Posted by bleauberry on March 3, 2010, at 17:11:57
In reply to Another indictment of antidepressants..., posted by Bob on March 2, 2010, at 22:12:21
To followup on what SLS said, and I totally agree with what he said, there is even more.
Studies are very particular about who they choose. Been depressed before? Not eligible. Suicidal right now? Not eligible. Any other known health problems? Not eligible. Any past drug use? Not eligible.
Except for the few treatment resistant studies, the majority of clinical studies basically rule out the majority of realworld people. It is no wonder they get better results than the doctor does, and no wonder the doctor scratches his head wondering why he can't get the same results as clinical studies.
The clinical studies do not have the same sample of people that walk in and out of doctors' offices everywhere everyday. The samples are cherrypicked, which automatically right from the get-go makes the results biased and unreliable.
For sure better diagnostics are needed. I can't tell you how many stories, hundreds, I have seen of people who saw their longstanding depression vanish on things like: antibiotics, antifungals, chelation drugs, and even oddball things that would seem to have no relation, such as herbs like Burdock, Saw Palmetto, Coptis,...I mean, in all of these cases, there was a physical disease that was impacting the brain in such a way as to cause the feeling of depression. And in all of these cases there was not a diagnosis. There was a patient and/or a doctor that discovered the real problem by accident when treating for something else or treating something on a hunch.
Diagnostics aren't there. To rule common depression causes out, the best way is to challenge them with real blind trials of fairly safe and inexpensive protocols and see what happens.
Otherwise, we just stay sick and don't get better.
poster:bleauberry
thread:938402
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20100216/msgs/938480.html