• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

Placebo versus anti-depressants, a Draw???

Da Blob

Banned
Local time
Today 6:34 AM
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
5,926
---
Location
Oklahoma
There’s a fascinating study in today’s Journal of the American Medical Association. It’s a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing antidepressants vs. placebo. And it showed that the placebo effect is so strong in depression that placebos work as well as paroxetine (Paxil) and imipramine (Tofranil) for all patients except those with major depressive disorder that’s classified as “very severe.” Placebo tied active medication for “mild,” “moderate,” and even “severe” depression.


The big pharmaceutical companies are going to have a fit over this...

http://egmnblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/05/placebos-vs-antidepressants-not-quite-a-draw/

and

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/303/1/47?home

So what does this mean for those of us who have suffered from depression?
 

Latro

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today 7:34 AM
Joined
Apr 18, 2009
Messages
755
---
Note that that's specific to those drugs. The antidepressant market is much larger than just that.

Still, interesting. Gotta wonder how that works biochemically.
 

Inappropriate Behavior

is peeing on the carpet
Local time
Today 7:34 AM
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
3,795
---
Location
Behind you, kicking you in the ass
I've always found anti-depressants to be a cure worse than the disease.

This study may indicate the power of one's state of mind in beating depression. Agrees with Latro that the biochemistry would be interesting and key to understanding it.
 

Da Blob

Banned
Local time
Today 6:34 AM
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
5,926
---
Location
Oklahoma
No, I think the point is that the mind is the prime cause of Recovery and not the brain! The whole idea that reductionism works and that absolutely everything can be reduced to "biochemical reactions" may be completely without merit or scientific validity... This is not a minor point made with this article....
 

Latro

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today 7:34 AM
Joined
Apr 18, 2009
Messages
755
---
No, I think the point is that the mind is the prime cause of Recovery and not the brain! The whole idea that reductionism works and that absolutely everything can be reduced to "biochemical reactions" may be completely without merit or scientific validity... This is not a minor point made with this article....
If it weren't biochemical we'd have a very strange situation on our hands, with widespread effects on fields like information theory. Hell, if it weren't reducible to biochemistry (or at least to physics; QM might be involved), I'd be inclined to think that it actually didn't exist at all, but was merely a figment of our (also nonexistent) imaginations, before I would conclude that it existed without a physical origin.

I'm extremely hesitant to take a claim that reductionism fundamentally won't work that easily. I'm more likely to think that the impact of in this case inhibiting serotonin reuptake has a backlash effect on other systems that leads to a lack of a net elevation of mood, assuming the study to actually be correct in the population as a whole. That doesn't magically mean that serotonin doesn't strongly modulate mood; it means that you can't just plop a substance in to try to boost it and have the global effect on mood just "happen."

Simpler way to put it:
(Using a drug that boosts serotonin levels !-> alleviation of depression) !-> (higher serotonin levels !-> alleviation of depression)
 

Da Blob

Banned
Local time
Today 6:34 AM
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
5,926
---
Location
Oklahoma
Okay, it is a question of attribution of the causality of depression. There is a significant proportion of the scientific and therapeutic community that insists there is no such thing as a mind, there is only the brain. They 'believe' the solution to every single one of our problems as human beings can be solved by ingesting the right combination of chemicals or to cause the correct chemical reaction to occur.

However, there are others, including my self, that 'believe' that there is such a thing, as a mind. A mind that has power, and it is the exercise of that power and the effects of that exercise that is observed as neural activity. This subsequent neural activity is what the reductionists are calling the cause, when it merely an effect.

The relationship between brain and mind is a complicated relationship and there is little doubt that reciprocal causality is at play, however, the power of faith and belief in the province of the mind should never be discounted, even if it does conflict with one's worldview.


What is implicit in this study cited is that the medication did not work whatsoever. Those who used their minds to believe that whatever pill they ingested would help did improve as a result of placebo. The fact that some pills were merely sugar and others contained other chemicals did not alter the power of faith and belief in healing. That is to say virtually all of the improvement in both experimental groups can be attributed to the placebo effect and not the chemicals ingested.
 

Latro

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today 7:34 AM
Joined
Apr 18, 2009
Messages
755
---
Okay, it is a question of attribution of the causality of depression. There is a significant proportion of the scientific and therapeutic community that insists there is no such thing as a mind, there is only the brain. They 'believe' the solution to every single one of our problems as human beings can be solved by ingesting the right combination of chemicals or to cause the correct chemical reaction to occur.

However, there are others, including my self, that 'believe' that there is such a thing, as a mind. A mind that has power, and it is the exercise of that power and the effects of that exercise that is observed as neural activity. This subsequent neural activity is what the reductionists are calling the cause, when it merely an effect.

