![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 73 to 97 of 116. Go back in thread:
Posted by bulldog2 on April 19, 2008, at 14:44:34
In reply to Re: OOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooo, posted by SLS on April 19, 2008, at 14:37:33
> > > > Hi Linkadge.
> > > >
> > > > :-)
> > > >
> > > > Life is a wondrous kaleidoscope of experiences to marvel at and participate in.
> > > >
> > > > Remission is where it's at, baby. Remission.
> > > >
> > > > :-)
> > > >
> > > > Have a good life.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > - Scott
> > >
> > > Scott
> > >
> > > Do you ever get the impression that people for whom meds didn't work are bitter when they hear stories for whom meds have worked? Seems like there's always someone who wants to rain on your parade!
> >
> > I know. You are absolutely right about Kirsch and Breggin. Perhaps it is something far more misanthropic, though, as to why anyone would offer such insistence that the world is flat so as to prevent others from sailing along freely around the world.
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
> Thank God these people are not in a position of power. None of us would get well.
>
>
> - Scotthave you found that nardil makes youn ravenous and have you gained weight on Nardil?
Posted by SLS on April 19, 2008, at 14:45:21
In reply to Re: OOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooo, posted by bulldog2 on April 19, 2008, at 14:43:00
> > > > > Hi Linkadge.
> > > > >
> > > > > :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Life is a wondrous kaleidoscope of experiences to marvel at and participate in.
> > > > >
> > > > > Remission is where it's at, baby. Remission.
> > > > >
> > > > > :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Have a good life.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > - Scott
> > > >
> > > > Scott
> > > >
> > > > Do you ever get the impression that people for whom meds didn't work are bitter when they hear stories for whom meds have worked? Seems like there's always someone who wants to rain on your parade!
> > >
> > > I know. You are absolutely right about Kirsch and Breggin. Perhaps it is something far more misanthropic, though, as to why anyone would offer such insistence that the world is flat so as to prevent others from sailing along freely around the world.
> > >
> > >
> > > - Scott
> >
> > Thank God these people are not in a position of power. None of us would get well.
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
> Misery truely loves companySome people truly love misery.
- Scott
Posted by linkadge on April 19, 2008, at 14:48:09
In reply to Re: OOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooo » linkadge, posted by Larry Hoover on April 19, 2008, at 13:54:05
>In the era in consideration, publication of >negative studies almost never occurred.
There you go.
>Moreover, negative studies teach us nothing, as >we cannot discrimate between failed methodology >and failed drug.
Oh, I see, we only pay attention to postitive trials. That makes a lot of sense.
>We don't take older cars off the road because >they don't meet current emissions/efficiencies >standards, so why should we retrospectively >reassess these drugs based on data collected for >other purposes?
Well, if that level of significance is enough for you then great.
>IMHO, he fished around until he found the >statistics he liked, and he published those and >those alone.
If that is your take.
Linkadge
Posted by linkadge on April 19, 2008, at 14:54:51
In reply to Re: OOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooo » linkadge, posted by SLS on April 19, 2008, at 14:17:44
Seems to me that being on a message board on a glorious Saturday afternoon is a strange way to spend your remssion, but hey, whatever does it for you.
Linkadge
Posted by bulldog2 on April 19, 2008, at 14:57:17
In reply to Re: OOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooo, posted by linkadge on April 19, 2008, at 14:48:09
> >In the era in consideration, publication of >negative studies almost never occurred.
>
> There you go.
>
> >Moreover, negative studies teach us nothing, as >we cannot discrimate between failed methodology >and failed drug.
>
> Oh, I see, we only pay attention to postitive trials. That makes a lot of sense.
>
> >We don't take older cars off the road because >they don't meet current emissions/efficiencies >standards, so why should we retrospectively >reassess these drugs based on data collected for >other purposes?
>
> Well, if that level of significance is enough for you then great.
