Posted on 05/07/2002 8:48:34 AM PDT by liberallarry
Edited on 09/03/2002 4:50:26 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
You're just one of many, so I'm not picking on you specifically, but it's comments like this that give conservatives a bad reputation for being unlearned and backwards. There are many people today who are alive or who live markedly better lives because of medications, whether they be for the brain or for something else.
Very good point. It's all part of the larger truth that correlation does not necessarily imply cause. It may be that more mass murderers have brown eyes than blue eyes, but only a fool would tout that as proof that having brown eyes causes one to be a mass murderer.
Not every answer is in scripture. You wouldn't consult the Bible when you need to change the spark plugs in your call, and you probably wouldn't call the local Baptist church when your hard drive crashes.
The Bible is not a technical manual. But it will provide the freedom of thought and expression for the Watts and Newtons of this world. Would you go to Autozone to fix your depression? I do believe the Bible does have the answers to life and conquering such things as depression. You are wrong on that.
So do you believe that depression is never due to organic causes? Do you believe the same about Alzheimer's? If not, on what basis do you make a distinction between the two?
Nope, I think that you're dodging the question because you know that the answer contradicts your opinions. :-)
Did you happen to read the article, by any chance, or are you so learned and progressive that you can skip such formalities?
... A new analysis has found that in the majority of trials conducted by drug companies in recent decades, sugar pills have done as well as -- or better than -- antidepressants.
... The makers of Prozac had to run five trials to obtain two that were positive, and the makers of Paxil and Zoloft had to run even more.
Do statements like these make conservatives look bad, too? Even if we are quoting the article? Are drug makers that need to run multiple trials in order to get the desired results aware of the implications of their efforts, or not?
There are many people today who are alive or who live markedly better lives because of medications
But the gist of the article was that actual research reveals that, in spite of your arrogance (typical of those pushing psycho-babble when they have no facts to fall back on) those results can be equally expected as a result of the administration of placebos. As a matter of fact, it is entirely possible that the drugs in question are "working" only because of the placebo effect, given that they perform no better.
... whether they be for the brain or for something else.
Prescribing drugs for the brain when you don't understand the brain is irresponsible, especially when you can't even demonstrate their effectiveness as compared to placebos.
As for drugs for "something else", that's completely off the subject and irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Luckily, we can distinguish between these illnesses and treat them appropriately. I think we simply don't have enough information about depression and brain function to do that yet.
I don't think lacking that information means we should throw out the meds until we understand things better. Some people probably need the medication. Other people find it helpful, for whatever reason.
I think anti-depressants can validly be used as a tool. Oftentimes a depressed person can find it difficult to impossible to make the sustained lifestyle changes which might be needed to cure their type of depression. To give that person some relief and motivation to make those changes is not a bad thing. It seems unlikely that we will find out later that these meds do lasting damage. But we know that even overprescribing of antibiotics has become a problem, so this is a possibility. Whether it is worth the risk has to depend upon personal circumstances.
Personally, I have been battling a moderate depression for 3 years. I have tried 2 different anti-depressants, neither have worked. I know people who have had sucess with these meds.
My own son, who is 10, suffers from extreme anxiety. He refuses to "work" on it. I believe he doesn't think he can feel any differently and anxiety has had a huge effect on him socially, physically and academically. We have, after consulting with learning specialists, an allergist, a neurologist, and batteries of tests with his pediatrician, 6 months of group social therapy, and several years of hoping that maturity would have some effect, have finally tried medication. We are having some sucess and are still in the process of adjusting the medication.
I wish we knew more about the drugs. I wish we knew more about how the brain works. I think the meds are overprescribed. But I think they have to be an option.
In that case, they would not be licensed for sale. Believe me, unless it can be statistically demonstrated that the drug outperformed the placebo the drug will never get on the market.
What makes you say that, there is not a word in the article to suggest that most of the numerous studies performed on drugs which have been licensed show the placebos outperform the drugs. It just says that one or two of the hundreds of studies in a protocol show this, and do not say that this was for a drug that got licensed.
There is no evidence whatsoever that there is such a drug, and plentiful evidence that there is not.
In clinical research, this is what is known as 'anecdotal information'. It is of no signifigance, since it is not statistically demonstrated, which is the only sort of data the FDA will accept.
You seem to confuse psychiatrists (MD's) with psychologists (PhD's). This is roughly likely confusing a chiropractor with a neurosurgeon. Psychiatrists have NEVER done anything except treat with various medical treatments, including medications and electroshock, among other things. They are not trained in psychoanalysis, and do not practise it.
I suspect that if I took 100 people with runny noses (some of which have colds, some sinus infections and some with allergies) and gave them all either penicillin or a placebo, penicillin may not come out looking real helpful.Your suspicion is wrong. The penicillin would wipe out the infections in a way the placebo never could. It's a proven drug - not through personal anecdotes, but through the same research that prozac can't seem to pass.
Luckily, we can distinguish between these illnesses and treat them appropriately. I think we simply don't have enough information about depression and brain function to do that yet.Not hardly. But you're arguing my point.
I don't think lacking that information means we should throw out the meds until we understand things better. Some people probably need the medication. Other people find it helpful, for whatever reason.Sticking with the parallel you suggested, would you feel the same about a new cold medicine if they couldn't seem to prove it's efficacy in trials, and had no idea how or if it worked? Drug companies could advertise it as a cure, and they should be allowed to market this nonsense? Why do we make an exception when we move from physical illness to mental illness? Because the mentally ill are easier to con?
I think anti-depressants can validly be used as a tool. Oftentimes a depressed person can find it difficult to impossible to make the sustained lifestyle changes which might be needed to cure their type of depression. To give that person some relief and motivation to make those changes is not a bad thing. It seems unlikely that we will find out later that these meds do lasting damage. But we know that even overprescribing of antibiotics has become a problem, so this is a possibility. Whether it is worth the risk has to depend upon personal circumstances.The research doesn't indicate that the drugs give that person any more relief than sugar pills. If we don't know what it does, how is it that we could know it won't cause lasting damage?
Personally, I have been battling a moderate depression for 3 years. I have tried 2 different anti-depressants, neither have worked. I know people who have had sucess with these meds.So did these people improve because of a placebo effect, or because of the drugs? The truth is, you don't know, and they don't know, and the drug companies are pretty sure it's the former. But your friends feel better, and that's good. It's too bad they had to pay $$$$$$$ for candy to feel better.
My own son, who is 10, suffers from extreme anxiety. He refuses to "work" on it. I believe he doesn't think he can feel any differently and anxiety has had a huge effect on him socially, physically and academically. We have, after consulting with learning specialists, an allergist, a neurologist, and batteries of tests with his pediatrician, 6 months of group social therapy, and several years of hoping that maturity would have some effect, have finally tried medication. We are having some sucess and are still in the process of adjusting the medication.I wish you well in dealing with your son. I hope you find the real cause of his problems, and get him a serious cure.
I wish we knew more about the drugs. I wish we knew more about how the brain works. I think the meds are overprescribed. But I think they have to be an option.I think that's alchemy.
The makers of Prozac had to run five trials to obtain two that were positive, and the makers of Paxil and Zoloft had to run even more.
In other words, in three out of five Prozac trials the placebo was either equal to or more "effective" than Prozac.
And that drug "passed" easier than the others. this is how this junk gets licensed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.