The relationship between brain and mind is a complicated relationship and there is little doubt that reciprocal causality is at play, however, the power of faith and belief in the province of the mind should never be discounted, even if it does conflict with one's worldview.


What is implicit in this study cited is that the medication did not work whatsoever. Those who used their minds to believe that whatever pill they ingested would help did improve as a result of placebo. The fact that some pills were merely sugar and others contained other chemicals did not alter the power of faith and belief in healing. That is to say virtually all of the improvement in both experimental groups can be attributed to the placebo effect and not the chemicals ingested.
Earlier you were claiming that this implies that biochemistry isn't what is behind all of this, and while that sounds nice it doesn't work. As I said earlier:
(Using a drug that boosts serotonin levels !-> alleviation of depression) !-> (higher serotonin levels !-> alleviation of depression)
 

Lockness

Redshirt
Local time
Today 6:34 AM
Joined
Dec 24, 2009
Messages
10
---
Location
North America
The big pharmaceutical companies are going to have a fit over this...

http://egmnblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/05/placebos-vs-antidepressants-not-quite-a-draw/

and

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/303/1/47?home

So what does this mean for those of us who have suffered from depression?


Interesting,

I'm curious what the results would show for other anti-depressants.

On anecdotal/personal note I had/have major depression/severe depression and was on paroaxitine for a while. It was a very short time period before I switched to a different drug so I can't recall specifically how I felt(just that it didn't seem to help) As far as anti-depressants and specifically SSRIs I could actually feel them working at certain points. Not only in positive ways either, they helped me maintain energy and appetite and allowed me to think a little clearer. At times I could actually "feel" them working during periods where anxiety/pain would get to me. It almost felt as if my emotions were being embalmed/frozen some of the time. When I would have usually freaked out, they calmed me down, but when I was in pain and needed to cry I couldn't, even in private when I was trying let it out. I actually just went off effexor so that I could cry and release pent up sadness. I'm one of the severe cases though.

Anti-depressants alone are a dead-end and I suspect they are incredibly over prescribed. In my experience the psychiatrists only seemed to have a very shallow understanding of what these drugs even really do. I remember in high-school asking how this chemical I was going to be swallowing actually related to my feelings(as they were very real feeling of pain related to major issues and situational problems, although I wasn't able to articulate this at that time) all I could get from her was the standard drawing of neuro-transmitters and how the SSRI affected them. At one point she said that no one knew what caused depression(!?!?)....in other words she didn't know but I'm going off on a tangent now....Point being they seemed to prescribed without assessing weather or not there are genuine problems and not just mysterious chemical misfiring somewhere in the brain.
 

Da Blob

Banned
Local time
Today 6:34 AM
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
5,926
---
Location
Oklahoma
One can take drugs to artificially boost serotonin levels temporarily or one can simply choose to think the type of thoughts that will permanently boost serotonin levels...
 

warryer

and Heimdal's horn sounds
Local time
Today 7:34 AM
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
676
---
One can take drugs to artificially boost serotonin levels temporarily or one can simply choose to think the type of thoughts that will permanently boost serotonin levels...

Perfect! I have been reading a book on Tao Te Ching, which is a series of 81 verses somewhat akin to the "life guidelines" of The Bible. I'm not finished yet but, I am starting to see the trend.

This, Blob, is something that would fit in perfectly. I can even say that I have tried it out. Not for depression but, for situations where I would feel angry, bruised ego etc... It does work in those situations. I become aware of how trivial my negative response is/was compared to the overall picture. I consciously decided that I didn't want to feel this way and as a result I didn't. I am assuming here that anger and depression are the "same."
 

LAM

Active Member
Local time
Today 11:34 PM
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
345
---
You can cure it both ways. In your mind and physically. This is because, while the brain and the mind are two different entities they are deeply interwined. An effect on the brain would probably cause an effect on the mind. You can either think it like a psychologist or like a neuro-scientist. In either case I believe you are limiting your view.
 

Latro

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today 7:34 AM
Joined
Apr 18, 2009
Messages
755
---
One can take drugs to artificially boost serotonin levels temporarily or one can simply choose to think the type of thoughts that will permanently boost serotonin levels...
Or the thoughts themselves are tied to serotonin and having the thoughts that lead to rises in serotonin become extremely difficult for those that lack serotonin.

Also, the temporary vs. permanent conclusion is just wrong. Both are temporary, and a thought tends to be considerably more transient than the effects of a drug as well.

Seriously, you're taking one meta-analysis of two drugs far too seriously. I linked a couple other meta-analyses that draw the opposite conclusion.
 

Da Blob

Banned
Local time
Today 6:34 AM
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
5,926
---
Location
Oklahoma
Or the thoughts themselves are tied to serotonin and having the thoughts that lead to rises in serotonin become extremely difficult for those that lack serotonin.

Also, the temporary vs. permanent conclusion is just wrong. Both are temporary, and a thought tends to be considerably more transient than the effects of a drug as well.

Seriously, you're taking one meta-analysis of two drugs far too seriously. I linked a couple other meta-analyses that draw the opposite conclusion.

Were those other two meta-analysis reports recently published in the Journal of the AMA? If not I sincerely doubt their veracity, considering the amount of money involved and the heavy role the pharmaceutical industry plays in this field. For example I would not be a bit surprised to find that the authors of those other studies are financed by a pharmaceutical...

Thoughts are transient, but often the effects of certain thoughts and decisions are not - especially those that lead to action or a change in behavior.

Again, I am pointing out that the issue is not limited to merely two drugs, but rather, that it point to a Great Issue of modern life. That issue is whether the intellectual elite who discount all but the objective can be trusted to be humane, or whether their philosophy will override their concern for the welfare of the species.

Perfect! I have been reading a book on Tao Te Ching, which is a series of 81 verses somewhat akin to the "life guidelines" of The Bible. I'm not finished yet but, I am starting to see the trend.

This, Blob, is something that would fit in perfectly. I can even say that I have tried it out. Not for depression but, for situations where I would feel angry, bruised ego etc... It does work in those situations. I become aware of how trivial my negative response is/was compared to the overall picture. I consciously decided that I didn't want to feel this way and as a result I didn't. I am assuming here that anger and depression are the "same."


Yes, I am amazed how few realize the power they have to control their inner environments. Of course, developing such skills does require effort and self discipline. I guess it is just easier for some to take a pill to achieve the same effects for a short time...
 

Latro

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today 7:34 AM
Joined
Apr 18, 2009
Messages
755
---
Or your conclusions are wrong and there are people that actually have a biochemical problem in their brains that causes mental health problems. You're as bad as the pharmaceutical companies with your "this is how it is" conclusions.
 

Anthile

Steel marks flesh
Local time
Today 1:34 PM
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
3,987
---
There is a huge difference between believing in something and wanting things to be true that are not.
 

Da Blob

Banned
Local time
Today 6:34 AM
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
5,926
---
Location
Oklahoma
Or your conclusions are wrong and there are people that actually have a biochemical problem in their brains that causes mental health problems. You're as bad as the pharmaceutical companies with your "this is how it is" conclusions.

Sorry, I did not mean to suggest that it has to be an either/or situation. The issue is what causes the chemical imbalance? There a number of people who suffer from Bipolar mood disorders that simply can not function without medication. Those with severe problems with depression do need medication to help deal with the situation. I just do not like the philosophy that all mental disorders are just 'chemical imbalances' and that those who suffer from such are doomed to an existence where they are destined to a life dependent on expensive, over-priced 'medications' that might not even work, because it is actually placebo that is the "Agent of Change" or improvement...
 

Latro

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today 7:34 AM
Joined
Apr 18, 2009
Messages
755
---
Sorry, I did not mean to suggest that it has to be an either/or situation. The issue is what causes the chemical imbalance? There a number of people who suffer from Bipolar mood disorders that simply can not function without medication. Those with severe problems with depression do need medication to help deal with the situation. I just do not like the philosophy that all mental disorders are just 'chemical imbalances' and that those who suffer from such are doomed to an existence where they are destined to a life dependent on expensive, over-priced 'medications' that might not even work, because it is actually placebo that is the "Agent of Change" or improvement...
I think my issue in how things are presented by pharmaceutical companies etc. is the "just" in front of chemical imbalances. It makes it sound like "it's just chemistry, it doesn't mean anything really, take a pill and the problem goes away." If you've done any chemistry above the high school level it becomes clear that "just chemistry" in a system with as many relevant chemicals as the human brain is a ridiculous phrase.

Incidentally, a relevant read from someone who really did profoundly benefit from antidepressants (but also had issues with them) is Prozac Diary by Lauren Slater. She gets into these sorts of issues in places.
 

warryer

and Heimdal's horn sounds
Local time
Today 7:34 AM
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
676
---
I think my issue in how things are presented by pharmaceutical companies etc. is the "just" in front of chemical imbalances. It makes it sound like "it's just chemistry, it doesn't mean anything really, take a pill and the problem goes away." If you've done any chemistry above the high school level it becomes clear that "just chemistry" in a system with as many relevant chemicals as the human brain is a ridiculous phrase.