>
> >IMHO, he fished around until he found the >statistics he liked, and he published those and >those alone.
>
> If that is your take.
>
> Linkadge
>This is my feeling...It it ain't broke don't fix it..Scott feels the best he has felt in years on Nardil so why tamper..I'd be ecstactic if I was him.
Posted by SLS on April 19, 2008, at 14:58:05
In reply to Re: OOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooo, posted by linkadge on April 19, 2008, at 14:54:51
> Seems to me that being on a message board on a glorious Saturday afternoon is a strange way to spend your remssion, but hey, whatever does it for you.
>
>
> LinkadgeYou silly goose! I'm taking a break from my studies. I decided to enjoy my remission by returning to school.
- Scott
Posted by linkadge on April 19, 2008, at 15:01:32
In reply to Re: OOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooo, posted by bulldog2 on April 19, 2008, at 14:26:08
Actually, I am not bitter at all. I am feeling better than I ever have on meds.
I never knew that I needed to be on a stupifying, cardiotoxic, diabetogenic, carcinogenic, excitotoxic, neuroendocrine disruptor to be happy?
I learn something new every day.
Linkadge
Posted by bulldog2 on April 19, 2008, at 15:02:40
In reply to Re: OOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooo, posted by SLS on April 19, 2008, at 14:45:21
> > > > > > Hi Linkadge.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > :-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Life is a wondrous kaleidoscope of experiences to marvel at and participate in.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Remission is where it's at, baby. Remission.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > :-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Have a good life.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Scott
> > > > >
> > > > > Scott
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you ever get the impression that people for whom meds didn't work are bitter when they hear stories for whom meds have worked? Seems like there's always someone who wants to rain on your parade!
> > > >
> > > > I know. You are absolutely right about Kirsch and Breggin. Perhaps it is something far more misanthropic, though, as to why anyone would offer such insistence that the world is flat so as to prevent others from sailing along freely around the world.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > - Scott
> > >
> > > Thank God these people are not in a position of power. None of us would get well.
> > >
> > >
> > > - Scott
> >
> > Misery truely loves company
>
> Some people truly love misery.
>
>
> - ScottCurrently doing deplin + Sam-e and getting a decent response thought not in remission. Could I get by with a lower dose of Nardil such as 45 mg. Also at lower doses is there less chance of a hypertensive crisis if I eat the wrong foods.
Posted by linkadge on April 19, 2008, at 15:09:36
In reply to Question For Scott, posted by bulldog2 on April 19, 2008, at 15:02:40
Seems to me that you were on the exact same combination of drugs and not feeling so hot less than a year ago.
Yes, I suppose it was indeed a delayed reaction of deplin. Thats sounds like a positive way to frame things.
Just keep changing it around and eventually things will go your way. Sounds like its just the way the wind blows.
But, as long as you have something to attribute it to. Thats what produces the sence of control over ones life.
But don't let me ruin it for you.
Linkadge
Posted by linkadge on April 19, 2008, at 15:11:23
In reply to Re: Question For Scott, posted by linkadge on April 19, 2008, at 15:09:36
Thats it for me folks. I just stopped by to say hi.
Good luck finding your answer.
Linkadge
Posted by SLS on April 19, 2008, at 15:13:16
In reply to Question For Scott, posted by bulldog2 on April 19, 2008, at 15:02:40
Hi Bulldog2.
This is conjecture:
> Currently doing deplin + Sam-e and getting a decent response thought not in remission.
Deplin can take 2-3 months to begin working. I think a brief "blip" response in the first week might indicate that things are heading in the right direction. Deplin produces an increase in S-AMe. Not only do I feel that the S-AMe is unecessary, it might even produce some dysphoria.
> Could I get by with a lower dose of Nardil such as 45 mg.
I would lower the dosage of Nardil only if you are having a difficult time tolerating side effects. I don't believe that you can lower an effective dosage of Nardil by adding Deplin.
