Basically the linked article (which was e-mailed to me by a well-meaning relative) hits all my bullshit buttons. The author’s linked biography gives a bunch of writing credits, not scientific credentials nor a list of diagnoses. The article uses a lot of weasel words- a study “suggests” so and so, something is “associated” with so and so. There’s also the hint that Big Pharma knows the truth, but suppresses it to make money.
What is an “allergic reaction to inflammation”? Inflammation isn’t a substance.
I think I forgot to ask a factual question. So, here it is-
The hypothesis put forward in the linked article is pseudoscientific quackery, right?
Depression is a reaction to a reaction? It’s really kind of hard to debunk something like this. I mean, it sounds like total bullshit not even worth debunking but even if true, so what? I would ignore it but then I’m not only depressed, I’m apathetic.
See, this is why the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
It’s entirely possible nobody’s ever actually studied this. It’s just one more piece of BS thrown out by people who have no idea how anything works, and therefore have a greater facility of invention than people constrained by facts and logic. The woo-woos can create a thousand claims like these in the time it would take the real world to begin to investigate one of them, so spending time debunking each of them separately isn’t worth it unless a specific, testable piece of idiocy becomes especially prevalent.
Anyway, I looked at the article, and it’s all about the work of Mark Hyman, who thinks vaccines cause autism. Yep, he’s that crazy.
Salon.com did a take-down of the specific book the website mentioned. It isn’t a peer-reviewed journal with a list of citations as long as your arm and more post-nomials in the author block than you’ve had hot meals, but Salon articles are faster to write and, as I said, creating a new research paper taking down every single piece of woo is physically impossible due to the fact it’s vastly simpler to make shit than it is to clean it up.
The author doesn’t understand the meaning of:
inflammation.
allergic reactions.
depression.
logic.
Why are you starting with the assumption that the conclusion is false and then working backwards to justify that belief?
http://discovermagazine.com/2014/julyaug/9-depressions-dance-with-inflammation
There’s a huge difference between “depression is caused by an allergic reaction to inflammation” and “there is a correlation between depression and inflammation”. “Allergic reaction” in this context is complete and utter nonsense, not even wrong. And, say it with me, correlation is not causation. It’s possible that depression causes inflammation in the brain, or something else causes both. Furthermore, even if inflammation can cause depression, given the many possible factors linked to depression it’s certainly not the sole cause for all people.
Also, if you read the third link, it clearly describes clinical trials where anti-inflammatory drugs were tested to treat depression. For some blocking inflammation seemed to reduce symptoms of depression, but for others it actually prolonged depression.
Those articles discuss a connection between depression and inflammation in the brain, for something like 30% of depression sufferers (45% for those who don’t respond to anti-depressants). What I don’t see is anything that makes sense of the assertion that depression is an allergic reaction to that inflammation. That’s the part that doesn’t make sense; it seems, in fact, completely unnecessary.
So the part that seems loony is not the connection between depression and inflammation, it is the insertion of the concept of “allergy” as some kind of intermediary mechanism, where it is not needed and makes no sense.
eta: I need to type faster.
I explained in my OP why I felt the article’s conclusion was false. I also know from experience that if I’m wrong, Dopers will correct me.
Your first two links just mention a possible link between inflammation and depression. The third link is stronger IMO, but it just says “may” and ‘possible link’. Then there’s the problem of a study finding that the subjects on placebo did better than those on an anti-inflammatory.
So, I’m sticking with “The article I linked to is crap.”