son. Pay close attention to the second sentence in the post, "If you really want to try the schroedinger's cat falling in a forest line of things, make a robot do the beating. The coma victim will in fact die without being measured."

      By the by, kind of the point I was making was that it doesn't actually matter if you know they exist, because they don't. People don't fail to die just because you're looking some other direction, kid. And really, don't waste my time with naïve misinterpretations of the measurement problem. It doesn't say that things don't occur until measured. It says that the positional locus of a single particle collapses when measured. That has nothing to do with whether the particle is actually there, and Schroedinger long regretted his cat example, because people managed to turn it into "the cat is both dead and alive," which isn't what the experiment means at all.

      Your classes in Quantum Mechanics from the University of Star Trek: Voyager were lacking. I suggest you get through a physics book before you next attempt to discuss things. Quantum mechanical single particle position has literally no bearing on the macroscopic world, and macroscopic objects are not subject to positionality or location resolution issues. Welcome to the real world. Just because someone told you it works one way doesn't mean it really does, and the only reason you think Quantum Mechanics is simpler than people say it is is because you don't actually understand QM at all.

      My mind experiment demonstrates two things: what it was meant to demonstrate, and your inability to keep up. Don't argue a post until you've finished reading at least the paragraph you're chafing against.
      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    10. Re:But at what cost to your soul? by Jackmn · · Score: 1

      People don't fail to die just because you're looking some other direction, kid.
      Really? Prove it, deductively.

      You can't, because you'll have to depend on your senses at some point. This has nothing to do with quantum mechanics.
    11. Re:But at what cost to your soul? by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the burden of proof is on the speaker. Occam's razor says that death isn't bound to observation. You're the one making the claim otherwise. You prove it. I cannot disprove a falsehood with no basis in reality. I also can't disprove that you're a Martian.

      For that matter, if you're willing to pretend that all things are sense dependant, then by definition nothing can ever be proven or disproven. The ancient Greeks were sick to death of this nonsense when it was coming out of the mouths of the Skeptics.

      You go live in a barrel if you want. I don't care. I live in the real world and the real world hasn't ever thrown me a curve ball. My eyes do not create reality. Neither, for that matter, do yours, but at least I have the common sense to know it.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    12. Re:But at what cost to your soul? by Jackmn · · Score: 1

      Occam's razor says that death isn't bound to observation.
      Not proof. Not even evidence.

      You're the one making the claim otherwise.
      You are claiming that things happen without us perceiving them. You are making a claim. Now prove it.

      For that matter, if you're willing to pretend that all things are sense dependant, then by definition nothing can ever be proven or disproven.
      That's correct. As a result, reality is very much dependent on perception. Congratulations.

      I live in the real world and the real world hasn't ever thrown me a curve ball. My eyes do not create reality
      Again, prove it.
    13. Re:But at what cost to your soul? by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      You are claiming that things happen without us perceiving them. You are making a claim. Now prove it.
      Why is it that people like you always have such difficulty with concepts like burden of proof? No, I'm just taking the same stance that basic common sense takes. You're the one who believes, in the way that a newborn does, that the world goes away when they stop looking.

      Tell you what. Next time you want to cross the street, put on some earmuffs and a blindfold and just start walking. Either you're right, and humanity will be much improved by their ability to selectively experience reality, or the world will be much improved for not having to listen to you anymore.

      For that matter, if you're willing to pretend that all things are sense dependant, then by definition nothing can ever be proven or disproven.
      That's correct. As a result, reality is very much dependent on perception. Congratulations.
      You mean you seriously can't see the problem there? ... wow.

      I live in the real world and the real world hasn't ever thrown me a curve ball. My eyes do not create reality
      Again, prove it.
      Do not demand of others that which you will not or cannot do yourself. The burden of proof is on the original statement, not the reactions you got, even if you just try to start over at the reaction and pretend that you didn't say something first.

      Since I have no doubt that you will reply again without justifying your own statements, I'll warn you that should you choose again to reply making hypocritical demands based on logic a seventh grader would be embarrassed of, I'll simply ignore you. Don't ask me to justify my laughing at your claims; I really don't care if you believe me when I think you're a transparent moron. There's a reason the Skeptics died out.

      Either justify your own claims, or shoo. I didn't make any of the claims you're now asking me to defend the derision of. This all originates at you, and the burden of proof is entirely on you. The lack of proof speaks badly of you. Stop demanding what you won't do, kid.
      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    14. Re:But at what cost to your soul? by decipher_saint · · Score: 1

      :-) Likewise.

      --
      crazy dynamite monkey
    15. Re:But at what cost to your soul? by Jackmn · · Score: 1

      No, I'm just taking the same stance that basic common sense takes.
      Common sense is not evidence. Let's consider things right from the root. You know you exist. This is self evident. You know you perceive things. This is self evident. Now, how do you know those things you perceive are correct? The default state of affairs is that you cannot assume your perceptions are correct, since there is no evidence demonstrating that what you perceive is a representation of reality. You are claiming that your perceptions are reliable and correct, and that they represent a reality separate from your own thoughts and perceptions. You are making a claim. Despite your opinion to the contrary, the burden of proof is on you here. Now do your job and prove your position.

      Don't ask me to justify my laughing at your claims; I really don't care if you believe me when I think you're a transparent moron.
      Childish name calling doesn't support your position. It just shows that you don't have any argument to speak of.
    16. Re:But at what cost to your soul? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering the patient is not unwilling and knows what he/she is doing, is protecting identity important? Why would changing who you are be bad?

    17. Re:But at what cost to your soul? by grolschie · · Score: 1

      Common sense is not evidence. Let's consider things right from the root. You know you exist. This is self evident.
      I am reminded of the words of one of the world's most slippery politicians:
      "That depends on what your definition of 'is' is" - Bill Clinton
    18. Re:But at what cost to your soul? by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      I'm tired of listening to you base every part of this on pretending the burden of proof isn't on you, and watching you carefully edit out every explanation of why you asking me to prove or disprove your statement is couched in error. You're simply revealing your own ignorance, though it seems you're unable to see it, and hiding behind my having fun at your expense as a desperate smokescreen to pretend I didn't make the legitimate points that you simply ignored. There's a big difference between disabling someone's argument and ignoring it, and the arrogant "do your job" nonsense doesn't work when you're so obviously on the wrong side of that line.

      Find someone else to haunt. You're not smart enough to spin this.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    19. Re:But at what cost to your soul? by Jackmn · · Score: 1

      I clearly demonstrated why your senses cannot be assumed to represent reality. You have claimed they do, and the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate this no matter how you try to turn it around.

      The reason you're dancing around the subject is because you cannot prove this. Your side of the argument is illogical and invalid. There is no way to deductively prove that anything exists beyond what you perceive, and there is no way to deductively prove that what you perceive represents reality. Descartes tried and the best he could come up with was the ontological argument, which has been debunked a great many times. As a result you have fallen back to childish insults and laughably transparent attempts to spin things around. Not going to happen. So, lets see you succeed where one of the greatest minds of his time failed.

    20. Re:But at what cost to your soul? by Himring · · Score: 1

      When I went through my divorce, I wanted to die. I cannot imagine worse pain. During that period, several other things occured that compounded the situation greatly. All told, I suffered several massive losses at once. Of course, doctors were quick to offer "head pills" and I actually got one prescription. I never took any. Instead, I happened upon three books that changed my life, my view of life: "Depression Makeover, Winning Through Intimidation and Fight Club."

      I know that sounds goofy, but in the first I learned that Depression is a natural thing wherein the brain is dealing with the incredible changes it is facing. It needs to happen. "A little suffering is good for the soul" said Kirk.

      In the second I learned to face reality, embrace it, learn how to read reality correctly and not bend it or only use pieces of it to chase a fantasy. The great quote from that book: "The Theory of Reality: First, reality isn't the way you wish things to be, nor the way they appear to be, but the way they actually are. Second, you either acknowledge reality and use it to your benefit or it will automatically work against you." Ringer taught me Reality Philosophy.

      In the last, Fight Club -- a book I actually was familiar with before my divorce, but revisited -- Durden teaches us that evolution is also of the mind, and it cannot fulfill itself without being unbridled to reality, to embracing pain, to being thrilled by the challenges thrown at us no matter how difficult. "I say, let me never be complete. I say, evolve and the chips fall where they may." I read reviews about the book or movie and realize how many people don't get it. They call it, a comedy or senseless violence, or whatever, but it is a book about Reality Philosophy, about growth through pain, about evolving naturally due to successes and failures.