> Also at lower doses is there less chance of a hypertensive crisis if I eat the wrong foods.
Sort of. The only thing is, this is probably at a dosage significantly lower than is necessary to maintain an antidepressant effect. In reality, it depends on the percentage of MAO being inhibited in the gut. I don't happen to know what the threshold is for reducing the tyramine reaction.
I apologize if I didn't get to your questions earlier.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on April 19, 2008, at 15:20:49
In reply to Re: Question For Scott, posted by linkadge on April 19, 2008, at 15:09:36
My Dearest Linkadge,
> Seems to me that you were on the exact same combination of drugs and not feeling so hot less than a year ago.
Nope.
> Yes, I suppose it was indeed a delayed reaction of deplin.Yup.
> Thats sounds like a positive way to frame things.
Yup.
> Just keep changing it around and eventually things will go your way.
Yup.
> Sounds like its just the way the wind blows.
Nope.
> But, as long as you have something to attribute it to.
Yup.
> Thats what produces the sence of control over ones life.
Yup. Remission of depression tends to restore one's control over life.
> But don't let me ruin it for you.You couldn't possibly.
- Scott
Posted by Larry Hoover on April 19, 2008, at 15:30:15
In reply to Re: OOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooo, posted by linkadge on April 19, 2008, at 14:48:09
> >In the era in consideration, publication of >negative studies almost never occurred.
>
> There you go.So, how is that to be blamed on drug companies? The article that revealed this publication bias qualified its results by saying they could not determine if in fact that bias arose within the publication industry, or if the studies had never been submitted. Why do we never hear about this significant qualifier?
> >Moreover, negative studies teach us nothing, as >we cannot discrimate between failed methodology >and failed drug.
>
> Oh, I see, we only pay attention to postitive trials. That makes a lot of sense.That's not what I said. A finding of the null hypothesis could be due to there being no true difference to be found, or it could be a failure of the study methodology to detect a true difference. They cannot be distinguished from each other. As a result, such a study is considered to be a failed study, which serves only to guide further development of hypotheses and methodology. It doesn't show us anything else.
> >We don't take older cars off the road because >they don't meet current emissions/efficiencies >standards, so why should we retrospectively >reassess these drugs based on data collected for >other purposes?
>
> Well, if that level of significance is enough for you then great.Putting data to tests for which they were not collected always raises the issue of unexamined confounds. Again, post hoc analysis is only appropriate in further hypothesis development and testing, but not re-evaluation of the meaning of the data themselves.
> >IMHO, he fished around until he found the >statistics he liked, and he published those and >those alone.
>
> If that is your take.
>
> LinkadgeYes, it is. The NICE document showed a variety of tests of the antidepressant data, and Kirsch picked the weakest finding. For example, NICE found that: "There is strong evidence suggesting that there is a clinically significant difference favouring SSRIs over placebo on increasing the likelihood of patients achieving a 50% reduction in depression symptoms as measured by the HRSD (N = 1719; n = 3143; RR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.78)." Not only did the statistic reach *clinical significance*, it was also rated as "strong evidence". I dismiss Kirsch both for what he said, and what he didn't say.
Refer to NICE for further definitions: http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/index.jsp?action=download&o=29617
Here's an example of cherry-picking from NICE. This statistic dismisses the efficacy of CBT (cognitive behavioural therapy), when compared to *doing nothing at all*.
p. 123
"There is insufficient evidence to determine if there is a clinically significant difference between CBT and wait list control on increasing the likelihood of achieving remission as measured by the BDI (N = 1; n = 24; RR = 0.70; 95% CI, 0.41 to 1.20)."Acccording to this analysis, you are going to have a similar likelihood of achieving remission whether you receive CBT, or you remain on a wait-list for that therapy.
Of course, NICE presents a lot of other data, and statistics. I present this limited example to demonstrate how easy it is to bias conclusions. A critical analysis of the external validity of this finding would reveal that there is more to the story. And that's all I did when I trashed Kirsch.
