A Nasal Spray That Was Supposed to Replace Sleep | Hacker News Reader

A Nasal Spray That Was Supposed to Replace Sleep

motherboard.vice.com

44 pointsHooke24 comments

A few years ago there was all this talk about the discovery on the effects of sleep on the glymphatic system, where the brain is able to flush out metabolic toxins that build up during the day. [1][2]

I remember one of the things I read was a scientist saying that this might be one of the, if not the, primary functions of sleep, and that, now that we know what it was, we might be able to invent drugs that target it and allow the process to happen without sleep.

This would allow people to remain awake without the fatigue, bleary-headedness, or risk of death, that might all be caused by these toxins. (Learning and memory might still be affected if you don't sleep at all, of course.)

I don't know whether people are still researching that -- it was only fairly recent after all, so no surprise that we haven't heard much more.

1. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/10/sleep-ultimate-brainw... 2. https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/how-sle...

Why don't we change society so we won't have to do this? Why change the man. At the end of the day I think our civilization is highly misanthropic. It really hates people and having to deal with all their human needs.

I do not support this happening within the current capitalist system. It will lead to even more exploitation of workers, especially in countries with labour laws that aren't as strict. It favors workaholics over people with good balance.

Some may regard this as a silly objection, but arguably worker exploitation is the largest problem, with the exception of climate change, in the world today. It is important to consider social effects.

Woah calm down there Karl, I'm pretty sure we have a ban on politics here this month.

Not a month—originally a week, but we ended it early:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13133855

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13131251

While I have you, though, please don't post things like "Whoa calm down there Karl". That's patronizing and uncivil, and primes the other person to react negatively. Instead, please post civilly and substantively. Your comment would be fine without the first sentence (along with an s/month/week/ of course).

Alright, duly noted. Still coming to terms with what HN considers "civil" (the way it's described in the rules definitely doesn't help, and is actually harmful to understanding what HN considers "civil", IMO)

I understand the desire for precise definitions, but this is not an area that admits of one. To propose one would certainly trigger an avalanche of objections and nitpicking, and even if we got it right I'm doubtful that many people would take it in. It doesn't seem to work to control a large community that way. What does seem to work is a body of case by case practice.

Honestly, that's a good worry to have. But I don't think that kind of consideration will (or should) ever stop basic science research.

We might have well have told everyone not to research computer science and robotics, because of all the jobs that automation has removed.

Instead, it's up to the politicians and regulators (unfortunately) to prevent exploitation.

TL;DR - the drug still exists, but the headlines were highly editorialized. It's not a sleep replacement, rather a treatment of narcolepsy. Narcoleptic patients aren't using it because drug companies won't make it. Drug companies won't make it because there's no money in it.

1 point by johnhenry 0 minutes ago | parent | edit | delete | on: A Nasal Spray That Was Supposed to Replace Sleep

I had a teacher who was narcoleptic -- sure it was funny when he would fall asleep in the middle of class, but when his wife died he wasn't in a position to take care of all five of his children, so his 17 year old daughter had to forego her dreams of college in order to take care of her siblings. This probably isn't the best venue to say this, but it really saddens me when people's lives are ruined because there isn't a profit in helping them.

i agree wholeheartedly, but the next comment by boona ("Considering it costs between $100 million to $1 billion to get a drug approved by the FDA (depending on the study you look at), I can see why they wouldn't touch it.") highlights the issue: profit is only an incentive to do it; the initial cost is there either way and somebody has to cover it. if it's not private companies, who would that be...?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institutes_of_Health

That's what the Orphan Drug Act of 1983 was all about. In theory companies have enough incentive to produce these kinds of drugs.

> Drug companies won't make it because there's no money in it.

Considering it costs between $100 million to $1 billion to get a drug approved by the FDA (depending on the study you look at), I can see why they wouldn't touch it.

In situations like this the FDA should be permitted to grant a temporary monopoly so it becomes worth the investment.

Isn't that a "patent"?

Yes, but this would only apply to medicine/treatment and only in cases where it isn't something that can be patented.

You can buy some from Ceretropic: https://www.ceretropic.com/orexin-a

(Not affiliated with them in any way. Have used their products before and find them to be reputable.)

Ceretropic only just announced its availability: https://www.reddit.com/r/Nootropics/comments/5h1mge/its_here... I assume this is why the sudden renewal of interest and a January article on it showing up on HN...

You've linked to the wrong reddit. That one is about a substance called P21.

Orexin is also discussed in that thread. Ceretropic announced the release of P21 and Orexin at the same time.

5mg/$99? What is the standard dosage?

Interesting story, but meta-clickbait.

Or you could do this simple procedure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Kern

Reply on news.ycombinator.com