      I'm just not convinced that god is in a pill. At least, not for me....

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    21. Re:But at what cost to your soul? by d-compiled · · Score: 0

      By your logic, if I get hit by a car today and go to the hospital they should deny me painkillers because it might alter my identity. Granted Propanolol isn't applicable in all situations but then again the same is true of painkillers. Abuse of painkillers is a serious issue today but because some people abuse these drugs, does that justify denying painkillers to everyone?

  14. Shortsighted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't it seem to anyone else that this is a shallow and unhealthy way of dealing with traumatic experiences? It is extreme stress and trauma that we grow the most from. Rather than try to grasp and accept painful experience, this is only a way of dodging it. One more step in the perpetual extension of adolescence we are experiencing in our society.

    Imagine how much wiser and healthier a person could be, if only by finding the strength to accept and rise above past trauma rather than bury it in a drug-induced amnesia. Consider this one vote for replacing amnesia drugs with counseling(not necessarily from a psychiatrist), followed by MDMA when the 'victim' is ready.

    1. Re:Shortsighted? by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      Doesn't it seem to anyone else that this is a shallow and unhealthy way of dealing with traumatic experiences?

      Look more carefully: the general public has been reared by TV to believe that shallow and unheathy is good.

      What planet are you from? Can I go there cheaply?

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  15. You're not going to get very many good comments... by Himuanam · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The most traumatic thing most of Slashdot has experienced is having their parents turn off their internet connection, come on, all we're going to get is comments about alcohol or how we're becoming a drug-obsessed culture. Experience something *really* traumatic or know someone who has, and you'll see the benefit of research like this.

  16. I was wondering... by flar2 · · Score: 1

    Could this accidentally erase good memories? During the times when I'm suffering or in pain, I've often wondered, if I had my memory erased afterword, would I actually have suffered?

    1. Re:I was wondering... by sssssss27 · · Score: 1

      During the times when I'm suffering or in pain, I've often wondered, if I had my memory erased afterword, would I actually have suffered?

      You would have suffered but since you don't remember it then it doesn't really matter. Take babies for example, babies are in a great deal of pain a lot of the time between teething, running into things, etc and yet we don't remember any of it so it doesn't effect us.

  17. Theory debunked by Nazlfrag · · Score: 1, Funny

    "They treated 19 accident or rape victims for ten days, during which the patients were asked to describe their memories of the traumatic event that had happened 10 years earlier."

    Well that's hardly scientific, perhaps it only helps the people involved in this mysterious decade old mass accident/rape.

  18. Has "soma" been trademarked? by baomike · · Score: 1

    eom

    1. Re:Has "soma" been trademarked? by smart.id · · Score: 1
      --
      blog & fiction: jd87
  19. Great - More consciousness altering drugs by unity100 · · Score: 0

    and that is psychological treatment ?

    some of you have modded me down when i criticized psychology and its applied branches for being reliant on drugs that altered consciousness of the individual. now come see, another drug.

    if you clear the symptoms with mind numbing drugs, it means you just suppressed the symptoms, not removed the actual cause.

    1. Re:Great - More consciousness altering drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Quote: "if you clear the symptoms with mind numbing drugs, it means you just suppressed the symptoms, not removed the actual cause."

      I hate to say this, but you can't change the past.

    2. Re:Great - More consciousness altering drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great, more ignorance and faulty reasoning.

      Tom Cruise would be proud.

    3. Re:Great - More consciousness altering drugs by shawnap · · Score: 1

      if you clear the symptoms with mind numbing drugs, it means you just suppressed the symptoms, not removed the actual cause.
      see: Foundation of modern medicine.
    4. Re:Great - More consciousness altering drugs by unity100 · · Score: 1

      modern medicine tries to suppress symptoms WHILE working to remove the cause. in most psychiatry cases just suppressing the symptoms prevails.

    5. Re:Great - More consciousness altering drugs by unity100 · · Score: 1

      yea. admittedly i was wrong. lets drug ourselves to oblivion.

      something being voiced also by Tom Cruise does not make it or break it.

    6. Re:Great - More consciousness altering drugs by sssssss27 · · Score: 1

      Well isn't the cause of your symptoms the memory of the tragic event? So wouldn't removing said memory cause all the symptoms to be alleviated?

      If I have a nail in my foot and because of that it hurts to walk so I am prescribed pain medication or I am taught ways to walk so that it doesn't hurt as much then all you are doing is helping to cope with the problem. All you need to do is remove the nail. The same thing is happening here. If the memory is causing pain then why don't you remove the memory, assuming that it is severe enough, instead of trying to suppress the symptoms from the bad memory by teaching people how to cope with it?

    7. Re:Great - More consciousness altering drugs by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "I hate to say this, but you can't change the past."

      No one knows the past. Our perception of the past is an illusion.
      What ones "knows" is their memory of the past, and that can be changed or even be completely confabulated.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    8. Re:Great - More consciousness altering drugs by dharbee · · Score: 1

      "if you clear the symptoms with insulin, it means you just suppressed the symptoms, not removed the actual cause of diabetes."

      See how far you get with that one.

      Sometimes there are organic treatments for brain disorders.

    9. Re:Great - More consciousness altering drugs by unity100 · · Score: 1

      your analogy is faulty.

      with your example, what these psychiatrists are doing is to give you medication to suppress the pain, but NOT remove the nail from your foot.

  20. It doesn't erase ANY Memories... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It reduces the patients stress level when recalling the painful/traumatic memories.
    It reduces the trauma of the event, it doesn't erase the event entirely (or at all).

  21. It's good but.. by Archades54 · · Score: 1

    The pain and trauma of events in life also build character and strength. Would this mean we would become weaker and more dependant on pills/etc to make life easier?

    It would certainly lower the creative power of many artists etc.

    --
    If your neighbours roof is flying past your window, you know it's cyclone season.
    1. Re:It's good but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Past a certain point pain and trauma don't build character or strength, they destroy them instead. The pain of banging your shin on the side of a table help you to learn to be more careful. The trauma of being tortured and gang raped rips your emotions and personality into little shreds from which a functional human being may never reemerge. It's all a matter of degrees.

  22. Right... by p3d0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    it's important to remember the bad times, so you don't end up there again. something about those who can't remember history repeating it..... Yeah, those rape victims really should try harder next time not to get raped.

    --
    Patrick Doyle
    I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
    1. Re:Right... by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      it's important to remember the bad times, so you don't end up there again. something about those who can't remember history repeating it..... Yeah, those rape victims really should try harder next time not to get raped. Or at least they'll remember who not to go out with.
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    2. Re:Right... by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      Yeah, those rape victims really should try harder next time not to get raped.


      Unfortunately, we all know that rape victims are not going to be the major users of this drug if it ever comes to the market. It will be the new Prozac of this decade.
      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    3. Re:Right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Look, while nothing justifies a crime, people can place themselves in danger in foolish ways. Suppose I was mugged late at night walking through a bad part of town. I sure hope the police catch the bastards, and the judge better not give the muggers a smaller sentence "'cuz I was asking for it" but all the same it was dumb for me to have been there.

    4. Re:Right... by grasshoppa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, those rape victims really should try harder next time not to get raped.

      No one likes to say it, but often times rape victims should have known better.

      Go out with the guy that other girls warn you about? Sure, why not. They must be jealous is all.
      Walk down a dark alley in a bad neighborhood? Sure, what could possibly happen?

      I am not saying these things are their fault; The sick fuck who did it deserves to have his balls chopped off for it. What I am saying is that, from a rational perspective, if you can learn from your previous mistakes you won't repeat them. This obviously doesn't apply to people just minding their own walking down the street, which is a smaller subset of overall rape victims.

      Women; Learn how to defend yourselves. A knee to the groin will usually disuade the most aggresive attacker, and pepper spray is always a hit at the parties. You are in control in that confrontation; The attacker has just convinced you otherwise. Don't let him.

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    5. Re:Right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Is this the man who raped you?"

      'I don't remember'

      "You don't remember? Is he or isn't he? You said you saw him clearly and could identify him when you talked to the police. Were you raped?"

