…
Depression can be real and it can be crippling, which is unrelated to the notion that people pop-pills. Pill-popping nation is true and whether people are depressed or not isn’t the point.
The point is do the medications work? Many of them show equal effect to a sugar pill in clinical trials (double blind) envolving thousands of people. The point is does therapy work? double blind tests show that people off the street can diagnose/treat people with as much accuracy as people with YEARS of training, psychiatrists/psychologists statistically CANNOT predict people’s future behavior at all and continously fail to do so when statistically you look at the predictions, on top of that, all forms of therapy, seem to work the same, on the statistical level.
SO yeah, american’s go through all this shit and it can ‘heal’ their depression, when theres absolutely no reason why it really should.
Thats not to say that people are not depressed and that its not crippling, its not an issue of picking yourself up by the bootstraps, ,but thats exactly what MOST DEPRESSED PEOPLE DO WHO GET BETTER ON MEDICATION/THERAPY.
Because statistically, they’re usually not *real medicine.
These medications are addictive, have brutal side effects (somtimes depression) and have brutal side effects when you try and go off of them. When millions of people are taking them due to depression when they don’t work better than sugarpills in double-blind clinicial trials (WHAT WE USE TO DETERMINE IF ALL OTHER MEDICINE WORKS) theres a problem.
Sorry, there just is.
If you’re concerned about so many depressed people, you should be concerneed about getting them off pills that have sugarpill success rates and petition for real scientific research into treating depression.
You must have read the article regarding the findings that people who were using prozac were helped just as much as people who were using a placebo. What they didn’t mention in the findings is that they included people of all spectrums of depression: people who were clinically depressed, mildly depressed, or maybe not depressed at all. In other studies, they’ve found people who are clinically depressed, suicidal, etc., were helped more by drugs like prozac than by their placebo. The study was a bit misleading. I was surprised when I read about it, but pressed on to uncover both sides of the story.
usatoday.com/news/health/200 … tudy_N.htm
mindhacks.com/blog/2008/02/n … ants_.html
So while prescribing Prozac to everybody who walks through the door and feels sad probably isn’t a good idea, or even a better idea than prescribing a placebo, those who truly suffer from the mental illness known as depression can’t be helped as well by a mere placebo.
In addition, I think the word “placebo” is thrown around as if it is completely meaningless. But the placebo effect is a biochemical reaction that can be equated with taking medication.
news.softpedia.com/news/The-Plac … 6988.shtml
So I’m afraid your posts are based on a lack of understanding, but it’s what I assume most people who haven’t experienced clinical severe depression think.
sigh
Actually, it was a meta-analysis on most statistical clinicial trial data about the entire new wave of antidepressants and yeah, they used many levels of depression, (which is scientifically accecptable because lots of people are handeed antidepressants) and found sugar-pill style effects in almost everyone, the people who were the most depressed, also did not get ‘real medicine’ type effects, no matter if it *slightly worked for them or not.
Yeah and most people handeed antidepressants are not ’ the most depressed people’ and still, the medicine did not so significantly crush placebo to make it worth taking for all the side-effects that people consistantly get.
I’ve read dozens of studies on anti depressants before the meta-analysis was reached. Heres the conclusion by the actual people doing the meta-analysis of clinicial significance. “These drugs do not meet the criteria of clinicial significance”
I’m sorry, but when you release a heart medication on the market with tonnes of side-effects, it has to statistically crush a placebo, it cannot work for only a tiny percent of the population somtimes. Either it works for people with heart problem A or it doesn’t, statistically. and when it does, the medicine gets a recall.
]In this new analysis, only in severe depression did these medications show a distinct improvement over placebo, and this, the authors suggest, is because of the reduced placebo effect in the severely depressed, rather than than the fact that the medication has a differential effect in those most affected by mood disorders.
not powerful enough to be called clinicially significant though. The standard for medicine is beating a placebo by a certain extent, if you can’t show this because your population doesnt’ work with placebo anymore, the results cannot be used to imply the medication works.
Perhaps you didn’t understand the conclusion. They’re saying study results show that more depressed people are, the less the power of placebo works, so really depressed people beating a clinical trial against placebo, because PLACEBO DOESN"T WORK, IS SAYING THE MEDICINE STILL DOESN"T WORK.
You.don’t.understand.
