Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Antidepressants may be useless in most cases

Options
  • 06-01-2010 3:43pm
    #1
    SLUSK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭


    In six trials that have been done with over 700 patients there seems to be evidence to suggest that antidepressants are useless in most cases and only help in the most severe cases of depression.
    http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&sid=a.W9T38Tmwi4

    I have earlier pointed out what seems to be an overly reliance of medication for depression in the Western world. I have been mocked for this and been called a scientologist. Well it looks like I was right and you people who mocked me were wrong.

    Perhaps you people should give me an apology!


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    ntlbell
    Registered Users Posts: 16,288 ✭✭✭✭ntlbell


    The biggest problem I think the medical profession have is identifying people who a actually have a real chemical imbalance in their brain and people who "think" they have depression.

    It seems to be in the financial interest of most of the VI's to dish out anti d's to anyone who says they have lost interest in life or are feeling "down"

    My own personal opinion is the vast majority of people on anti d's shouldn't be on them and probably dfon't need them and they probably won't help

    how you can calcuate a chemical imbalnce by someone stating they're not happy is beyond belif.

    So it's not a case of the drugs not working, they're being given to people who are not suffering with the disease/imbalance which is a totally different issue.


  • Options
    #3
    SLUSK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭SLUSK


    ntlbell wrote: »
    The biggest problem I think the medical profession have is identifying people who a actually have a real chemical imbalance in their brain and people who "think" they have depression.

    It seems to be in the financial interest of most of the VI's to dish out anti d's to anyone who says they have lost interest in life or are feeling "down"

    My own personal opinion is the vast majority of people on anti d's shouldn't be on them and probably dfon't need them and they probably won't help

    how you can calcuate a chemical imbalnce by someone stating they're not happy is beyond belif.

    So it's not a case of the drugs not working, they're being given to people who are not suffering with the disease/imbalance which is a totally different issue.
    How do you prove someone has a chemical imbalance in the brain? Is there a proper test for it? What does a brain with perfect chemical balance look like?


  • Options
    #4
    ntlbell
    Registered Users Posts: 16,288 ✭✭✭✭ntlbell


    SLUSK wrote: »
    How do you prove someone has a chemical imbalance in the brain? Is there a proper test for it? What does a brain with perfect chemical balance look like?

    That's my point.


  • Options
    #5
    hotspur
    Registered Users Posts: 2,327 ✭✭✭hotspur


    SLUSK wrote: »
    In six trials that have been done with over 700 patients there seems to be evidence to suggest that antidepressants are useless in most cases and only help in the most severe cases of depression.
    http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&sid=a.W9T38Tmwi4

    I have earlier pointed out what seems to be an overly reliance of medication for depression in the Western world. I have been mocked for this and been called a scientologist. Well it looks like I was right and you people who mocked me were wrong.

    Perhaps you people should give me an apology!

    The study did not show that antidepressants were useless in most cases. What the study showed was that they provided a negligible benefit over placebo. They work but the overwhelming portion of the effect is not due to the supposed chemical mechanism, it is due to the more powerful effect we call the placebo response.

    This is not new information and anybody who has read the meta-analytic studies of Irving Kirsch which includes all the unpublished trials lodged with the FDA in America has known that this is the case for some time.

    On behalf of everyone on here who cares about health science and psychology I would like to apologise to you and the Church of Scientology and welcome your continuing attempts to divert people away from mental health care and ultimately to your religion. Though since you quoted my post below this editing is more than a little superfluous.


  • Options
    #6
    p.pete
    Registered Users Posts: 4,267 ✭✭✭p.pete


    hotspur, please feel free to edit your post - and consider this a warning. If you have any personal issues with other posters feel free to PM them or report their posts, but don't openly target them on-forum.
    SLUSK - consider this a warning also. I'm strongly considering combining all your threads into a super "Sceptical about science" thread, and any new thread you create just being lumped into it. I don't think you've done anything wrong particularly on the forum, but I can imagine some people are getting a bit tired of your rehashing of the same point.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    SLUSK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭SLUSK


    hotspur wrote: »
    Perhaps you should be given a ban instead.

    The study did not show that antidepressants were useless in most cases. What the study showed was that they provided a negligible benefit over placebo. They work but the overwhelming portion of the effect is not due to the supposed chemical mechanism, it is due to the more powerful effect we call the placebo response.