      'I don't remember...'

      "Your honor, move for dismissal"

      Yeah, sounds like a great use of the drug.

    6. Re:Right... by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      The general problem with your cure for being a rape victim is that most rape victims carry far too much trauma to ever think the event over logically and decide to change whatever behaviors had increased their probability of being raped.

    7. Re:Right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Women; Learn how to defend yourselves. A knee to the groin will usually disuade the most aggresive attacker, and pepper spray is always a hit at the parties. You are in control in that confrontation; The attacker has just convinced you otherwise. Don't let him.

      Speaking as someone who has worked the doors, messed around with lots of martial arts, and known some of the foremost self-defence experts in the world, that's complete shit. You have obviously never been in such a situation.

      It is extremely difficult for a woman to fend off a serious attacker.

      A knee to the groin is almost useless; someone pumped up enough on adrenaline will hardly feel it at the time. You're better off going for the throat or the eyes, or if they're not accessible, kicking at the kneecap.

      Pepper spray is also next to useless. A better option is a spray can of WD40 at the eyes. I'm told that's very nasty, and effective.

    8. Re:Right... by BarefootClown · · Score: 1

      Pepper spray is also next to useless. A better option is a spray can of WD40 at the eyes. I'm told that's very nasty, and effective.


      A better solution yet is a 1911, and in the majority of states, it can be legally carried with a "shall-issue" permit.

      --

      "Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
      --Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca

    9. Re:Right... by grasshoppa · · Score: 2, Insightful


      Speaking as someone who has worked the doors, messed around with lots of martial arts, and known some of the foremost self-defence experts in the world, that's complete shit. You have obviously never been in such a situation.


      Never been in a rape situation? True. Never been in a situation where I needed to take someone out of a fight? False. It has been my experience that, unless some serious drugs are involved, a knee to the groin and some pepper spray usually disuade any male from doing pretty much anything for the next 10 or so minutes.

      It is extremely difficult for a woman to fend off a serious attacker.

      Only if she believes that.


      Pepper spray is also next to useless. A better option is a spray can of WD40 at the eyes. I'm told that's very nasty, and effective.


      Speaking as someone who's been hit with pepper spray, I don't buy it. Even those around the initial impact area experience breathing problems and have a hard time getting their eyes open.

      I can't speak for WD40; But whatever works.

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    10. Re:Right... by hsqueak · · Score: 1

      Women; Learn how to defend yourselves. A knee to the groin will usually disuade the most aggresive attacker, and pepper spray is always a hit at the parties. You are in control in that confrontation; The attacker has just convinced you otherwise. Don't let him. So when a man a foot taller and 100lb heavier with more upper body strength grabs you and threatens your life (with or without a weapon) you will *always* have the ability to knee him in the groin and reach for the pepper spray in your purse/on your keychain? I think not. Most self-defence classes tell you to RUN first if you have the opportunity, scream "Fire!" if possible to draw attention, and only then try to use physical force. Because men are almost always stronger than women, even if the woman works out. (And if the woman is more than X shorter than her attacker, it can be all but impossible to knee him in the groin simply because of the height difference. Try to kick, and he'll grab your foot and now you can't even run and are probably lying on the ground with a concussion.)

    11. Re:Right... by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      For God's sake, at least leave yourself a note before you go under the drug, telling yourself not to go out with Jimmy again!

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    12. Re:Right... by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Oh, give me a break, they're not children (well not all of them, anyway)! You think that someone who walks down a dark alley and gets raped is not going to hesitate to walk down a dark alley again?!?!

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    13. Re:Right... by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      Do you really think that most rapes take place in dark alleys?

    14. Re:Right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are you allowed to post this kind of crap. And FYI, how do you know that a rape victim won't learn to be more careful and avoid a repeat of the rape as a result of this therapy. The problem is this is Science looking to DUMB people down rather than educate and equip people to be able to deal with these issues. Why don't they want this? Well, they don't want too many smart people - they're harder to control..

  23. Wait... by kollywabbles · · Score: 0

    C21H30O2? That's new?

    --
    put it in the bit bucket
  24. Take a pill, Jill by canUbeleiveIT · · Score: 1, Funny

    Funny, if you do this with alcohol or heroin, it's considered drug abuse and problem-avoidant behavior.

    Personally, I find this compulsion to "reduce stress" through pharmacological means to be slightly disconcerting. We seem to always talk about stress as if it were a bad thing when, in fact, it is one of the organism's primary protection mechanisms. Stress is the organisms way of prompting change. You know, the old towards pleasure/away from pain thing.

    In the example of the accident victims, maybe they need to learn to be more careful. In the case of the rape victims, maybe they need to learn to avoid people/situations in which they're vulnerable. Stress will help you with that. When I was in middle school, I got jumped by a bunch of kids from another school and beat up pretty badly. I was super-stressed about it for months, but--due to the stress--I also kept away from the area where these kids hung out, thus avoiding another beating.

    1. Re:Take a pill, Jill by CrackedButter · · Score: 1

      Big difference when somebody who is addicted to alcohol or/and heroin sticks a knife in you for your wallet.

    2. Re:Take a pill, Jill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We seem to always talk about blood circulation as if it were a bad thing when, in fact, it is one of the organism's primary protection schemes. Instead of applying ice to a swollen ankle, why don't we just leave it alone and let it grow to the size of a beach ball? Maybe it will help people learn to stop spraining their ankles.

      Actually, I like your method. We'd save a fortune on health care costs. Instead of getting health care, we'll just get NO HEALTH CARE AT ALL. Then people will REALLY learn to never get sick.

    3. Re:Take a pill, Jill by canUbeleiveIT · · Score: 1
      Actually, I like your method. We'd save a fortune on health care costs. Instead of getting health care, we'll just get NO HEALTH CARE AT ALL. Then people will REALLY learn to never get sick.


      Wow, now that is an classic example of a strawman argument.

    4. Re:Take a pill, Jill by cecille · · Score: 1

      well, they woudln't have to if a doctor just prescibed it to them like the more acceptable/legal drugs.

      --
      ...no two people are not on fire.
    5. Re:Take a pill, Jill by CrackedButter · · Score: 1

      Well they don't yet so its something we have to deal with.

  25. Why avoid pain? by PPH · · Score: 1
    Zeus is credited with saying 'Only through suffering comes wisdom'.


    This might be a god cure for phobias and memories that trigger panic atttacks, but the sum total of ones personality includes the bad memories as well as the good. I'm afraid some parents are going to drag their kids to the clinic after losing the homecomming king/queen title.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Why avoid pain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "wisdom leads to sorrow."

      That's not exact quote, but my jumbled version of what some dead old geezer wrote, and I and the quote are not contradicting your point.

  26. yeah...lets pretend it didn't happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    let's concentrate effort to stop the rapes and accidents....

    more logical

    thnx

  27. The drug has... by niceone · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...been in use round here for a while, it's called Dupesol(TM).

  28. Somalicious!!! by gorehog · · Score: 1

    Got a traumatic memory? Take this drug for ten years or so. Really. Nothing sinister or societally altering here. And if you OD we can just change your blood.

  29. Dampening Memories by whisper_jeff · · Score: 1

    I know a bunch of old drugs that are great for dampening memories and I didn't even have to go to school to learn what they were.

    Well, going to school helped introduce me to the drugs...

  30. Expensive Escapism Aid by bunburyist · · Score: 1

    In my opinion, this society is too concerned with escapism, weather chemically or through entertainment. The general population is highly enthralled in things like nightclubs, alcohol and expensive luxuries all primarily used to escape from the problems that they face or the insecurities that they feel.
    People who undergo traumatic events cannot escape the painful memories through a chemical solution. While this drug probably can induce some sort of semi-comatose happy state, it really won't solve the original problem, that being the trauma suffered. I'm not a psychologist but I don't see how a chemical that supresses feelings that need to be felt is going to be at all beneficial to a trauma victim.
    D

    1. Re:Expensive Escapism Aid by trolltalk.com · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "I don't see how a chemical that supresses feelings that need to be felt is going to be at all beneficial to a trauma victim"

      Past a certain point, the feelings don't need to be felt - they're a barrier, not a character-builder. By reducing the associated stress, maybe the person is able to be less afraid look closer at what happened, and gain new insight?