Incidentally, a relevant read from someone who really did profoundly benefit from antidepressants (but also had issues with them) is Prozac Diary by Lauren Slater. She gets into these sorts of issues in places.

I didn't take it as either this or that. I do however agree with your 'this is how it is' statement. There is too much of this false dichotomy business going on in the world.

Its the fact that a placebo (basically the will of the person) and the actual drug had similar effects to one another. I do not think that a placebo vs chemical is a very reliable comparison for this reason:

A set of people taking a supposed drug; half placebo and half actual chemical. In this case Blob described, 40% reported success in placebo and chemical. So why is it that placebo and chemical have the same(ish) success rate?

Unfortunately in this kind of test there is one constant, they are both taking something that they think will help with depression. This is enough to ruin the results in a traditional, does this chemical work? sense. However I think this provides a strong argument that in a lot of cases a mental "trick" will suffice to fix the problem.

What about the other 60% though? This could tell us that it is in fact a chemical but, a different chemical because the placebo had little to no effect on them. On the flipside it could be that these people were very outcome dependent and didn't see that this could be a potential fix. We can't really make any solid conclusions as a result of this failure rate, except that its more complex than initially thought.

I agree Blob that people are not willing to put forth the effort to see this as a possibility. Just look at this world of fast food, addiction to drugs/gambling, wasting away infront of the TV etc... A world of cheap and easy thrills tends to make people expect things effortlessly. I know I am guilty of this from time to time.
 

aracaris

Active Member
Local time
Today 12:34 PM
Joined
Sep 5, 2009
Messages
214
---
As far as this whole thing about using thoughts to conquer depression... Truly developing the ability to think thoughts so deeply and with so much conviction that they actually do cure one of something like depression I think is not a remotely easy thing, and I'm not convinced that alone it can completely cure depression, though with time and a whole hell of a lot of effort it can ease it.

Now this isn't depression, but similar idea. When I'm in a situation that causes a fear response, I can sometimes manage to block out thoughts related to what's causing the fear, so eventually all I have left is this fear of nothing in particular, and I can sort of observe what's happening in my own body in a detached manner, but that doesn't necessarily cause the fear response to cease, certainly not right away anyhow.
It takes A LOT of practice continuously with these things to have any hope of overcoming such emotions, and it takes a lot of will power, and self control and one more problem is that depression, and other strong emotions can really sap both of those things. It took a lot of struggling to be an outsider looking in, and a lot of putting myself in situations that provoked a fear response before the fear response to certain things was finally quieted at least, if not fully obliterated (now some of my past phobias just cause me stress, which is better than full on panic, but it still sucks).
 

FrostFern

Active Member
Local time
Today 7:34 AM
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
109
---
Acually the pharmaceutical industry is already aware that the current drugs on the market are not particularly effective. The main implication is that the neurotransmitter (i.e. "chemical imbalance") paradime is not a sufficient theory for explaining depression biologically at it's roots. The truth is neurotransmitters are just one part of a much larger and more complex chain of biological processes involved in depression. Actually the latest research has found that there are subtle structural differences in the brains of depressed patients and that depression is associated with the death of neurons in certain areas of the brain. The biological basis hasn't been disproved, far from it, the evidence is growing.
 

Da Blob

Banned
Local time
Today 6:34 AM
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
5,926
---
Location
Oklahoma
Again, the primary issue for me in this, is not the drugs - but rather the primary philosophical tenet. There are those who believe that everything is an Object, everything is a chemical of one kind or another. To them, there is no such thing as a mind, there is only the brain, composed, of course, of only the objects of chemistry.

However, this study provides direct refutation of this reductionist philosophy. How? What are the elements of Placebo that correspond to the elements of chemistry as illustrated in the Periodic Table? Two of them are Faith and Belief. These mechanisms are Subjective tools, with no manifestation as chemicals or objects, yet they provide the means for healing far more effective than chemical medication. Yet where is the research into how to make Placebo better?

The subjects of the tests did not indulge in mental gymnastics or a prolonged meditation, they simply 'believed' what they were told.

Subjects of both the control group and the experimental group benefited primarily from the exercise of Belief and Faith more than the medication. In fact, if the variable studied was Placebo and not the medication, it may well be that the effects of the medication were not even statistically significant. That is to say combining both groups and assuming equal effect for Placebo in both groups, leaves few or no effects that can be attributed as being caused by the medication. Again, how can Faith and Belief be so easily discounted by 'scientists' who claim to value the truth?
 

