Posted by linkadge on July 15, 2006, at 21:58:11
In reply to Re: couldn't have said it better myself, posted by SLS on July 15, 2006, at 7:15:39
"That is why the rate of placebo response is so high, and perhaps why the rate of response for the active compound is so low."
Well, seeing as these drugs were approved based on the fact that they could undepress regular, non genetically chemically imballenced mice coupled with the fact that these drugs have never been proven by any strech of the imagination to correct any genuine depression related chemical imballences, I would have to disagree with the above comment.
Studies *have* shown that even in those with the most marked depression related disturbances in brain function, recovery in any form, is associated with resolution of such peturbations. Ie. there is just as much evidence to suggest that depression causes chemical imballences as there is to suggest that chemical imballances cause depression.
Unfortunately, a response to an antidperssant does not, in any way, prove the existance of a "genuine chemical imballence". Like I said above, mice respond to prozac. Regular mice who have been depressed by chronic stress. Mice with no known gentic biochemical abnormalities.
Placebo responce has never been shown to be restricted to those with "situational depression". Even in those with strong genetic dispositions to depression often have spontainious recovery. In addition, there has been no evidence to suggest that situational depression does not respond to antidepressants. Infact, there is ample evidence to suggest that even situational depression responds to antidepressants. Just the same way as ritalin will improve concentration in people without ADHD, that is why it is abused in universities.
Linkadge
poster:linkadge
thread:662854
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20060709/msgs/667409.html