Lar
Posted by linkadge on April 19, 2008, at 16:16:02
In reply to Re: OOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooo » linkadge, posted by Larry Hoover on April 19, 2008, at 15:30:15
Like I said, I just stopped to say hi.
Larry is the only one with any brains here, but that doesn't mean I agree with the conclusions he comes to.
Linkadge
Posted by linkadge on April 19, 2008, at 16:17:39
In reply to Re: OOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooo, posted by linkadge on April 19, 2008, at 16:16:02
Thanks for blocking me in advance. If somebody would delete my psychobabble registration it would make things much easier.
Linkadge
Posted by Larry Hoover on April 19, 2008, at 16:44:39
In reply to Re: OOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooo, posted by linkadge on April 19, 2008, at 10:30:17
> Anyhow, the point is with these drugs, is that it doesn't matter how much you talk to people about their lack of established efficacy, you are still going to get people who refuse to look at good science like this.
Well, the question of good science is one not clearly ascribed to him, but Kirsch found that antidepressants were more effective than placebo, p <.001. Kirsch himself established efficacy.
Moreover, when presented with scientific arguments as to why e.g. failed studies are not meaningful, you dismiss the argument outright. What part of scientific analysis suits you? What part of the limitations of post hoc analysis will you accept? Only those bits that fit in with your own beliefs, apparently.
> Then you get those babblers who are resorting to the very devices they condemn. The very babblers that suggest that single case reports are weak seem return to the logic that "they work for me, and that's all that matters".
Same goes for those who claim they didn't work. Unfortunately, the plural of anecdote is not data. That's why I rely on the science.
> As mentioned it includes data that the drug companies conveniently left out which increases its validity beyond any one single study or any previous subgroup of *more positive* released trial data.
The same dataset has been studied and analyzed ad nauseum. There is no new finding in Kirsch's analysis, but for the post hoc application of a new and arbitrary standard of clinical significance. However, to limit the data used for such an analysis to this small grouping of ancient papers suits his purpose, as he already new what he'd "discover". That is intellectually dishonest. Period.
> Even those of you who publicly dismiss this study are probably saying to themselves "man, this really sucks".
No, I'm saying this Kirsch paper really sucks. It is meaningless, but for its propaganda value. NICE did a far better job of it, and before he published.
> The clinical trial is unfortunately the only real way to scientifically establish the efficacy of antidepressants.
Antidepressants superior to placebo, p <.001.
> Other forms of persuasion are not scientific and therefore don't mean a whole lot.
Then, I guess we're finished. p <.001.
> When people make certain faulty conclusions, it tends to stick even in the face of contradictory information.
Why is it that this thread only includes accusations of belief perseverence and faulty conclusions, when applied to those who don't accept that placebos are as efficacious as antidepressants?
> Another thing to consider is this: Most people are here because their antidepressant is not working the way they would like it to. That's why I take their proclamations with a grain of salt. Many of the people here arguing may just be doing so to re-establish their faith in the drugs. It's like...it seems like you're more trying to convince yourself. Its just like my brother at Bible college. Even he admits that arguing for Christianity bolsters his faith when even he is doubting it. After all, arguing a particular point of view is the first step to believing it.
That argument doesn't apply to me.
> The idea that it is hard to distinguish antidepressants from placebos is not new and has long preceded this study.And has always failed when put to critical thinking tests. Only people like Kirsch, who can ignore his own antidepressants significantly better than placebo result, one chance in 1000 (or less) that it is not a "real difference", support the equivalence theory. I asked people to look at Kirsch's graphs, and it is just as obvious in a pictorial form. The two are non-equivalent, and you can see that clearly.
> What always surprises me though is that if this kind of meta analysis occurred for a cholesteral lowering drug ie. you found out that you were taking a certain cholesterol lowering drug that was generally no better than placebo, most people would note get all defensive.Cholesterol is measured in different ways than is depression. Notwithstanding that limitation, antidepressants are significantly better than placebo, p <.001.