In a normal human people have a placebo reaction, its strong. To test medicine we judge it against the statistical effect of a placebo (heart medicine, lung medicine, brain medicine) these things need to give proper relief to a statistically wide population. The second you test a population of people that no longer have a placebo effecct, you cannot, by any definition, judge how accurately your medication is working in X population, it becomes impossible, futile, because by definition the only way to test carefully and accurately is through placebo trials, with individuals WHO HAVE NORMAL PLACEBO REACTIONS.
If depressed people like really brutally depressed people have no placebo action or its SUPER reduced, and then a medicine beats it, that DOES NOT MEET CLINICIAL TRIAL SIGNIFICANCE.
because a medicine can occasionally work for some people under some circumstances does not mean that it beats placebo in clinicial trials or that it meets clinicial significance, even in depressed people. Placebo helps people too, but we can’t hand out sugar on that justification, we also can’t hand out highly dangerous pills on that standard either.
Its not equatable with taking medicine because medicine needs to be judged AGAINST IT, in statistical trials. its comparable to taking medication because in some cases, it can work brutally. Say, giving someone a saline shot (when they’re on morphine) and telling them its morphine will produce pain relief, giving them a shot of saline/morphine blocking drug. produces… nothing.
Obviously the placebo effect is massively powerful and biochemical, which is irrelevant. we measure medicine *Against it to determine clinicial significance.
[/quote]
okay, so you tell me this too. great.
I’ve read pretty much every most of the clinicial trials on anti-depressants, and after the the freedom of information act we got access to more studies prompting others to do meta-analysis, great. For *most patients, as was said, it doesn’t work, and for those that it works for, it doesn’t meet medical significance, because it doesn’t reach the placebo effect in a NORMAL person, WHICH IS WHAT ALL MEDICINES ARE TYPICALLY MEASURED AGAINST.
See, you think I have some lack of understanding or ignorance on the subject I don’t. I’m also aware of the biochemical nature of placebo.
I guess its impossible for anyone but me to see the dangerous and slippery slope envolved with letting medicine slip through the cracks and letting drug companies standards fall on what they decide is ‘clinically significant’. Infact, since this is such a hugely dangerous and important issue, SERIOUSLY; how can you support a drug that only works in the most depressed and then, it doesn’t really work at all and the effect your seeing is their lack of placebo respond?
Say its not a good idea ‘in practice’ to widely perscribe these medications. Well guess what, in the real world, the one in which you and I have to wake up every morning and live with ourselves, millions of people are on those pills, millions of people dealing with medication that they can no longer get off of due to addiction and the brutal side effects associated with trying to quit (like brain shocks. but that may not be as bad as the side-effects of actually TAKING the medicine)
Millions of people who didn’t need it because they were not the most depressed are on these medications, millions of people will be perscribed medications for depression AS LONG AS DRUG COMPANIES ARE KEEPING PEOPLE IN THE DARK, ABOUT ALL THE FACTS, like how it doesn’t meet clinicial significance for most people on them, and those that it does, ,well they have no placebo, (or a weak one) ***(OR AT THE LAST THEY MIGHT)
and until you scientifically adjust for that factor, YOUR RESULTS ARE NOT UNOBJECTIVE, THEY ARE SKEWED, THEY NO LONGER MEET THE CRITERIA OF “SCIENCE”
Let alone “MEDICINE WE SHOULD GIVE OUT FREELY”
i guess, physicians were right to hand out that many pills because people claimed they were that depressed? Not to mention 99% of physians put people on antidepressants without ever looking for co-existing/co-founding factors.
Don’t get me wrong, its not ONLY THE MEDICINE not working thats a problem, psychiatry diagnostic procedure is also beyond brutal.
For example when you go to talk to your doctor/psychatrist about depression and they give you anti-deperssants, and you get better.
Well real scientists, WON’T DO IT. THEY WILL NOT.
they will not perscribe anything until they’re 100% sure you’re not getting better because you’re now TALKING TO A SPECIALIST ABOUT YOUR PROBLEMS.
Thats right, even going to your doctor/specialist is a variable, THAT NEEDS TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR, BEFORE YOU THROW SOMEONE ON A MEDICATION.
But nobody does it. because nobody thinks it neccessary. I know, it might seem to everyone ‘they take it, they get better’ to decry it is just being assinine.
But its *NOT, because you can’t abandon scientific procedure, *ever, when it comes to determining how well a medicine works.
