faustus: (gorilla)
( Feb. 27th, 2008 02:29 pm)
As expected, Ben Goldacre of Bad Science has written sensibly about anti-depression medication effectiveness - http://www.badscience.net/?p=619#more-619. As always it's not whether a drug works or not that is significant, rather that research which doesn't fit the pharmaceutical company's wishes doesn't get published whereas those that do, do. Edit: Well, if the drug works is an issue, but my understanding is that this is not what the study is about, rather it is about what funded research is published. Some of the medication appears to be more effective than placebos, but not *significantly* more effective. In other words, should the NHS spend on it or not?

They are many causes of depressive; some will be chemical, some will be experiential, some will be to do with working too much and not relaxing, some may be genetic, and probably each case will be a combination of the causes. The mistake is to assume that any pill will lead to instant gratification or that any therapy is nonsense. And then there are relapses as people come off pills because they feel okay again. It's not as if there are several of us, one to try drugs on, one to try CBT, another to leave alone to get better anyway. I know somne people who have had successful therpay and those who have failed. I know people whose medication has made them worse.

I would probably label myself as scientificly ignorant - but the standards of science journalism get lower and lower (although at least on the Toady Programme they warned people to keep taking the pills).
.

Profile

faustus: (Default)
faustus

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Powered by Dreamwidth Studios

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags