[krilly]

Perhaps hubristic is an unfair description.

As far as I know Sacks was treating patients with L-DOPA on a hunch, based on the surface similarities if their symptoms with Parkinson's. Positive results for L-DOPA with Parkinson's had only been published the year previously.

Doctors like Sacks were happy to really explore with their patients. You can see from his books just how many things he tries to get through to them, and into their heads.

Nowadays it seems that psychiatry treats depression etc. like a solved problem, and continue to use tools and medications that work marginally better than placebo. Promising experimental therapies like ketamine and psilocybin have been stuck in the pipeline for decades.

I know Sacks is an exceptional doctor, and that there were downsides to this 'see what sticks' approach, but I highly recommend his books if you want to get depressed about the state of modern medicine.

[sfkdjf9j3j]

There are a lot of good ethical and statistical reasons that drug research is done within a more formal framework today. And there are some avenues for patients with poor outlooks to try "hail mary" drugs.