Posted by linkadge on June 8, 2007, at 11:14:45
In reply to Re: Depression is unfortunate brain chemistry » linkadge, posted by Iansf on June 8, 2007, at 1:04:12
>By that line of thinking, there's no way to know >if ANYTHING works for anything because it could >be the placebo effect.
I'm just saying that the statistical rate of placebo response should always be presented and digested alongside the "presumed" rate of antidepressant response.
>If you do cognitive therapy and your depression >goes away, how do you know it's the therapy and >not the placebo effect? If you get ECT and the >depression goes away, how do you know it's not >the placebo effect? How do you ever know it's >not the placebo effect?
You don't.
>But the fact is the placebo effect rarely, if >ever, lasts for a long period, whereas >antidepressants do.
That is debatable.
>In addition, I took Lexapro, Celexa and >Citalopram. I expected them all to work, but >none did.The placebo effect is more than expectation.
>I also tried SAMe, fish oil and various other >over-the-counter supplements, and none worked. >Why would the placebo effect happen with some >drugs but not others?
Timing.
>You might as well throw science out the window >if you're not willing to accept a link between >cause and effect that shows up consistently and >repeatedly.
I am not throwing science out the window, cause this isn't science. Science has not proven that antidperessants work. The sum of all clinical trials fails to show this.
A flawed method of gathering data will produced flawed results. There needs to be more forms of data verification in clinical trials. Active placebos, blinded placebo crossovers, active agent challenge etc etc. Even then, this would not proove anything, it would only strengthen or weaken the case.
Linkadge
poster:linkadge
thread:761153
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20070604/msgs/761828.html