      We do it with mood-altering substances all the time, from "comfort food" to chocolate to booze, etc. All legal. Sugar has a tremedous impact on your mood - just look at any hyper kid on a sugar high - and yet I don't see people recommending we starve people because food can alter your moods.

      I'd say lets do some more testing and see what happens.

  31. CIA has wanted something like this for a while. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    It brings a whole new meaning to "debriefing".

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:CIA has wanted something like this for a while. by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

      What? I thought the CIA definition of 'debriefing' was in reference to stripping a suspect of their rights and privacy, bending him over a chair in an interrogation room, and then fucking him over for the rest of his life.

      The CIA must have an underwear fetish.

      --
      Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
  32. 60 Minutes piece by artemis67 · · Score: 4, Informative

    60 Minutes did a report on a drug (Propranolol) that has a similar effect, and is already available on the market (to treat a different symptom). What was interesting about the report was the relationship between adrenaline and the formation of memories; i.e., the bigger the adrenaline surge, the more powerful the memory that is created.

    Here's the whole segment, chopped up into bite-sized morsels:

    The Memory Pill

    1. Re:60 Minutes piece by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know why the connection between adrenaline and memory would be surprising. Think about memory from a survival context. The things the trigger fight-or-flight *read: mostly things that were obvious dangers or direct threats) are likely to be the most necessary thing to remember froma survival standpoint, followed by other stressors (read things that cause you difficulties, and thus one needs to remember to avoid or expect).

    2. Re:60 Minutes piece by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      60 Minutes did a report on a drug (Propranolol) Heh heh. Propane lol. Heh heh.
  33. Just these memories? Or all? by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How does a drug target specific memories? Or does it simply make you an emotional brick?

    I'm always wary when I hear things like that. Drugs that change your mental framework. We don't know jack about the brain, to be blunt. LSD has been out for decades now and we still don't have a clue just how that stuff works. Yet we keep cranking out more pills for "mental" problems.

    Why do I also have the feeling that this pill would only suppress the traumatic experience instead of making people deal with and resolve it? Is that the new medicine? Instead of curing, we treat. Which is incidentally also more profitable, because a cured person is just that, cured. Doesn't need more medication. Treatment, though, can take months, years, decades or however long you want. And for the whole time, he keeps swallowing tablets and gets his shots.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Just these memories? Or all? by stonecypher · · Score: 2, Informative

      How does a drug target specific memories?
      There are quite a few substances which are already known to target memories. This just happens to be the first one which isn't somewhat poisonous. I don't know the underlying mechanism for this one, but several derivatives of hemlock reveal a toxin which is both highly polar and ferromagnetic. It's quite simply attracted to the cells of the brain that are currently in use; you tend to start losing what you're thinking about during the poison's course through the body. Read about the Roman Senate; that kind of toxin was blamed repeatedly for the change of several specific Senators' positions.

      Now, granted, that particular substance does a lot of other damage to the body and brain too, but if you were to combine that kind of mechanism with a molecule dependent on some surface receptor on the parts of the brain responsible for memory storage...

      We don't know jack about the brain, to be blunt.
      Actually, most current brain medication was designed from scratch. We know quite a bit about the brain. There's a lot left to learn, but several antipsychotics in current use were put together by an engineer who wanted specific results. Don't confuse that you don't know jack about the brain with that the rest of us don't.

      LSD has been out for decades now and we still don't have a clue just how that stuff works.
      Actually, we've understood LSD for about a decade. Try keeping up with the literature if you're going to feign familiarity.

      Yet we keep cranking out more pills for "mental" problems.
      And most of them replace something older, and almost all of them are an improvement on what they're replacing. What, precisely, is your point?

      Why do I also have the feeling that this pill would only suppress the traumatic experience instead of making people deal with and resolve it?
      Probably because it's blatantly obvious that you can't resolve something you don't remember. Y'know, that whole common sense thing.

      Instead of curing, we treat. Which is incidentally also more profitable, because a cured person is just that, cured. Doesn't need more medication.
      People who argue based on assumptions are tiresome and boring. This is a permanent effect. Try reading about the pill before assuming it's a lifelong commitment; it isn't.

      Also, I'm not sure if you knew this, but if the treatment isn't permanent, it's not a treatment. I realize the semantic difference you're trying to make, but perhaps you should spend some quality time with a dictionary. Treatments are permanent. That's why it's called "treated wood."

      Treatment, though, can take months, years, decades or however long you want.
      Wrong. It's not a treatment until the day it's successfully, permanently over.
      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    2. Re:Just these memories? Or all? by Hatta · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, we've understood LSD for about a decade.

      Knowing that LSD is a partial agonist at the 5-HT2a (and to some extent 1a) receptor is a far cry from knowing "how LSD works". How does stimulation of those receptors create the subjective LSD experience?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    3. Re:Just these memories? Or all? by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      "How does stimulation of those receptors create the subjective LSD experience?"

      Because it just does man, it makes things all like cool and stuff, i can totally hear the colors and this water is like part of me.. like part of all of us man.. whoa.

  34. aid to therapy by ubrgeek · · Score: 1

    As someone who has gone through therapy, there are always tools that therapists use to "enhance" the experience. Could this be something as "simple" as retraining the brain to have less of a response to the recollection of the event? By asking the patient to retell the event again and again while taking the drug, the mental pathways that have been formed by the drug can be deadend (for lack of a better word) or have their receptors rendered less active and that could help reduce the stress associated with the event.

    --
    Bark less. Wag more.
  35. Yeah, this'll last. by stonecypher · · Score: 1

    For those of you paying attention, this is the specific reason that Ecstasy was originally developed by Merck. Also, Ecstasy does a damned good job of it. Unfortunately, ecstasy also makes you feel good, which got it banned.

    Yeah: this'll last. Legal for three months, maximum.

    --
    StoneCypher is Full of BS
    1. Re:Yeah, this'll last. by nystul555 · · Score: 1

      Actually that is not the reason MDMA was developed. It was patented in 1914 as a chemical used to make a kind of drug that controls bleeding. The first research on it for human use was in the late 1950's as a possible stimulant. It wasn't until the mid 70's that it began to be used in therapy when psychotherapist Leo Zeff began using it with some of his patients.

    2. Re:Yeah, this'll last. by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      Uh huh. And when you find that patent, and read it, lemme know. By the way, it doesn't say anything about bleeding except in the brain, and you've got the year wrong. You're looking for German Patent 274,350 (12/24/1912). Also, the person in the mid 1970s was Alexander Shuglin, not Leo Zaff. I suspect you mean Shuglin's third patient, Leo Zeff, who promoted what he was taught by Shuglin; his role in the history of Ecstasy has been wildly overstated by drug advocates, probably for the same reason that Bill Packard is seen as having founded Silicon Valley (Shuglin was a jerk and nobody wanted to credit him.)

      The original development premise for the chemical family was as an appetite suppressant; under that guise Merck got as far as MDE. Then there was a fourteen year pause, until 1927 when the effects of the chemical were tested on rats to see whether they'd help deal with starvation by lowering the metabolism. Under that guise, the family was manipulated until methylsafrylamin was created, which is relatively close to what we now know as MDA. This actually increases the metabolism, but the psychological effects were noted, and the family was further explored, locating MDMA.

      Please stop pretending to know things you don't. Crack a book.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    3. Re:Yeah, this'll last. by nystul555 · · Score: 1

      The patent was applied for in 1912 and approved in 1914 as I understand it. It's not impossible I am wrong on that. Not that it matters, it would be more correct to refer to it as 1912. In your original post you claimed "this is the specific reason that Ecstasy was originally developed by Merck". In this post you claim "The original development premise for the chemical family was as an appetite suppressant", so it seems like you are contradicting yourself. However you keep saying "under that guise" - so are you saying that the real reasons for development are not the same as the stated reasons? If so I'd like to hear more about that. Everything I've seen says that the original development was to control bleeding from wounds, from Wikipedia (yes, not the most reliable source at all) - "At the time, MDMA was not known to be a drug in its own right; rather, it was patented as an intermediate chemical used in the synthesis of a hydrastinine (a drug intended to control bleeding from wounds)." Is that incorrect? If so can you point me to a more accurate account of the history of the drug? I know this is Slashdot but there is no reason to be defensive or insulting. I don't know all that much about this subject, nor have I claimed to but I wanted to share what I know. If I'm wrong that's great, share the real information about it and we'll have learned something. But don't say things like "Please stop pretending to know things you don't. Crack a book." The point of these discussions SHOULD be to share and gain information, not to be insecure and defensive. When you reply like that you just make yourself look immature. You want me to crack a book? Ok. I should if I want to know more. It's been 5+ years since I've read a book on MDMA, and honestly I've only read one. You obviously have studied the subject, so what would you recommend? What book(s) have you found to be the best?