> Probably because there isn't the same kind of surge in introspection upon initiation of a cholesterol drug.
No. Probably because mental illness is inferential.
> The argument for endogenous depression is a valid one. But, provide me any data anywhere that the current line of antidepressants addresses any one proven chemical imbalance. For instance, the majority of the findings suggest that SERT activity is in fact low in depression. You're not targeting any imbalance by giving SERT inhibitors to these individuals. Other studyies suggest that NET is low and even MAO is decreased.
Depression is a symptom, not a disease of one etiology. Let us postulate that depression has three distinct causes. If we were unable to distinguish the three forms, and treated all of them as if they were homogenous, would it be a surprise to discover that response was limited? If equally prevalent, a given mode of treatment would at most reach 33% of the subjects. That hypothetical is nothing more than my attempt to illustrate that a failure to discriminate etiologies of depression must limit efficacies of treatment(s). Nobody ever argued that drugs work for all depressives, but the clear evidence is that they robustly work for some of them. And, as the combination of e.g. psychotherapy and antidepressant works better than either one alone, that convincingly shows (IMHO) that there is more to antidepressant response than simply obtaining placebo response.....otherwise, therapy plus antidepressant would be the same as therapy alone.
> People can, and often do feel better off drugs.
Plural of anecdote not data, again.
> This is in no way a sign that their depression is not due to some biochemical abnormality. Like mentioned above, it would seem reasonable to me that an individual with an already abnormally low level of the serotonin transporter takes a drug that lowers it further, they may just feel worse. I know severely depressed individuals who simply feel worse on drugs period. Psychiatry does not have all the tools and all the answers.
Of course not. But the answer is found by doing the experiments required.
> If anything I would hope that some of the current studies could help liberate certain individuals. You see people on this board who have never (or rarely) helped by an antidepressant, yet they somehow feel that the drugs work and there is something wrong with them when they don't. I would hope that data like this would be liberating. I.e. perhaps by seeing that they don't work for others too, they might stop beating themselves up about the issue and go look for answers somewhere else.
Further experimentation is indeed the answer. Including different drugs, also, IMHO. No point limiting treatment opportunities based on thought experiments.
> So, I digress. The establishment of a solid logical arugument does not depend on the ability to convince of any one individual. The more I am away from babble the more I realize how much "GroupThink" goes on here.I'm not one of those. Just for the record.
> One person talks about a drug then all of a sudden another person needs it. Also, the more time you spend on a board discussing drugs, the more you don't see the other ways that you can address your problems. Petting a dog will raise your serotonin you know.
Assuming that serotonin levels are the issue. You argued alternative mechanisms, earlier. ;-)Whatever works, works.
> Its just like some of the issues brought up by Bulldog. Many people are just at their wits end in terms of who to believe about who has the answers for their problems. Believing that prescription antidepressants are the only ways to solve your problems is seductively convenient.
Dismissing them outright is dangerous, IMHO. Look at what happened to child suicide rates as a result of the warnings. Better management is the answer, not drug avoidance.
> It allows you to narrow your focus and disregard other useful information. It makes life easy, or does it?
I'm not sure you're being fair to your readers.
> If the drugs work for you, then great: live happily ever after. For the rest of us, don't be so surprised and upset when you're not getting prozac.com type results.
Not sure what your point is here.
> Trust yourselves for a change, and reflect critically upon data like this. It may be more liberating than you know.
That's all I've been doing, reflecting critically. And Kirsch has not met his burden.
> Anyhow, I just thought I'd stop by and say hi.Hi, link. Sorry I didn't greet you earlier. I was caught up in debate. You are missed.