Reminds me of drug companies testing breast-cancer drugs on girls too young to have breasts. Those kinds of things SKEW statistics, and when it happens for ‘breast cancer’ everyone is horrified and rightfully so.
But throw people in testing for medicine when they have no placebo effect, and thats okay.
absurd. ](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
breasts and placebo ARE IDENTICAL in this example, they both introduce factors so massively confounding, that they need to be accounted for.
I’m wondering if you can provide sources for this, since all of the sources I’ve provided state clearly that although there wasn’t a significant difference between taking a placebo and antidepressants for mildly to moderately depressed people, it says nothing about those with severe depression, implying that those with severe depression were helped.
What tests would one have to do in order to come to the conclusion that more depressed people are less affected by placebo? From what I gathered from the study, they are stating that those with severe depression were helped more by actual drugs than placebo. The study then concludes that this is because the placebo effect is less efficient on those with severe depression. How do they know this?
Let’s say 30% of people with severe depression are helped by the drug, and 24% are helped by a placebo. How would one reach the conclusion that this 6% difference was because severely depressed people are less affected by placebo, as opposed to the conclusion that the anti-depressants are simply more effective?
I think this post has gotten sidetracked. I really didn’t want this to turn into a debate about the effectiveness of anti-depressants. I guess I was hoping more for a discussion of, “What came first, the chicken or the egg?” scenario.
Either people think certain thoughts, hold certain beliefs, etc., that induce depression, or a chemical imbalance in the brain causes depression, which in turn forces certain thoughts and beliefs onto people. Which do you think it is?
I used to believe that it was thoughts, beliefs, etc., that cause a person to be depressed, and if those thoughts and beliefs are a choice, then one could just as easily choose to not be depressed. Now, I’ve switched sides on the issue. I think depression is first a chemical imbalance, which then leads to detrimental and negative thoughts, beliefs, and actions.
I totally agree with you, d00d. Here’s a post you might want to check out, she puts it much more eloquently than I ever could, plus, she’s a hilarious writer.
http://www.dooce.com/2007/12/13/because-i-couldnt-say-it-phone
In my opinion, she nails it.
- wiki
To simply say its a ‘chemical imbalance’ is beyond simplistic and confounding… but it has its uses I guess.
Dorky, I was at one point and for some years depressed myself. I can’t tell you how exactly I got out of it because it just sort of happened. One day I looked back at the last few weeks and recalled that they were some pretty damn good weeks, and I found myself liking now and tomorrow. So I said to myself, I guess I’m not depressed anymore.
It’s probably a safe bet that the depressed outlook on life, like any and all outlooks on life, has as it’s basis chemicals in the brain. A certain physical brain disposition results in a certain outlook. With that in mind, I suppose the best way to get a different outlook on life is a change of diet. Try eating different things for an extended period of time. Cut down on some food that you eat now, and add something new to your diet. If that doesn’t work, try cutting and adding something else. Try a different environment too. Go fishing, play some pool, play soccer, go jogging, go to sleep at around 9PM. Basically, do things differently as you are now, so that your brain’s disposition changes and so then your outlook on life changes as well. Talk about free will…right? That’s as close to self-determination as man can get.
You do realize that environment/genes/brain is all in a giant feedback loop, that means thoughts can turn genes on and off, which can in turn massively effect the brain’s neurotransmitters/chemical makeup, and make you clinically depressed.
Currently i’m happy, I enjoy my life more than the next person seems to, my life is great and i’m as far from depression as possible. Its a foolish assumption to assume that everyone who doesn’t take anti-depressants has not at some point in their life, experienced crushing depression that should have had medical treatment to address the problem, lots of people get over it.
I deal with a nondangerous condition that routinely produces acute lightning pain. (like someone hooking a toaster up to your face. literally) some of the worst which a human is capable of feeling apparently, at times the electric shocks come swifter, and swifter until you can think of nothing but the unbelievable pain, as a condition it can get worse, and worse, and worse until the patient feels nothing but constant electrical jolts in their face. (I have fallen on a massive knife that almost went through my arm, the pain of one ‘electrical jolt’ in comparison, is at least 10x as acute/worse.) Heres a medical discription of that type of pain
“Believed to be among the most severe types of pain known to humanity”
Infact, the condition has been nicknamed ‘Suicide disease’ because theres almost no treatment options, and it seems to produce crippling depression in people.
