So will I. But please don’t refrain from posting that evidence about diet causing spontaneous remission on my account.
This might be a good time to trot out one of my favorite links.
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
Is there any relevance to this question? Is anyone making the claim that these things cure, in the sense of eliminating permanently, these disorders? Is something undesirable if it is a treatment rather than a cure?
Similarly, I ate veggies and exercised once, so I should permanently be free from cancer right? It’s only of value if it’s permanent.
If you followed the thread there have been multiple claims that their depression was cured after taking after antidepressants for awhile. That is why I excluded anecdotal information. There is nothing wrong with a treatment that works, but people reporting that their depression was ‘cured’ after taking antidepressants sounds like BS to me.
I just re-read this entire thread, I am not seeing a single post where anyone claimed the antidepressants cured them.
So please quote where they did.
You know, this is three times, I believe, in two days that you’ve pulled this kind of response. If you’d followed the thread… if you’d ever had your hair cut short…
You made a simply, clearly, demonstratively false statement. Nobody in this thread described their depression as being cured by medication. I just did a search on every use of the word “cure” in this thread, and it has not happened here.
So, it may sound like BS to you, but it doesn’t matter, because that sound is only coming from inside your head.
Again, is something undesirable if it is a treatment, but not a cure? Just by chance, my son had his quarterly visit to the diabetes clinic today. Is there something wrong with his being treated with insulin, in your astute opinion? It’s not “curing” his diabetes, so should he stop?
I’ve been waiting all day to find out what I should do for my son since insulin doesn’t “cure” diabetes. Help me JoelUpchurch, you’re my only hope.
Read post 96 and look up the term synonym in the dictionary.
I already pointed out that insulin is used to treat diabetes, but it doesn’t cure it.
Did you miss the bold part of the statement?
Having something treat symptoms so you can work on the hard part is in no way saying “these drugs cured me of __”
It is quite clear his condition was preventing him/her from going to or gaining benefit from therapy and the medication removed that barrier.
That is the whole point. Antidepressants are for treating problems caused by your brain chemistry. If your unhappiness isn’t caused by a chemical problem in your brain, then it is only a placebo, which is why I asked for clinical studies and not ancedotes. There are studies that placebos that can help some people in some circumstances, but they are still placebos.
I think you have a misunderstanding what placebo is.
acupuncture, homeopathy, reiki are placebo, the only method of action is based on the perception of what those actions can be.
If you have many conditions like OCD you can develop panic attacks that are crippling, the chemical effects on your brain are exactly the same if the issue is caused by a biological cause or a psychosomatic cause. The drug is still up regulating or down regulating a chemical, it is not a placebo.
It is common to develop in appropriate coping methods when you have a mental disorder.
Imagine being told “cheer up”, “why can’t you be happy” your whole life. The fact you CAN’T control it causes a panic attack because despite how hard you try you can’t.
Some times you need medication to reduce that learned response so you can work on the other parts.
But the effects of most of these medications is demonstrability different from placebo.
Cough suppressant may not cure the cold but it sure as heck may let you get to sleep.
But really what does it matter if the drugs were only treatments and not cures (as they are for a LOT of conditions) if they improve your life.
Really what you are saying is that pushing a bunch of chemicals, which we do not know if they work, or know that they DON’T work is better than tested medications.
That is what you are doing when you are recommending “natural medicine”
Antidepressants are for treating ddpression. If they reduce depession, they are effective at treating depression. If they are demonstrably more effective than placebo, they are presumed to have some effective medicinal property.
You didn’t point that out. You said it didn’t cure diabetes. In fact, you said it didn’t “cure” it, implying that there was something wrong with it.
You didn’t look at the link dataguy posted in #127:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2253608/?tool=pubmed
For most people anti-depressants are no more effective than placebos.
This makes perfect sense when most diagnoses look at symptoms, not by assessing the brain chemistry. If the chemical symptoms aren’t there, then antidepressants can only help as a placebo.
I was already familiar with the study from the last thread on antidepressants. I’m frankly skeptical of antidepressants, since they were introduced in the late eighties, there hasn’t been any improvements by objective measures like the suicide rate.
So a meta analysis of unreleased, non-peer reviewed data for four drugs, disproves the effectiveness of all anti-depressants?
I don’t see any of the previous posters say the even used fluoxetine, venlafaxine, nefazodone, or paroxetine.
And one they admit may have shown an effect with better data.
This little bit that you do is not only tired, but it amplifies how apparent your rank ignorance is. Not only am I familiar with that work, my clinical training was under Irving Kirsch. I know what his work says and doesn’t say.
You don’t.
I believe the term is “pwned”.
Actually, this post would seem to indicate that you did not actually read the link.
If one goes back and examines that actual text of the link, one will note that the only anti-depressants that were examined were SSRIs. The abstract does not place the term “SSRI” in front of every occurrence of “anti-depressant” because all the references to the purpose of the study make it clear that only the SSRIs were even looked at in the study and that the purpose of the study was to examine four new drugs in the SSRI spectrum.
Nothing in the abstract, (and certainly nothing in the actual study), even addresses the issue of other, older anti-depressants other than to mention that they exist and were not part of the study. That is a fairly significant thing to miss when trying to point to an abstract to support one’s position.