> To somebody who was on lithium, zoloft, depakote, zyprexa, clonazepam and ritalin, (all at once) and told by top psychiatrists that I will never be able to live medication free, diet, exercise, and certain supplements have gone a long way.There are many many positive lifestyle changes that can impact symptoms and vulnerabilities. I'm glad you've found some relief.
> Obviously not all cases are like this, but the point I am trying to make is to never stop rethinking and reasessing exactly what the meds are and are not doing for you.
>
> LinkadgeBest to you, link.
Lar
Posted by bulldog2 on April 19, 2008, at 18:24:04
In reply to Re: Question For Scott » bulldog2, posted by SLS on April 19, 2008, at 15:13:16
> Hi Bulldog2.
>
> This is conjecture:
>
> > Currently doing deplin + Sam-e and getting a decent response thought not in remission.
>
> Deplin can take 2-3 months to begin working. I think a brief "blip" response in the first week might indicate that things are heading in the right direction. Deplin produces an increase in S-AMe. Not only do I feel that the S-AMe is unecessary, it might even produce some dysphoria.
>
> > Could I get by with a lower dose of Nardil such as 45 mg.
>
> I would lower the dosage of Nardil only if you are having a difficult time tolerating side effects. I don't believe that you can lower an effective dosage of Nardil by adding Deplin.
>
> > Also at lower doses is there less chance of a hypertensive crisis if I eat the wrong foods.
>
> Sort of. The only thing is, this is probably at a dosage significantly lower than is necessary to maintain an antidepressant effect. In reality, it depends on the percentage of MAO being inhibited in the gut. I don't happen to know what the threshold is for reducing the tyramine reaction.
>
> I apologize if I didn't get to your questions earlier.
>
>
> - Scott
>
>Currently not on any ads. Thinking of starting Nardil. I was just wondering if I am elevating neurotransmitters via deplin if I might get by on less Nardil?
Posted by Phillipa on April 19, 2008, at 18:45:08
In reply to Re: OOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooo, posted by bulldog2 on April 19, 2008, at 13:48:44
Bulldog was told to go off the motrin as it is incompatible with luvox according to drug checker moderately so for internal bleeding, etc. So extra strength tylenol was prescribed and a massage and heat. No massage as don't have the funds. Oh mention a narcotic here and you have grown two heads. Did you know they are addictive? This is the question you're asked by pdocs, internists, endos. And the sad thing is percocet low dose relieved any anxiety for me. And it had taken two years for endo to get his numbers right. But blueaberry posted numbers don't count it's how you feel. My neice's endo in another state says the exact same thing. Love Phillipa
Posted by Phillipa on April 19, 2008, at 19:10:30
In reply to Wierd Some I know In real Life Feel Better off ADs, posted by Phillipa on April 14, 2008, at 13:40:46
Amazing how a simple question by me elicited so many debates. All I wondered was why some people get better and feel better when there docs decide to discontinue them. A number of posters no longer post as they no longer need ad's. One found their answer in progesterone cream. So I still believe in my opinion that physical causes can cause depression and once treated ad's no longer needed from real live people. And I see them interact daily and teach school, care for families etc. So for some a trigger set off a depression life situation or medical. This is my conclusion. Great debate though and so much knowledge. Phillipa
Posted by Shadowplayers721 on April 20, 2008, at 8:26:44
In reply to Re: OOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooo » linkadge, posted by Larry Hoover on April 19, 2008, at 16:44:39
Posted by bulldog2 on April 20, 2008, at 8:53:43
In reply to Re: Wierd Some I know In real Life Feel Better off ADs, posted by Phillipa on April 19, 2008, at 19:10:30
> Amazing how a simple question by me elicited so many debates. All I wondered was why some people get better and feel better when there docs decide to discontinue them. A number of posters no longer post as they no longer need ad's. One found their answer in progesterone cream. So I still believe in my opinion that physical causes can cause depression and once treated ad's no longer needed from real live people. And I see them interact daily and teach school, care for families etc. So for some a trigger set off a depression life situation or medical. This is my conclusion. Great debate though and so much knowledge. Phillipa
That is certainly another good option. Join an anti-aging clinic and let them balance all your hormones. Myofacial release massage therapy to get rid of all your muscle spasms and get everything aligned properly. I'm sure these are available in your area.Only buy organice food so you have no additives in your food.