I’ve dealt with clinicial depression and i’ve delt with it FOR A REAL REASON, a reason thats probably never going to go away.
And I pulled myself up by my BOOTSTRAPS, exactly what you claim is impossible, and I live with my problem without ever experiencing depression now, for YEARS. The constant pain didn’t dissapear, either. So yeah, I was depressed, and I got over it, and so can other people.
Which is why therapy all seems to work the same, statistically.
The idea that cancer patients can pull themselves out of depression, but other healthyy people *(thousands of them) can’t without antidepressants is a load of bullshit.
And suicide is just pretend.
The fact that people entertain themselves by way of distraction so they dont have to think about how shitty their life is, that is really shit from the bull.
Or, y’know, people don’t need to distract themselves from anything, you can accept that you have a shitty life, and enjoy every second of it, because you don’t have another life to live/waste, and making yourself more miserable over the only experience your ever going to have, is a sad, waste of life.
Suicide doesn’t imply that there were no other options for a person, it only implies that they couldn’t find one fast enough to deeal with whatever suffering and decided to end it. Plenty of people deal with more suffering and depression than most depressed people could ever imagine, and they don’t commit suicide, but struggle on because to them, life is still worth living.
Trying going on a desert island for 4 days without food or water of anyn sort, in the scorching heat, sitting there cooking. If you think that depressed people, even people who commit suicide are at the end of their ropes more than these people, you’re seriously mistaken. You’re not going to tell me individual A living at home with water is more depressed than individual B, trapped, 100% sure they’re going to die a slow painful death, and deciding to live through that because its better than suicide, if person B can do it, , person A can too.
it doesn’t imply the level of desperation that you think it does. Opposed to massive cognitive dysfunction on top of that.
But Cyrene, I don’t think you can say that people stuck on a desert island for days without food or water are more depressed than those who commit suicide - the people on the island still want to live, right? They may actually be physically worse off than someone suicidal, because their deaths may be inevitable, but they’re going to continue to try to live as long as they possibly can.
The suicidal person doesn’t care about having water or being safe. They don’t find joy in anything and don’t have hope for ever finding any joy. Life is so painful, they willingly give it up to escape the agony.
By definition (the fact that they purposely end their life), that would be more depressed than someone who’s facing their own death, but who clings to life as long as humanly possible. At least, that’s how it seems to me.
I don’t claim it’s impossible for people who are depressed to overcome it on their own. Hell, my sister did. She was on several different kinds of medications before she completely stopped taking them. It was a few more years before she somewhat overcame severe depression, enrolled in college classes, got a job, etc. However, I wouldn’t pretend to know for sure that she simply “pulled herself up by the bootstraps.” Perhaps her brain was malfunctioning for exactly “x” number of years, then corrected itself. Maybe it was sudden, or maybe it happened over a long period of time. Or maybe it was a series of experiences that did it.
And don’t you think it’s somewhat arrogant to again think that the depression you had was as bad as the clinical depression others experience? Severe depression often times doesn’t seem to have anything to do with circumstance. There are millionaires who have everything and commit suicide, and there are poor people who’ve suffered through worse than any of us who are completely content.
Before I was unsure whether or not you understood depression, but now I’m certain you don’t. Have you ever heard, “Stone walls do not a prison make, nor iron bars a cage”? If person A is poor, hungry, diseased, with a sufferable disease, and still claims to be happy, and person B is a millionaire with a family, with a dream job, and still commits suicide, what is your explanation? Of course a person can have everything and still suffer more than a person who is trapped starving and alone on a desert island. There are so many examples it’s not even worth drudging them up.
But alas, there will always be people who can’t understand any reality other than their own. How can anybody who doesn’t have synesthesia even fathom what it’s like to experience it? It’s easy to see that people have always had a hard time believing others can experience any reality that seems so drastically different: think persecution of gays. It’s so much easier to just assume that people who are born a boy, but feel they absolutely have to be a girl trapped in a boys body, are this way because of something in their environment, or abuse, etc. But is it really that hard to believe, out of the seven billion people in the world, that some will have a brain that is different in such a way that it creates a skewed version of reality (compared to the norm)? It doesn’t seem like such a tough pill to swallow.
Erlir, thank you for your post, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Anitas, thank you for the link, it was a great read.