    4. Re:Yeah, this'll last. by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      In your original post you claimed "this is the specific reason that Ecstasy was originally developed by Merck". In this post you claim "The original development premise for the chemical family was as an appetite suppressant", so it seems like you are contradicting yourself.

      You're not very bright, are you? The original reason for the development of internal combustion was to provide a torque source to power automated tooling machines (initially lathes if I remember correctly.) However, once the utility of a driven axle was realized, smaller versions were developed to power automobiles.

      Yes. The chemical family was developed as an appetite suppressant. One particular member of the family had very different effects. That member was redeveloped as a theraputic drug for recall therapy.

      Things can have different intended uses than their historic predecessors.

      However you keep saying "under that guise" - so are you saying that the real reasons for development are not the same as the stated reasons?

      ... no. I'm just saying that those were the stated reasons. You're struggling to read way too deeply into what was said in order to find something with which to take issue. If I had meant something like that I would have said it.

      Everything I've seen says that the original development was to control bleeding from wounds, from Wikipedia (yes, not the most reliable source at all) - "At the time, MDMA was not known to be a drug in its own right; rather, it was patented as an intermediate chemical used in the synthesis of a hydrastinine (a drug intended to control bleeding from wounds)." Is that incorrect?

      It is incorrect, yes. They didn't even spell hydrastantin correctly. Wikipedia is a large, interesting collection of mythology and supposition by people who really believe they know what they're talking about. Try using an actual reference work written by historians or doctors instead, next time.

      Any time you feel the need to couch your source by saying "not the most reliable source," you know better and you shouldn't be using it.

      I know this is Slashdot but there is no reason to be defensive or insulting.

      You get what you gave. Take a look at the condescending attitude from which you preach the fictions you learned on the interwebs. You don't have the right person, you don't have the right year, you've got the name of the drug wrong, you've got the premise of the patent wrong, you've got the spelling of the wrong person's name wrong. There's nothing correct in here. I know this is Slashdot, but there is no reason to talk down to people about something you've apparently no knowledge of whatsoever.

      I don't know all that much about this subject, nor have I claimed to

      Telling someone they're wrong is the explicit supposition that you know more about the topic than they do, and as far as I can tell, you don't actually have any factoids correct. You can pretend to yourself that you didn't take the aggressive, overbearing and condescending tone that you took, but it's dishonest, and if you'd bother to look at the way you speak a week from now, you might begin to understand why people react to you in this fashion.

      Believe it or not, it's offensive to have someone who doesn't know much about a subject tell you that you're wrong when you aren't.

      But don't say things like "Please stop pretending to know things you don't. Crack a book."

      Well, someone needs to get it through to you. You're being a jerk by telling people they're wrong when you have no idea what you're talking about. It's condescending, derisive, embarrassing, aggravating and full of all sorts of crap. You're posturing to look like the aggrieved victim here, but you aren't; I didn't talk to you, you talked to me. All you had to do was not pretend to know what you were talking about, and you wouldn't

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    5. Re:Yeah, this'll last. by Random832 · · Score: 1

      In your original post you claimed "this is the specific reason that Ecstasy was originally developed by Merck". In this post you claim "The original development premise for the chemical family was as an appetite suppressant", so it seems like you are contradicting yourself.
      You're not very bright, are you? The original reason for the development of internal combustion was to provide a torque source to power automated tooling machines (initially lathes if I remember correctly.) However, once the utility of a driven axle was realized, smaller versions were developed to power automobiles. Right, but you can't use the phrase "the specific reason that * was originally developed" to refer to other stuff, only the real original reason.
      --
      We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
    6. Re:Yeah, this'll last. by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      Right. And if the original reason for MDMA had been something other than what I said, I wouldn't have said it. Are you seriously still unable to tell the difference between the family of chemicals and one member of the family?

      I wash my hands of you.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    7. Re:Yeah, this'll last. by Random832 · · Score: 1

      I don't think you understand.

      The following two statements:

      "this [the memory thing that this article is about] is the specific reason that Ecstasy was originally developed by Merck"

      and

      "The original development premise for the chemical family was as an appetite suppressant"

      CONTRADICT each other. they CANNOT both be true. Even if one is right, the other must be wrong. You claimed both. Therefore, one of your claims MUST be incorrect.

      --
      We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
    8. Re:Yeah, this'll last. by Random832 · · Score: 1

      I missed this statement: "Yes. The chemical family was developed as an appetite suppressant. One particular member of the family had very different effects. That member was redeveloped as a theraputic drug for recall therapy."
      if it was redeveloped, then that's not the original reason it was created.

      --
      We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
    9. Re:Yeah, this'll last. by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      Gub gub gub. You're still stuck on this? FAMILY DEVELOPED FOR DIFFERENT REASON THAN NEW MEMBER. NEW MEMBER DEVELOPED FOR DIFFERENT REASON THAN FAMILY. With apologies to Kelso, the helmet really needs to go to you now.

      I would have thought the combustion engine example would have made it clear enough. I tried it on the six year old at the pool; he got it. Maybe you should quit being so angry and start thinking about the possibility that you made a mistake.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    10. Re:Yeah, this'll last. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations! You are all e-tarded...

    11. Re:Yeah, this'll last. by Random832 · · Score: 1

      The combustion engine is PERFECTLY clear - the internal combustion engine was not "originally" developed for automobiles.

      --
      We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
  36. Maybe not such a bad thing. by Wordsmith · · Score: 1

    There are going to be a lot of posts about how this would mean suppressing a natural and beneficial process for dealing with tragedy - the more typical course of facing up to a trauma and learning to live with it, learn from it, and heal. I'm not saying those posters are wrong.

    But how do we know they're right?

    How do we know that the mechanisms for dealing with trauma we know now are really the best one? What' inherently wrong with chemistry be an aid in this? What's to say that's inferior?

    My suspicion is that the best course is going to vary from person to person, and from trauma to trauma. In many cases, coming to terms with grief naturally, and with emotional support, is probably best. But What do we do with people who suffer such extraordinary grief that it wholly consumes them - and drives them into self-destructive behavior, or worse yet, suicide? Might something more chemically modern not be a better option?

  37. "I don't want my pain taken away. I need my pain!"

  38. Ever wonder if the original author reads TFA? by TheMohel · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's not a new drug that was tried by Harvard and McGill, it was an old favorite, propranolol. This is a nonselective beta blocker that has anti-adrenaline actions (oversimplifying radically) in the CNS as well as across the body, and it's used for a dozen purposes other than this one. This was actually fascinating research, because they're basically using an old standby drug to help desensitize certain traumatic memories. There was no assertion in the original article (other than the Star Trek pandering at the end) that the memories were eliminated entirely, although eliminating emotional tags to memories would have the side effect of making them harder to recall.
     
    We know that the beta blockers have significant mood and activity side effects. In fact it's a common limitation on their use. In this case, though, it looks like the researchers are capitalizing on these side effects to make people's handling of trauma better. Cool. This is a use that will probably see more significant human clinical trials in the short run. Propranolol is a very cheap and very well-understood medication.
     
    In the case of the rat studies with the actual new drug, it's early but interesting work that might or might not have human implication in the future. I'll be nervous about it without a lot more research, and I suspect that the greater degree of wiring in the human brain and the relative resilience of memory are going to be harder nuts to crack, at least in the short term.

    1. Re:Ever wonder if the original author reads TFA? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      If you're interested in propranolol, it's often prescribed for performance anxiety. For musicians, of course. It's really good at blocking the "fight of flight" response, the dry mouth, the trembling, that kind of stuff. I've had it prescribed to help with public speaking. It's a very safe, effective drug, and not recreational at all so it's easy to get if you ask. Tell them a musician friend told you about it.