Posted by linkadge on April 20, 2008, at 9:04:23
In reply to Re: OOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooo » linkadge, posted by Larry Hoover on April 19, 2008, at 16:44:39
>Well, the question of good science is one not >clearly ascribed to him, but Kirsch found that >antidepressants were more effective than >placebo, p <.001. Kirsch himself established >efficacy.
I'm sorry, I don't have time to review the data right now. I don't exactly agree with the conclusions you are reaching, but I can't say more until I review certain data myself. From what I understand this study reveals more when disected.
>Same goes for those who claim they didn't work. >Unfortunately, the plural of anecdote is not >data. That's why I rely on the science.
Statistical significance can mean different things in different contexts.
>The same dataset has been studied and analyzed >ad nauseum.
Thats why the conscensus is that antidepressants are only marginally better than placebo.
>No, I'm saying this Kirsch paper really sucks. >It is meaningless, but for its propaganda value. >NICE did a far better job of it, and before he >published.
NICE already suggests that for mild/moderate depression the benifit/risk ratio for antidepressants is poor.
>Antidepressants superior to placebo, p <.001.
From what I understand, in most trials analyzed, the difference between drug and placebo was not enough to exceed an arbitrary threshold established by NICE.
>And has always failed when put to critical >thinking tests. Only people like Kirsch, who can >ignore his own antidepressants significantly >better than placebo result, one chance in 1000
>(or less) that it is not a "real difference", >support the equivalence theory.You really think Kirsh was the first one to suggest that the difference between AD's and placebos is small. Kirsh's applicaton of a 'clinical significance' threshold is not arbitrary. Didn't he borrow it from NICE?
>Nobody ever argued that drugs work for all >depressives, but the clear evidence is that they >robustly work for some of them.And placebos work for others.
>And, as the combination of e.g. psychotherapy >and antidepressant works better than either one >aloneThat is certainly not a repeated finding. It is, however, logical. If you were in a study that gave half the patients two placebos (two supposed AD's) and the other have one placebo. Who do you think would fair better? Its all relative.
>that convincingly shows (IMHO) that there is >more to antidepressant response than simply >obtaining placebo response
Placebo + CBT also works better than placebo alone.
>....otherwise, therapy plus antidepressant would >be the same as therapy alone.
Well logically therapy plus placebo should be the same as therapy alone, but it isn't.
>Plural of anecdote not data, again.
But I am not claiming its data. When you make a case statement that is what is meant to be.
>Further experimentation is indeed the answer. >Including different drugs, also, IMHO. No point >limiting treatment opportunities based on >thought experiments.
>Assuming that serotonin levels are the issue. >You argued alternative mechanisms, earlier. ;-)>Whatever works, works.I'm not here to tell people not to take what they believe helps them.
>Dismissing them outright is dangerous, IMHO. >Look at what happened to child suicide rates as >a result of the warnings. Better management is >the answer, not drug avoidance.
Thats a separate issue. Don't get me started. Its called relative deprivation. SSRI's have no proven antisuicide effect. Take a look at say, overall US data on child suicide rates from 1950-2003 what do you see?
Linkadge
Posted by SLS on April 20, 2008, at 12:33:56
In reply to Re: OOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooo, posted by linkadge on April 20, 2008, at 9:04:23
I'm sure people have noticed that I'm having a bit of fun not seriously debating the issues surrounding the effectiveness of standard antidepressants. I don't really care to research psychiatric stuff anymore. I have no reason to at this juncture.
Mission accomplished. I did a hell of a good job.
It is not terribly important to me what anyone else believes, so long as it doesn't impact on my supply of effective mediation.