    This is not new information and anybody who has read the meta-analytic studies of Irving Kirsch which includes all the unpublished trials lodged with the FDA in America has known that this is the case for some time.

    And in case you feel that I'm agreeing with you...you are a scientology propaganda shill who knows nothing about science and is a blight on this forum.
    Do you think it is a good idea to take pills with potentially life threatening side effects when they in most cases have not been proven to work better than placebo?


  • Options
    #8
    p.pete
    Registered Users Posts: 4,267 ✭✭✭p.pete


    SLUSK wrote: »
    Do you think it is a good idea to take pills with potentially life threatening side effects when they in most cases have not been proven to work better than placebo?
    SLUSK, please do not solicit medical advice from other forum members.


  • Options
    #9
    SLUSK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭SLUSK


    p.pete wrote: »
    SLUSK, please do not solicit medical advice from other forum members.
    I don't recall telling him what to do, I just asked.


  • Options
    #10
    p.pete
    Registered Users Posts: 4,267 ✭✭✭p.pete


    SLUSK wrote: »
    I don't recall telling him what to do, I just asked.
    I don't recall you telling anyone to do anything. I suggested that you were soliciting - I didn't tell you not to, I merely requested that you don't.

    I believe this thread has run its course.

    <edit>
    Thread reopened, I've calmed down a bit. If the thread goes off-topic in any way it will be re-closed quite quickly.
    Cheers,
    pete


  • Options
    #11
    Valmont
    Registered Users Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭Valmont


    SLUSK, I'm really sorry, you were right all along. Where can I sign up to be a scientologist? I can feel my engrams building.


    edit: yes I am a bit sick of SLUSK.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    p.pete
    Registered Users Posts: 4,267 ✭✭✭p.pete


    Valmont - you're on thin ice too; luckily the original post called for an apology, so it's on topic. I don't see anything wrong with asking how to sign up to scientology either (well I do actually, but I'm sure Tom Cruise is a lovely man), but only just.

    Please stay on topic AND on psychology,

    Thanks
    Pete


  • Options
    #13
    Kevster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,980 ✭✭✭Kevster


    As a person who has actually benefitted from a prescribed antidepressant, i believe that I'm in a good position to comment. Essentially, the problem as I see it is that most patients who are given an anti-depressant are:

    1. - Never given a plan by their doctor, such as when they could expect to be off the medication or when they could even start to taper it down. They are just given it and 'told' to get better.

    2. - As a result of 1. (above), people taking an anti-depressant just sit around and expect things to become rosy out of nothing. I can assure you all that most of the effort in recovering from depressing comes from within, and NOT from the anti-depressant. The anti-depressant is an aid, but it's not a magic pill that cures people.

    Kevin


  • Options
    #14
    ntlbell
    Registered Users Posts: 16,288 ✭✭✭✭ntlbell


    Kevster wrote: »
    As a person who has actually benefitted from a prescribed antidepressant, i believe that I'm in a good position to comment. Essentially, the problem as I see it is that most patients who are given an anti-depressant are:

    1. - Never given a plan by their doctor, such as when they could expect to be off the medication or when they could even start to taper it down. They are just given it and 'told' to get better.

    2. - As a result of 1. (above), people taking an anti-depressant just sit around and expect things to become rosy out of nothing. I can assure you all that most of the effort in recovering from depressing comes from within, and NOT from the anti-depressant. The anti-depressant is an aid, but it's not a magic pill that cures people.

    Kevin

    This is a good example of why GP's shouldn't be allowed prescribe or be allowed treat people with suspected depression imo


  • Options
    #15
    Liquorice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 849 ✭✭✭Liquorice


    This is common knowledge, I doubt this is the first paper on the topic. I'm sure there's some minor difference in this study that separates it from past investigations so that they can report it and pretend it's big news. In fact, Jay Fournier (who conducted the above study) and his colleagues published a paper last August that found equivalent response rates in depressed patients to antidepressant medication and to cognitive behavioural therapy, which was also far from the first paper on the topic.

    SLUSK, do you bring up the same topics on the health sciences forum? You'll notice that paper was published in the American Medical Association's journal because it is medically-trained psychiatrists and generally not psychologists who prescribe drugs. I believe that psychologists to refer patients to psyciatrists, but medication is often seen as a last resort for when CBT fails. That is, as far as I know. I'm only an undergrad with no intention of going into clinical practice so I'm a dozen steps removed from how these things work.


Advertisement