      You know, with all the similarities between PTSD and LSD flashbacks it might be a good idea to give propranolol to someone who had a bad trip.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Ever wonder if the original author reads TFA? by TheMohel · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I get asked for it once in a while in my pediatric practice. I'm pretty much fine with it as long as I know their hearts are normal and they don't have depression or postural hypotension. I'm not always sure it helps that much, but some musicians I know swear by it. Like you said, it's safe, at least marginally effective, and not subject to abuse.

      I'd think that it would be excellent for flashback management, but I'd love to see some research on it.

    3. Re:Ever wonder if the original author reads TFA? by poochNik · · Score: 1

      Doesn't it follow, if the drug "works," that your ability to sue for mental pain and suffering be conditioned on your taking a course of the drug first?

    4. Re:Ever wonder if the original author reads TFA? by Valdez · · Score: 1

      There's bound to be a joke in that drug name, it ends in a freakin' "lol"

  39. PACIFY by hoggoth · · Score: 3, Insightful

    'Ok, Mr. Jones. How do you feel now?'
    'I feel wonderful...'
    'Do you still feel outraged when you think of our government controlling your life?'
    'No, it really doesn't bother me that much.'
    'What about this protest meeting you are organizing?'
    'Oh, that. I know it should be important, but I really don't feel like going anymore. I think I'll stay home and plant some flowers.'
    'Good, Mr. Jones, you may go now.'

    --
    - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    1. Re:PACIFY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It'll be in the water.

  40. My Drug For "Bad Memories"? by morari · · Score: 1

    A good dose of get the fuck over it!

    --
    "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    1. Re:My Drug For "Bad Memories"? by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Although your solution is a little bit harsh, I can see this kind of thing being over prescribed. While I wouldn't say "get the fuck over it" to somebody who is a victim of rape, I would say it to somebody who had just broken up with their girl/boy friend, or failing an exam or something. Some people get way to worked up over little things like this, and almost have a breakdown. However, I would hope that they'd seek other kinds of help to learn how to deal with small problems that everybody encounters, rather than try to use a drug so they never have to learn to deal with problems.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  41. hmmm by drDugan · · Score: 1

    Sounds just like what many people do with alcohol and cigarettes now without therapy, for years. Hopefully this one will have less hangover.

  42. Re:You're not going to get very many good comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really traumatic???

    Well, yeah, you might have been an, umm, solider in a war or raped or something, but come on! We lived through The Phantom Menace!

  43. Oh, come on, mods... by zombie_striptease · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Pissed because p3d0 made a valid point? Fine, forget the inflammatory wording and concentrate on the content: there might be some traumas that aren't constructive or character building. Sometimes, bad shit just happens, without any sort of silver lining. Would you look down on someone for needing help coping and finding it in a treatment like this?

  44. I'm definitely broken somewhere by erroneus · · Score: 1

    The majority of people I know seem to enjoy being drunk. I do not. A majority of people prefer happy fiction over the plain truth. I do not. If a memory is corrupted in any way for any reason, it's corrupted and inaccurate. One could argue that memories are inherently inaccurate, but making them more inaccurate doesn't make them "better"; just more inaccurate.

  45. Why not have some Happy Happy first (n/t) by Nuitari+The+Wiz · · Score: 1

    (n/t)

  46. Genius by goldcd · · Score: 1

    Now if only I can get the office water cooler laced with this stuff.

  47. I presume it also reduces Déja Vu experiences by ardle · · Score: 4, Informative
    I'm not surprised that the drug described in the 60 Minutes show had similar effects; it's the same drug!

    FTFA (first sentence in second paragraph):

    In a new study, published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research, the drug propranolol is used along with therapy to "dampen" memories of trauma victims.

    Here's a Slashdot discussion on it from Jan 2006
    And here's the most useful post from that discussion
  48. the brilliant thing about this drug by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

    You can just start beta-testing it willy nilly with people. Cuz even if you botch it horribly with the first dozen or so formulations, you can make them all forget once you hit the right one! Imagine if they had that for the poor people who beta-tested Preparations A through G.

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  49. MOD PARENT UP by mjensen · · Score: 1

    60 Minutes original broadcast Nov 26, 2006 re-broadcasted June 14, 2007.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/22/60minute s/main2205629.shtml

    The Harvard research is on the SAME drug.

  50. How to use reuptake inhibitors properly by tepples · · Score: 1

    But my personal experience with it made me suicidal to the point of having to have someone sit with me and remove all objects I could hurt myself with. Prozac (fluoxetine; Rx) is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI). Strattera (atomoxetine; Rx) is a norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (NRI). These and other neurotransmitter reuptake inhibitors are good for people who already make enough of the neurotransmitter and it just leaks out. But for people who don't make enough, a reuptake inhibitor needs to be combined with an increase in the neurotransmitter itself. Neurotransmitters are made from the amino acids phenylalanine, tyrosine, and tryptophan, found in proteins and in amino acid supplements. For people on NRIs, stimulants such as Diet Mountain Dew (caffeine; OTC) and Ritalin (methylphenidate; Rx CII) additionally promote conversion of tyrosine to norepinephrine.
  51. I read this and think... by BinarySkies · · Score: 1
    "The Giver", anyone?

    Jonas begins training under the present Receiver of Memory, an older man whom Jonas calls The Giver. The Giver lives alone in private rooms that are lined with shelves full of books. Jonas' training involves receiving, from The Giver, all of the emotions and memories of experiences that the people in the community chose to give up to attain Sameness and the illusion of social order. The first memory that Jonas receives from The Giver is a sled ride down a snow-covered hill. Jonas has never before experienced going downhill, cold weather, or snow. Eventually, through memories, The Giver teaches Jonas about color, love, war, and pain. Jonas begins to understand the hypocrisy that exists in his community--that is, the illusion that everything in the community is good when in fact it isn't. The people appear to love each other, but they don't really know what love feels like because their lives are a charade; their reactions have been trained. Jonas realizes that people have given up their freedoms to feel and think as individuals, choosing instead to be controlled by others. [cliffsnotes.com]
  52. forgettol? by lumierang · · Score: 1

    When shall we see government issue branded as forgettol? And any good candidate for acceptol?

    1. Re:forgettol? by lanswitch · · Score: 1

      I'd put it in the drinking water just before the next elections. Maybe this alrady happened, back in 2004.

  53. Fine for knocking a woman up? by tepples · · Score: 1

    On a positive note, rape might now be downgraded to a misdemeanor.

    But wouldn't the appropriate fine for a man-on-woman sexual assault that causes pregnancy include 18 years of child support payments? And wouldn't such a fine upgrade rape right back to a felony?

  54. Not true.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    remember goatse?
    yeah so do I. *shudder*

  55. PTSD by Adult+film+producer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've heard and seen these stories about vietnam vets that lived tortured lives after coming back. Every day being a struggle to deal with the memories of that war. Some of them who have gone back to vietnam (in peacetime) find the experience liberating. Being able to face what has scrambled their brains for so many years, maybe it gives them a new perspective, but it seems to ease the pain.... not so sure this would help a rape victim, or maybe it does when they face the perpetrators in court?

  56. And traumatic incident reduction? by tepples · · Score: 1

    It doesn't reduce the memories, it reduces the physiological stress associated with them. You can still remember, but your blood pressure doesn't go up to unhealthy levels when you do. Seems better to me... Systematic Desensitization achieves the same result, but no drugs. Does TIR, a practice similar to confession and Dianetics, have the same effect?
  57. This is not about forgetting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This is about disconnecting the emotional baggage that has engrained the memory so deeply that it causes dysfunction in a person's life. People experience trauma and war and torture and rape and they have memory so tied to high emotion, they have flashbacks and agoraphobia and paranoia after lots of reasoned therapy. These drugs don't change the memory or the valuable lessons that bad memory imparts. It just lowers the emotional ties that can turn bad memories into disassociation and lifelong dysfunction.

    Some of these arguments against this type of therapy are barely better than the puritanical arguments that lead to undertreatment of pain.

    1. Re:This is not about forgetting by Magada · · Score: 1

      "Disassociation and lifelong disfunction", you say? I'd say that someone who could think back to having killed people or being raped, or torturing, or being tortured and could remember it with nary a shudder is pretty fucked up. The prosecutor in the Nurnberg case said that what all defendants had in common was a lack of empathy, no? Those people had memories of pushing other people into ovens and felt NOTHING about it. Oh, the intellectual lessons, such as "crush England first" they had taken to heart allright - just not the moral ones, such as "pushing people into ovens is a big no-no and will make you want to kill yourself".