FrostFern

Active Member
Local time
Today 7:34 AM
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
109
---
Again, the primary issue for me in this, is not the drugs - but rather the primary philosophical tenet. There are those who believe that everything is an Object, everything is a chemical of one kind or another. To them, there is no such thing as a mind, there is only the brain, composed, of course, of only the objects of chemistry.

However, this study provides direct refutation of this reductionist philosophy. How? What are the elements of Placebo that correspond to the elements of chemistry as illustrated in the Periodic Table? Two of them are Faith and Belief. These mechanisms are Subjective tools, with no manifestation as chemicals or objects, yet they provide the means for healing far more effective than chemical medication. Yet where is the research into how to make Placebo better?

The subjects of the tests did not indulge in mental gymnastics or a prolonged meditation, they simply 'believed' what they were told.

Subjects of both the control group and the experimental group benefited primarily from the exercise of Belief and Faith more than the medication. In fact, if the variable studied was Placebo and not the medication, it may well be that the effects of the medication were not even statistically significant. That is to say combining both groups and assuming equal effect for Placebo in both groups, leaves few or no effects that can be attributed as being caused by the medication. Again, how can Faith and Belief be so easily discounted by 'scientists' who claim to value the truth?

I don't think the study provides a refutation of the theory that all mental activity can be attributed to brain activity. After all, faith and beleif themselves could be attributed to brain activity, which could in turn affect the long term physio-chemical brain state of the depressed patient. I'm not saying that the philosophy of physicalism/materialism is necessarily true (personally I'm agnostic on the issue) just that there's a hole in your logic.
 

Da Blob

Banned
Local time
Today 6:34 AM
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
5,926
---
Location
Oklahoma
I don't think the study provides a refutation of the theory that all mental activity can be attributed to brain activity. After all, faith and beleif themselves could be attributed to brain activity, which could in turn affect the long term physio-chemical brain state of the depressed patient. I'm not saying that the philosophy of physicalism/materialism is necessarily true (personally I'm agnostic on the issue) just that there's a hole in your logic.

Hmmm Well, this is news to me, I did not know that faith and belief had been identified as mere chemical interactions. However, once again there is no way to determine where in the chain of cause and effect these observations of activity, that have labeled faith and belief, exist. There are those will will insist that the chemicals are the primary cause and not merely the effect of a prior cause. Their philosophy does not allow for subjective causation.
 

Madoness

that shadow behind lost
Local time
Today 2:34 PM
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
978
---
Location
Estonia
Don't Draw Broad Conclusions
Commenting on the study findings, David J. Hellerstein, MD, a research psychiatrist at New York State Psychiatric Institute and director of Medical Communications, Columbia University Medical Center, New York City, said he is concerned that patients and possibly even clinicians may draw broad conclusions from the paper without recognizing its limitations.
"We have to keep in mind that this analysis is only based on 6 studies that were of relatively short duration and only included 2 medications — imipramine and paroxetine — yet the message seems to be that all antidepressants may not be effective in the mild to moderate patient population," Dr. Hellerstein told Medscape Psychiatry.
Furthermore, he pointed out that of all the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, paroxetine, with its high rates of sedation, nausea, and sexual adverse effects, among others, is one of the most poorly tolerated drugs in its class.
Dr. Hellerstein also pointed out that at least 1 of the 3 imipramine studies had a target dose of 100 mg/day, which, he said, is subtherapeutic. He added that the analysis did not include any studies of serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, which are generally to be considered "more potent."
Nevertheless, he said, despite these limitations the study's suggestion that ADMs may not be optimal in patients with mild to moderate disease is worth further exploration.
"It raises the question of whether patients with mild to moderate depression should have antidepressant therapy as a first-line approach, and I think that is a valid thing to consider. As a clinician it will certainly prompt me to look more carefully at my own case load and consider whether an individual patient is benefitting from medication or whether their response could be attributed to other treatment factors," said Dr. Hellerstein.
The study was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health. Mr. Fournier has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hellerstein is an employee of New York State and Columbia University and currently receives grant funding from Eli Lilly. Disclosures of the other investigators can be found in the original study.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/714847
 

Latro

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today 7:34 AM
Joined
Apr 18, 2009
Messages
755
---
This thread is starting to see one of the big problems with science of late--explanatory instead of predictive theories. Science (or rather, non-scientists interested in science) needs to stop doing that. It's just not very good at it. It IS decent at description of phenomena without causative analysis though, like analysis of fossils for example.
 

Da Blob

Banned
Local time
Today 6:34 AM
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
5,926
---
Location
Oklahoma
I didn't take it as either this or that. I do however agree with your 'this is how it is' statement. There is too much of this false dichotomy business going on in the world.

Its the fact that a placebo (basically the will of the person) and the actual drug had similar effects to one another. I do not think that a placebo vs chemical is a very reliable comparison for this reason:

A set of people taking a supposed drug; half placebo and half actual chemical. In this case Blob described, 40% reported success in placebo and chemical. So why is it that placebo and chemical have the same(ish) success rate?


Argh!

the point is they don't. It is placebo in both groups that is responsible for the improvement!
One group gets a sugar pill that doesn't work and the other group gets a 'medication" that doesn't work. It is the placebo that Works!

The study was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health. Mr. Fournier has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hellerstein is an employee of New York State and Columbia University and currently receives grant funding from Eli Lilly. Disclosures of the other investigators can be found in the original study.

It was very nice to see this at the end. Such information is almost always lacking in articles. One assumes that a professor at a distinguished University or whatever is not the hired lackey of a big corporation or political party - for the most part this assumption is erroneous. Many professors and other 'experts' prostitute themselves as spokespeople of whatever propaganda they are paid to endorse...
 

Latro

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today 7:34 AM
Joined
Apr 18, 2009
Messages
755
---
Argh!

the point is they don't. It is placebo in both groups that is responsible for the improvement!
One group gets a sugar pill that doesn't work and the other group gets a 'medication" that doesn't work. It is the placebo that Works!
Or not. The evidence alone does not say that.
 

fullerene

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 7:34 AM
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
2,156
---
Argh!

the point is they don't. It is placebo in both groups that is responsible for the improvement!
One group gets a sugar pill that doesn't work and the other group gets a 'medication" that doesn't work. It is the placebo that Works!

no... just... no. Not only does the evidence not support it (like latro said), but it actually contradicts it. In the first article you posted, they complained about previous drug studies by saying:

The second reason is that many studies include what’s called a “placebo washout” period, in which all patients being considered for the trial are given a placebo for a few days up to a week. Those who show more than 20% improvement in their depression are dropped. But removing placebo responders clearly biases the study in favor of finding significant medication effects.

So previous studies were thought to be inadequate because they were careful to eliminate people who improved by Mind-power, which is a valid thing to do if you want to know "does this drug have an actual effect or not?" The person who conducted this new study (if I understand them) suspected that drugs were often prescribed unnecessarily, so they eliminated the placebo-washout-period to see whether, as if you take a group of people who had just been prescribed drugs, if they would make much of a difference.


The findings of both of these types of studies suggest that drugs do have a measurable effect on depression, separate from the willpower of the depressed, but that they're prescribed in such a way that that effect becomes immeasurably small.

My first hypothesis as to why this might be the case is to say "lots, and lots, and lots more drugs are prescribed than would actually help," because that's how probability works. Suppose you have 1000 people who would be prescribed drugs by a psychiatrist, and you want to run your study. If 300 of those 1000 would benefit only from real drugs, and 400 would benefit from a placebo/other mental power, and 300 people would benefit from neither... then the "old" studies would wash-out the 400 who improve by placebo, and show only 300 out of 600 (the ones left) improve because of the drugs. That's a 50% improvement rate, and it looks awfully good for the drugs since you've already washed out the placebo effect.

If those same people were subjected to this "new" study, then your study shows 400 out of 1000 people benefiting from a placebo... which is 40% improvement.

What you're trying to say is something like: "placebos help people with 40% success, and real drugs help people with 50% success. That's a pretty small improvement and falls within a standard deviation or so, so those real drugs don't actually do anything--it's all in the power of the mind of the person." What that hides is the fact that the 40% who show improvement by placebo and the 40% (both %s of the original sample) who show improvement by drug are different people. This goes against all my instincts to admit, because I hate the idea of psychological medicine... but the drugs aren't ineffective; they're just given to so many people who don't need them that their effectiveness is hidden by the statistics.


If the above hypothesis is true, it's a very easy problem (in principle) to solve. Just have psychiatrists prescribe all depression medication as placebos at first, and withhold "real" medication so long as people are benefiting from the sugar-pills. Unfortunately, there's probably too much money to be made by handing out drugs for this to ever become a real, widespread practice. Not to mention a lot of people would be pissed (whether they had reason to be or not) if they found out they were being given sugar pills--even if those sugar pills gave them the esteem boost that really was making them better in the first place.

Then, of course, you could give out the real drugs to those who don't improve by placebo, and your problem is solved.
 

Da Blob

Banned
Local time
Today 6:34 AM
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
5,926
---
Location
Oklahoma
The second reason is that many studies include what’s called a “placebo washout” period, in which all patients being considered for the trial are given a placebo for a few days up to a week. Those who show more than 20% improvement in their depression are dropped. But removing placebo responders clearly biases the study in favor of finding significant medication effects.

