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.
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.