Besides, I have already argued these same issues before and have made my points eloquently. It was easy. The truth speaks for itself. The same people seem never to remember the results of previous debates. My previous posts can, hopefully, be found in the archives. It is easy to argue against the fallacy that drugs don't work. That's because they do. Isn't that silly? These drugs work, and some people want to argue them into disappearance. And all in the name of wanting to help me and you get well. How altruistic. <grin>
Antidepressants work. They can even bring people into complete remission. I just thought someone ought to know. It might be a matter of life and death.
Don't be a lemming following the pied-piper off a cliff. Often, people kill themselves before they reach bottom. Let the piper play his only one instrument alone.
- Scott
Posted by bulldog2 on April 20, 2008, at 13:08:52
In reply to Re: OOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooo, posted by SLS on April 20, 2008, at 12:33:56
feeling better off of meds is not the same as complete remission which is the goal of any treatment protocol. Many feel somewhat better for a while only to relapse later. There are probably millions of untreated people who drag themselves through each day feeling no joy or happiness. What does one do when all alternatives are exhausted? So you've tried diet and exercise, fish oil, sam-e, sjw, cbt etc and you still feel joyless. If you're lucky you may respond to one of the above.But some don't for one reason or another. So what are the options? A dreadful unhappy life and just accept that's the best you can do or try meds. Some on meds could not go to school or take part in a joyful life without them. I know meds don't work for everyone but let's not dismiss them as one of the options to explore.Also depressed people who are not in remission are more likely to self medicate with alcohol and or drugs.This is a complicated issue and can't be decided by individual stories.
Posted by SLS on April 20, 2008, at 13:52:56
In reply to Re: OOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooo, posted by bulldog2 on April 20, 2008, at 13:08:52
> feeling better off of meds is not the same as complete remission which is the goal of any treatment protocol. Many feel somewhat better for a while only to relapse later. There are probably millions of untreated people who drag themselves through each day feeling no joy or happiness. What does one do when all alternatives are exhausted? So you've tried diet and exercise, fish oil, sam-e, sjw, cbt etc and you still feel joyless. If you're lucky you may respond to one of the above.But some don't for one reason or another. So what are the options? A dreadful unhappy life and just accept that's the best you can do or try meds. Some on meds could not go to school or take part in a joyful life without them. I know meds don't work for everyone but let's not dismiss them as one of the options to explore.Also depressed people who are not in remission are more likely to self medicate with alcohol and or drugs.This is a complicated issue and can't be decided by individual stories.
Agreed.For so many of my 25 years of failed treatment, I would try to keep 1-3 alternatives in waiting beyond my treatment at the time. That helped me push on. In this way, I always had a legitimate reason to have hope. Sighted hope. There were many time when I figured that I would have to carry on until some unknown new treatment came around. I had blind hope at these times. Where else could I possibly derive the drive to persist? I don't know. I really can't guarantee anything to anyone based upon my successful treatment, except that I made it my business to live long enough to see this day. 25 years. Hey, I might relapse by the time I get done typing this sentence. I have no guarantees for myself.
Let us not forget though, that where non-bipolar depression of the type you you describe, there are often depressive thought styles and situational sadnesses to be dealt with. The thing that always frustrates me is that we use one word, "depression" to describe both biological and psychological phenomena. It is important to understand that where non-bipolar depression is concerned, there is a spectrum of contribution. Some are all biological. Some are all psychological. But most of these depressions probably persist because of the interaction of both.
I don't know what to say.
I think most people here know that I pray that we all get well; even the trolls. In my 25 years of treatment, I have learned that more people can get well than fail to get well with the treatments that are currently available. This will be more true with each new treatment that becomes available.
There is so much to be done. In the meantime, make it your business to stay as positive and constructive as possible. As impaired as I was, I made it my moment by moment goal to use all of what God gave me to work with.
- Scott
Go forward in 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.