[watchin]

I find it amusing that you indicate you have "first-hand experience", and then accuse ME of bias. The facts here are plain:

1. Recently: 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.

2. Prior to this new analysis: 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. (note that these trials were prior to, and therefore independent of, the "new analysis")

3. We have, therefore, both the new analysis AND the fact that the majority of the trials (3 out of 5) show the placebo to be more effective.

4. Against this scientific research you want to present your "first-hand experience", which is totally subjective, to prove the drugs really work.

5. I have consistently appealed to the results of the research - the latest analysis as well as the trials run by the drug companies themselves. You have consistently appealed to "first-hand experience" and what you believe to be true in spite of the research.

6. You then accuse me of bias. That's almost too absurd for a good laugh.

[Amore]

Oh, I'll grant that anecdotal experience is given little credence by researchers. But to the person who experiences it, it is quite valid. I've been on antidepressants that haven't worked at all, I've been on placebos that haven't worked at all, and I've been on antidepressants that have worked. Unlike you, I can see both sides of the issue. Do I think your research has some validity? Absolutely. But do I buy your ultimate conclusion that the drugs are all bogus and a huge rip-off? No. I thank God that at least so far our government gives us the right to make our own decisions on the matter. I hope no one like you ever gets in charge and decides that all of us "suckers" need to be protected from ourselves.