On the surface this seems utterly ridiculous. If you are going to wash out belief and faith as variables in placebo effect healing, why pick the arbitrary figure of 20%, should not any who showed any improvement been excluded? Otherwise what has been proven? I also wonder how it was objectively determined what constitutes a 20% improvement. It seems as though either one is depressed or one is not. I can't imagine someone saying "I am feeling only 80% depressed today"

This sure looks like some after-the-fact data manipulation.
 

fullerene

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 7:34 AM
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
2,156
---
yes and no... it's hard to say. Real statistically-based studies are not recorded as "this is 100% guaranteed to be a fair study." They're written so that everyone knows *exactly* what they did, as precisely as possible, what criteria they used, etc, so that the experiment can be reproduced if someone else were so inclined. 20% is not picked because it's arbitrary: it's picked because it's precise.

of course, it may have also been picked for data manipulation, and (like you rightly observed) I have no idea how the hell you could gauge "20% improvement" on depression. I suppose they just asked the people how they felt, though on a scale of 1 to 100, because there's no other way I can imagine they could do it. In the actual paper, though (not just the news article), if it's properly written it ought to give you the exact method they used for measuring that 20%.
 
Local time
Today 12:34 PM
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
27
---
Location
England
I don't like the word "placebo" because it has connotations of "fake" and other negative things.

Thoughts have real effects on your body. Beliefs have massive effects on your body. With thoughts you can give yourself illnesses and cure yourself of illnesses. Simply by smiling or frowning you are releasing chemicals into your body that have effects. Sometime good, sometimes bad.

The fact that placebos work is obvious when you know even a little bit about how your brain works
 

Dimensional Transition

Bill Cosbor, conqueror of universes
Local time
Today 1:34 PM
Joined
Nov 3, 2010
Messages
1,164
---
Location
the Netherlands
I am genetically predisposed to depression, and I think I can safely say I suffer from mild depression. I want to get rid of this before it gets too worse.

I could be called any moment now by a Dutch university where they will ask me to come there to join the test group in a scientific experiment on depression they're doing. It works by improving my cognitive and short-term memory skills with a computer application, but before and after using that application they will have to inquire me and such of course. They have found out that people with depression and anxiety often have decreased cognitive and short-term memory skills (which is true, I do have that). I think that that decrease is because of the depression and anxiety itself, I didn't have such a bad memory and stuff before I was depressed. So hopefully by counteracting these effects from depression, the depression will fade as well. I'm interested to see how it works. Boy I hope I don't fall into the placebo group.

Sorry if this is a little off-topic. To stay on-topic: I believe anti-depressants don't work as well as cognitive-behavioral therapy, although I don't have experience in both. It just seems logical to me. Anti-depressants may provide a (sort of, as it takes a few weeks to work) short-term solution, but therapy really seems like it would tackle the core of the problem; the vicious circle of wrong thought patterns.
 

snafupants

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 6:34 AM
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
5,007
---
No, I think the point is that the mind is the prime cause of Recovery and not the brain! The whole idea that reductionism works and that absolutely everything can be reduced to "biochemical reactions" may be completely without merit or scientific validity... This is not a minor point made with this article....

Well put, but I can't seem to convey that to the idiot geniuses I come across.
 

Yet

Active Member
Local time
Today 1:34 PM
Joined
Feb 11, 2011
Messages
352
---
Location
restaurant at the end of the universe
hm... it is amazing how the mind is this great director, conductor, composer ... of this blob of sticky-together-matter & its movements out and about.

As for brain chemistry: it is never just 'a shortage of serotonine', psychiatry has a sad shortcomming in knowledge about psychology unfortunatly. Where-as psychology studies the human, psychiatry studies the human that is 'ill' . How are you supposed to study the 'ill-psyche' if you do not have enough knowledge about the phenomenon: 'human psyche'? (retorical). Than you would know that there's an intricate complex dialogue between chemistry and all sorts of input (from the 'outside' & 'created in the mind') and that brain chemistry does not stand on its own.

-edit: I am not against medication if someone needs it in emergency situations or severe recurring 'bad feeling' or dangerous delusions or annoying halucinations ... but you do not do the human just if you medicate without decent support therapy.
 

Cogwulf

Is actually an INTJ
Local time
Today 12:34 PM
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
1,544
---
Location
England
A major problem with the study of mental health and the pharmaceutical industry is the arbitrary definitions used to measure the effect of drugs. There is no empirical method of proving how well drugs treat these sorts of conditions. The method used instead is in the form of fairly subjective questions.
 