      The "lesson" to be taken away from doing or experiencing painful things is "never again". If you make the pain disappear, things like My Lai, Lidice, Nanking or Karubamba (notice how I care about ethnic diversity) will become daily occurrences.

      There. I Godwined your argument for you.

      --
      Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
  58. Re:You're not going to get very many good comments by AutopsyReport · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ok, I'll bite. I know your half-joking but as someone who has a wealth of traumatic experience under my belt, I do not see the benefit of this research.

    Me and my extended family combined have been through suicide, two rapes, abortion, divorce, infidelity, homelessness, and a slew of other things that many people face, but many do not. I don't consider myself unlucky or unfortunate. You're probably thinking I come from a wrecked family or live in a poor part of the country, but the opposite is true. I come from a very solid family. We are all good, successful people that have made poor bad decisions, had bad things happen unexpectedly, or a mixture of both. Many of the ordeals we've been through are terrible to imagine, deal with, and recover from. Drugs would have temporarily aided, but they wouldn't have provided a lifelong solution to dealing with the problems.

    It's the decisive moments where you put the spurs on and kick your own ass through a problem that builds character, experience, and a willingness to push forward with life. Drugs are not a solution to navigating your way through the shit life throws at you. Your compass is the willingness to use hard work, patience, forgiveness and toughness to continue moving forward.

    People that fall back or remain stagnant for long periods of time after a terrible experience do not have the power to move foward; drugs will not aid in gaining this force.

    --

    For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.

  59. Can all Americans take this drug ? by TheSlashaway · · Score: 1

    Can all Americans take this drug to forget the last 6 years of the Bush administration?

  60. Pfff..... by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

    I already have a drug to forget bad memories: It's called alcohol. It's readily available, available in all quantities, almost always inexpensive, and comes in many great easy-to-swallow flavors.

    --
    Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
    1. Re:Pfff..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I already have a drug to forget bad memories: It's called tetrahydrocannibanol. Its readily available, if you know the right guy, usually pretty cheap, and comes in many great easy-to-smoke sizes.

      The difference between illegal and legal drugs is getting smaller every day.

  61. Re:You're not going to get very many good comments by autora · · Score: 1

    Actually I would suggest people who have experienced something really traumatic, and haven't dealt with it yet, are the ones who's comments we should take with a pinch of salt. They seem like they'd be pretty biased to me.

    Just like how when a reporter interviews a rail crash victim's family about rail safety. Funnily enough they are always adamant that rail safety is terrible. (thank you to Mitchell and Webb)

    --
    "I always assume Psychology students are hiding in the bushes"
  62. That's memory *prevention* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why bother to form the memories in the first place?

  63. oops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Researchers later realized the drug dampened bad memories in a manner eerily similar to the effects of cocaine...

  64. Swiss Cheese by grapeape · · Score: 1

    What about the time a person with PTSD spent thinking about the events that caused the PTSD to start with. I might see this working if its administered immediately after a traumatic event but PTSD sometimes isnt diagnosed until much later sometimes years. What happens to all the time after, if you cant remember what happened to cause your meltdown, but remember being in the psych ward years later? Just sounds like trading one sort of trama for another.

  65. Re:You're not going to get very many good comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in my experience, those people who have lived through really traumatic stuff are the last people who need MORE drugs or pills. Stop trying to find a pill for every psychological ailment and try facing the root of the problems instead. /me lives in a country where half the population is self-medicated and the other half gets medicated by the government.

  66. Sounds like THX1138 by Chabil+Ha' · · Score: 1

    Have you taken your meds today?

    I don't want to denigrate those who have been through horrific traumatic experiences, but having 'bad memories' and learning to cope with them are part of the human experience. How 'bout we help people to overcome on their own without pill popping their experiences away?

    --
    We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
  67. oblig. quote from star trek v by DMoylan · · Score: 1

    KIRK: Dammit, Bones, you're a doctor. You know that pain and guilt can't be taken away with the wave of a magic wand. They're things we carry with us -- the things that make us who we are. If we lose them, we lose ourselves. I don't want my pain taken away. I need my pain.

    1. Re:oblig. quote from star trek v by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      McCoy should have kicked Kirk in the balls for saying that.

  68. Trauma And The Problem Of Choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have seen a lot of comments about the role memories, even the bad ones, play in personal development. I have decided to post as an Anonymous Coward because I want to share the fact that when I was a small child, my father molested me. A lot. I would love a pill that helps with those memories, some of my earliest. I can't learn a damn thing from them, I didn't choose to be in that situation, I was born into it. And every single day becomes harder than the day before, because of these memories of mine.

    Drugs are not always the answer, but sometimes, sometimes they can certainly help.

    Just my 0.02$....

  69. Brain Candy! by vp0ng · · Score: 1

    This is just like the Kids in the Hall movie, Brain Candy. Sign me up!

    --
    (Futurama) Fry: "My folks were always on me to groom myself and wear underpants. What am I, the pope?"
    1. Re:Brain Candy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "WE BEAT PENICILLIN!!!!"

  70. I know who could really use this... by Panaqqa · · Score: 1

    The millions of people who upgrades to Vista!

  71. Mmmmm.....Brain Candy by SoundGuyNoise · · Score: 1

    Gleemonex anyone? As long as there aren't any flipper children, right? Right?

    --
    You never expect irony, do you?
    Want to be a professional wrestler? Visit www.iyfwrestling.com
    @iyfwrestling
    1. Re:Mmmmm.....Brain Candy by feed_me_cereal · · Score: 1

      It was only a couple of flipper babbiieeeeesss!!!!

      --
      "Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
  72. Reality != perception by Klaus_1250 · · Score: 1

    It isn't. This is easily demonstrated by beating a coma victim to death. They won't perceive your actions, but they'll still die. If you really want to try the schroedinger's cat falling in a forest line of things, make a robot do the beating. The coma victim will in fact die without being measured. There used to be a time that people who where "locked-in" where perceived to be in a coma. They actually weren't and were conscious of their surrounding. If you were beating them to death, they would perceive your actions. Second, it also depends on how you defy dieing. If a coma patient has lost the ability to ever regain consciousness and self-awareness due to massive irreversible brain-damage, you could argue that they are already dead even though they are medically and legally not dead. There is no universal true definition of live, death and dying. Last, if the robot that does the beating would also run the entire hospital, the robot might erase his memory of the event, all records of the patient ever being admitted and "erase" the now-dead patient itself, to cover up his actions. In that case, the patient would only have died from his/her own perspective, but would not have perceived t. For any outsider, death would not have taken place, simply because they have no way of knowing it. If no-one has perceived the event taking place and there is no way learn that the event has taken place, you can argue the event never took place.
    --
    It only takes one man to change the Wisdom of the Crowd to Tyranny of the Masses.
  73. uhh it does not ERASE bad memories.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It simply lessens the stress people feel when recalling the memory.

    That means you will be able to bring a more rational scrutiny to your trauma and be able to deal with it.

    The key is "under supervised care," as a tool for psychiatrists it seems very helpful. I worry about the "truth serum" aspect of it if any.
    People will feel free to talk about things they usually don not talk about.

  74. Whoopee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a surprise that drugs can be used to anchor strong emotions to experiences! Anyone ever smelled a bag of weed? Any stoner ever smelled a bag of weed?! [/discussion]

    God bless puritanism and prohibition.

    What the study leaves out is that the impact is short term and the benefit is mitigated by the stress induced through drug addiction caused by the dependency on drugs to cope with stress.

  75. Classification by Mathness · · Score: 2, Funny

    Would propranolol be classified as a recreational drug?

    --
    Carbon based humanoid in training.
  76. Re:This is so abusable by dabooda · · Score: 1

    My take on this philosophical argument is that the only important thing to a person is how they feel about an event or thing. If you could magically make it so that all that makes you happy is to see the colour blue, and when you see anything with the colour blue you feel fulfilled, is that a good or bad thing?

    Part of me thinks that would be a fantastic thing. If all we want is to fell fulfilled then why not take the 'magic-love-all-blue-things' pill? On the other hand, isn't it a bit demeaning for someone's life to be devoid of all meaning except for the desire to see the colour blue?

