Comment by throwanem | Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwanem | Hacker News Reader

Also interesting in this connection is a meta-analysis [1] finding significant effect for propranolol, a beta blocker, in mitigating PTSD symptoms via a protocol of administration followed by trauma memory reactivation (colloquially, 'triggering'). The postulated mechanism is the drug's interference with epinephrine and norepinephrine binding sites, the effect being to reduce the experience of fear and anger associated with revisiting such memories.

Certainly this strikes me as entirely plausible, given my own experience of such memories. It does seem likely to further complicate the 'it's trauma if you think it is' model, considering the implicit organic correlate of trauma required for there to exist a mechanism of the demonstrated effect; the action of beta blockers is well understood.

[1] https://europepmc.org/article/nbk/nbk562942#rc1254.ref3 (free text)

Huh, is it true that "its trauma if you think it is" is a current and respected, if not widespread theory? I'm no neurobiochemiologist but it always felt to me like the difference between painful memory and trauma was the involuntary aspect of reaction to trauma. I can think of a painful memory in the middle of a presentation and not appear troubled, i could not say the same for a trauma. My laymans experience with ptsd is that most experiences are outwardly visible (i don't know anyone diagnosed with severe so please excuse my ignorance)

The model has been much under discussion here for about a day, and I think that discussion represents its status and the concerns with that status fairly well.

> My laymans experience with ptsd is that most experiences are outwardly visible

I would suggest the thought that you may be overindexing on what you've been able to notice. People don't always like to show what hurts.

There being an organic correlate for attention, for memory formation, for emotions and so on – it's likely that the beta-blockers makes certain intents easier to override others, rather than the causality being only one way.

This comment appears to depend on a model unfamiliar to me, in that I have no idea what you mean by 'intents' or the reference to causality here. Would you mind elaborating? I may not be alone in failing as yet to have taken your point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com