Jesse

Internet resident
Local time
Today 11:34 PM
Joined
Oct 4, 2010
Messages
802
---
Location
Melbourne
I'm against messing with my mind/brain myself. I even dislike drinking alcohol to a certain degree but I think meds can work if the problem is the fault of a chemical imbalance. I just think that minor depression is just a having a crappy life.
 

Artsu Tharaz

The Lamb
Local time
Today 11:34 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2010
Messages
3,134
---
Pure Morning always clears up my depression.


But seriously though, this story is excellent news! afaiac.
 

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Today 10:04 PM
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
7,065
---
Noguys you got it all wrong! This isn't evidence for antidepressants being useless, but evidence for sugar making people happy!
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today 12:34 PM
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
3,384
---
Again, the primary issue for me in this, is not the drugs - but rather the primary philosophical tenet. There are those who believe that everything is an Object, everything is a chemical of one kind or another. To them, there is no such thing as a mind, there is only the brain, composed, of course, of only the objects of chemistry.

However, this study provides direct refutation of this reductionist philosophy. How? What are the elements of Placebo that correspond to the elements of chemistry as illustrated in the Periodic Table?
If we liken the computer to a brain, then the Placebo effect affects your thoughts, the running software. SSRIs target the levels of neurochemicals that are the standard built-in settings for your brain, such as the BIOS settings and the hardware switches on your motherboard.

Many people THINK that the BIOS settings can only be accessed via the BIOS menus at boot. Programmers know that simply by going into the Power Management section of Control Panel, allows you to change the BIOS settings via Windows. This is because the BIOS settings are changed by BIOS functions. The BIOS menus are just an interface to call the desired BIOS functions. The Power Management panel is just another interface for accessing the BIOS functions.

The hardware switches, however, are pure hardware. You have to switch them over physically, to get them to change.

The Placebo effect could only affect those brain settings that are like the BIOS settings. What this shows, is that serotonin levels are like the BIOS settings, and NOT like hardware switches. The SSRIs were like changing them from the BIOS menus. The Placebo effect was like changing them from the software. Both can access the BIOS functions, which include serotonin levels.

There is a difference between the effects of the Placebo effect on higher levels of depression. There might be 2 switches: a BIOS setting for the lower levels of serotonin, and a hardware switch on the higher levels of serotonin, leading to the Placebo effect not being able to access the hardware switch.

Or, the serotonin levels might be a question of setting the voltage levels. The BIOS functions might only have the ability to raise or lower the serotonin levels by a small amount, each time the function is called. But even with such functions, the BIOS menus will still show the range of voltages available, and will still call the function enough times to achieve the desired voltate. The same would then be true of humans. The Placebo effect would call the BIOS function, to raise serotonin levels, and then serotonin levels would raise, enough to get someone in a mild depression out of it, but not enough to get someone with heavy depression completely out of it, and the continued depression might pull the patient back into his former heavy depression. The SSRIs would continue to work, because they would be prescribed at a much higher dosage for very depressed patients, and so, when the normal dosage of SSRI has raised the voltage levels, there is a second level of dosage left, that calls the BIOS function again and consequently raises the BIOS function again, and so on. However, potentially, there would be the same effect, if the doctor told the patient that a single course of the placebo tablets would reduce the depression in most patients, and then prescribed a second or even third course for those who were in heavy depression, as each course would call the BIOS function each time, and so would have the same effects as multiple dosage levels.

Another possibility is that the mildly depressed patients still have some hope that drugs might cure them, and so the Placebo effect can work in them, but the heavily depressed patients believe that not even medical drugs can help them, and the Placebo effect will not work if you believe it won't work, and so in them it doesn't work.

Two of them are Faith and Belief. These mechanisms are Subjective tools, with no manifestation as chemicals or objects, yet they provide the means for healing far more effective than chemical medication. Yet where is the research into how to make Placebo better?
The Placebo effect has been tested most extensively. For instance, patients who were told that a stove was burning hot, would, when they placed their hands on it, develop a burn mark exactly as if the stove was burning hot, even when it was stone cold.

However, the Placebo effect has certain disadvantages. It is subjective to belief, and so is entirely dependent on how much the doctor can get the patient to believe him. It requires time, skill, and a rapport. The manufacturers of the Placebo effect can only make money by training the doctor, and then, they are trained once, for a whole raft of diseases.

SSRIs are much more like a mechanical device. They can be mass-produced. They can be given in a single minute. They make the manufacturers money each time the patient takes them. Plus, they do not rely on the patient believing in them.

So SSRIs are much quicker to administer for doctors, and so save doctors a LOT of time, and they make a lot more money for the manufacturers, and they will work for the patient, irrespective of how much he/she believes in them. So they are potentially more useful for everyone.
 
Top Bottom