![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 8 of 8. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by crabwalk on June 12, 2006, at 11:06:32
It's short, asks the question of whether antidepressants even deserve their classification as such. Should make for interesting discussion...
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/archive/1549-1676/3/7/pdf/10.1371_journal.pmed.0030240-p-S.pdf
Posted by pseudoname on June 12, 2006, at 11:44:48
In reply to read this paper, posted by crabwalk on June 12, 2006, at 11:06:32
Hi crabwalk.
> Should make for interesting discussion...
You might be interested in the link I posted several threads up. One author of that paper (Cohen) was in a live radio debate about it with a psychiatrist last Friday. My summary of the debate ("Purile"!) is here: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20060604/msgs/654902.html
Online audio archive of the radio show is here: http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2006/Jun/hour1_060906.html
Posted by bassman on June 12, 2006, at 15:27:27
In reply to read this paper, posted by crabwalk on June 12, 2006, at 11:06:32
Thanks, interesting paper! The most damning assertion was that nothing does anything for depression long term. I'm depressed. :>} Whether AD's adjust neurotransmitter levels or work by another mechanism, it seems to me, is interesting but of little practical value. No one says of physical pain, "you know, the painkillers you are taking don't cure the source of the pain-they just make you feel better". Well, actually, I'm sure someone says that-but my point is, "who cares?".
Posted by linkadge on June 12, 2006, at 15:48:24
In reply to read this paper, posted by crabwalk on June 12, 2006, at 11:06:32
I think it was fairly well written and made good points.
About "who cares". I think the biggest issue with taking a medication based on innacurate, or faulty theory, is that it also works to compromise the presumed safety profile.
If I now believe that I have been mislead about the theraputic working of the medication, I have less reason to believe that this medication is not dammaging my brain.
Linkadge
Posted by Jost on June 12, 2006, at 15:48:54
In reply to read this paper, posted by crabwalk on June 12, 2006, at 11:06:32
My take on this article is that it suggests testing two quasi-scientific (explanatory) paradigms against one another. This really can't be done, though.
The reason is that a paradigm identifies and organizes facts within itself; the facts, thus, will support the paradigm, because they are fact only in and for the purpose of elaborating that paradigm. [As opposed to another paradigm, or explanatory system] So if you have competing paradigms-- here, the drug-centered versus the biological paradigms of Antidepressant action-- you can't really test them against one another.
They will each generate different and competing sets of facts, but the fact-sets will be internally consistent--and the distinction between the two paradigms will be that each will seem to do a better (whatever that means at any moment) job of explaining its facts--and its facts will seem to do a better job at illustrating the shape of its paradigm.
There's no point of view outside either paradigm from which to test them against one another, though.
It's more a question of belief than scientific validation-- so far as I can tell-- some paradigms hold up for centuries, or possibly forever-- others hold up for a long time and are displaced, etc--
I won't go on, but I think in this case, you have to go with the paradigm that seems more salient, fruitful, or "right" on some other ground-- The dominant paradigm now is the biological one-- and it will take some pretty solid discordancies in the facts and outcomes before the ground could be laid for another one to be put forward--
Jost
Posted by bassman on June 12, 2006, at 17:54:40
In reply to Re: read this paper, posted by Jost on June 12, 2006, at 15:48:54
Wow-this post sounded like William James or David Hume. Damn well said.
Posted by valene on June 13, 2006, at 16:34:07
In reply to read this paper, posted by crabwalk on June 12, 2006, at 11:06:32
Thank you for this link. The article is Very interesting. I printed it out to take in to my pdoc next week. I do believe that the a/d's create abnormal brain states. Most everyone here agrees that there is no proof of "chemical imbalance" in the brain, well this theory seems to make a lot of sense to me. We are not "cured" our brains are transfigured into an abnormal state. Scary stuff. I agree that I get desperate for relief and even an "abnormal state" if it improves mood seems to be better than nothing!
I have been resisting a/d's again and now scared to try the Emsam. I have a supply waiting for me at the drugstore ($45.00) special dispensation required from my insurance co (blue cross/bs.)
Posted by pseudoname on June 13, 2006, at 17:21:49
In reply to Re: read this paper, posted by valene on June 13, 2006, at 16:34:07
related picture: http://www.funnyandjokes.com/pictures/images/remember-pfizer.jpg
[Note: That pic is civil, but some others at that site may not be.]
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.