    If a girl is raped and the rapist magically makes it so that she no longer cares that she was raped, he's still a rapist regardless of how the victim feels about it. He still should go to jail and serve his punishment.

    Once he's been dealt with, though, is it right to expect the victim to suffer the trauma for the rest of her life? The rapist's crime is still bad because of the intent, not the result.

    --
    "Yeah Tommy, before Zee Germans get here ..."
  77. Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The alcohol seemed to work pretty well for that hot girl I was with last week. The next day she sent me an IM asking why she ended up naked in my bed after 10 hours of consuming Everclear! lol

  78. Drug Helps to Dampen Bad Memories by splatter · · Score: 2, Insightful


    hum, seems to me back in college I found this.. Oh Yeah it's called Pot!

    --
    "(I) have this unfortunate condition that causes me not to believe a single thing any politician says when a mic's on.
    1. Re:Drug Helps to Dampen Bad Memories by aadvancedGIR · · Score: 1

      I get your point, as I personnaly enjoy a few good memories from high school and college thanks to other people being on pot. Some of them still don't know why we looked at them that way the next day.

    2. Re:Drug Helps to Dampen Bad Memories by rs79 · · Score: 1

      "Some of them still don't know why we looked at them that way the next day."

      It's called "shock" and is what happens the first time you see sister naked, lying next to your roomate.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
  79. I prefer pictures... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


        H H
    H-C-C-OH
        H H

  80. Does the article really describe the drug right? by Antaeus+Feldspar · · Score: 1

    I am just guessing, but my hunch is that the people who wrote up the article didn't really understand what the drug did. They wrote that it "blocks or deletes" bad memories, but nothing in the article seems to support that claim.

    My guess as to what we would find out the drug actually does, if we got a more accurate and precise description, is that it interrupts a biochemical-emotional feedback loop. The memory triggers feelings of anxiety and fear; the anxiety and fear trigger a rush of adrenalin; the adrenalin triggers feelings of anxiety and fear; so on, and so on... If the drug makes it possible in a therapeutic environment to face and adjust to the memory itself, instead of always to the linked combination of memory and physiological turmoil, then in future the memory can be faced with a greater range of emotional options.

    --
    If people are to respect the law, perhaps the law should begin by respecting the people.
  81. Re:You're not going to get very many good comments by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Now you look here. I've been through fairly reasonable amounts of trauma -- certainly more than you and most of Slashdot, if not most of the civilized world. I won't go into details, but let's just say I've faced about 8 severely traumatic events in a life 18 years long.

    I tell you, we have a drug-obsessed culture. Particularly, we have a culture that would rather treat a person's unhappiness as a medical issue and drug that person rather than attempt to provide that person with the tools to make their life happier. Why? Because many, if not most, of such people do, will, and/or would choose to live in ways that most other people wouldn't agree with.

    Though that does leave out rape victims or the families of murder victims, who experience a trauma after which they cannot move forwards as a person. This drug could very well help them.

    But for most people who get stuck seeing psychiatrists, drugs are the wrong answer to the simple question of "Why can't I live a life closer to the life I want?"

    And no, I'm not a Scientologist; you can tell by my signature.

  82. Does it dampen good memories too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't see how this drug could really manage to dampen only the bad memories.
    Psychologists doing studies based on the impressions they get from patients recalling things... BLERGH!! Worst sounding "study" I've ever heard. Naturally patients try to cope better with things and say things better. This drug is probably useless. Psychologists should stay out of pharma altogether and move into the witch doctoring.

  83. I don't have a drinking problem by jhylkema · · Score: 1

    I drink, I get drunk, I fall down.

    No problem.

  84. Danger Will Robinson Danger! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interesting that such a product has the potential to be a public tool. I can see this kind of drug becoming common usage in warfare/psy-ops (if it hasn't already?).

    Playing 'god' like this is a potential danger though (Not talking religious contexts here either). And whilst it does seem like a good idea *if the individual independantly decides* they want this (by no force or other pressure), the potential for abuse / unethical uses is massive.

    Psychedelics have been used in a similar way historically to this, except psychedelics are used to -deal with- the issue, not to forget it, and in dealing with it, allow people to move on easier.

    There is an inherant danger in making people forget memories, because what may have put the person in the situation in the first place which created the trauma could re-occur if the lessons learnt from it were not avoided the next time they arose.

  85. Is it just me, or... by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1
    ... do other people feel that the fact of losing your memory can actually be traumatic all by itsef? I've twice experienced memory loss (once due to excessive alcohol consumption, and once due to severe lack of sleep). Both were happy events (one was my first sex, and the other one a festive meal with my family), but the fact that I lost most memory of them made them quite unnerving.

    And I can imagine that partially losing memory of bad events would make them even worse.

    1. Re:Is it just me, or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can barely remember anything pre-puberty (I'm 26), and am perfectly fine with that. I've also been so drunk I woke up with no clue about what happened on a couple of nights, although my personal theory is that I was so out of it I didn't comprehend what was going on and therefore obviously couldn't remember what I never knew in the first place.

      I would be pissed off if I forgot about losing my virginity though! Mind you, I'd actually quite like to forget about the girl in question... not sure how I could keep one and lose the other.

  86. Re:You're not going to get very many good comments by howlinmonkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As a person who has a wealth of traumatic experiences, I have to say that you couldn't be more wrong. I have experienced abuse, neglect, abandonment, extreme poverty and more abuse. I have also lived with depression for most of my life. I have attempted suicide, hurt myself, and lived long stretches where I was barely functional because of this illness.

    I am sick of hearing that depression, or other mental illness, is somehow a character flaw. I am beyond tired of hearing that I, and others like me, need to "kick our own ass" and get up and get moving. I am sorry that you had such difficult experiences, but it is obvious that you do/did not suffer from anything like depression or PTSD because of them. Drugs have been a form of salvation for me, allowing me to live without the lingering effects of the awful things I experienced. I am able to function normally as a husband and father today because of drugs.

    Before you go spouting off your Ayn Rand self-reliance, pull yourself up by your bootstraps BS, understand that the experiences of other might be different from your own. Count your blessings that you were able to survive without medication or other intervention, but refrain from judging those of us who are "weaker", and need the help.

  87. Two problems by mux2000 · · Score: 2, Funny

    One problem is that it doesn't dampen existing memories, but makes it harder to create new short-term memories - That's one problem. The other is that it doesn't dampen existing memories, but makes it harder to... where was I... hmm... I'm so thirsty... I wonder if there're any cookies left. brb.

  88. Did anyone else flash to "Brain Candy"? by Wookietim · · Score: 1

    Just wondering....

    --
    http://timcol6.freehostia.com/
  89. If you're not going to read the article... by p3d0 · · Score: 1
    ...at least read the Slashdot summary:

    patients given the drug showed fewer signs of stress when recalling their trauma
    --
    Patrick Doyle
    I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
  90. You missed the "happy feeling" in a bottle ... by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1

    ... which can be easy added with the formula C5H11ONO ;)

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
  91. Re:You're not going to get very many good comments by dharbee · · Score: 1

    "It's the decisive moments where you put the spurs on and kick your own ass through a problem that builds character, experience, and a willingness to push forward with life."

    Tell that to a 6 year old girl who has been repeatedly sold by her mother as a sex toy to fund the mother's crack habit.

    You got by. Stop pretending your situation is relevant to anyone other than you.

    And in case you're wondering, the situation I described has been dropped on my desk more than once. I have no qualms whatsoever about letting an individual, especially a child, excise the emotions associated with a traumatic event.

  92. Re:You're not going to get very many good comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You tell 'em, Dr. Laura! :)

  93. NO! by manowar821 · · Score: 1

    It has begun. Next they're going to start deciding which memories we're allowed to have.

    It won't matter if you find some top secret information, anymore. They'll just give you a medication!

    ::tinfoil hat::

    --
    Internet: Serious Business
  94. Re:You're not going to get very many good comments by JesterXXV · · Score: 1

    You're probably thinking I come from a wrecked family or live in a poor part of the country, but the opposite is true. I come from a very solid family. Well, maybe that's what got you through the trauma. Not everybody has a solid family - or any family - to fall back on.
    --
    Yo mama so fake, she failed the Turing Test.