Anti-Depressants Don't Work

[Don]

A new study, based on a review of almost 50 clinical trials by psychologists at a university, shows that:

“The difference in improvement between patients taking placebos and patients taking anti-depressants is not very great.

“This means that depressed people can improve without chemical treatments. Given these results, there seems little reason to prescribe anti-depressant medication to any but the most severely depressed patients.”

Here's the full newspaper report:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6fce3400-e3d5-11dc-8799-0000779fd2ac.html

You may be able to use this information in your hypnotherapy/NLP practice to show people why these drugs may not help them.

[Poodle]

was on MSN health except that article was that 50% don't work.

[Simple Guy]

It goes without saying that any changes in medication should only
be made with approval of people's personal physicians; only physicians
can make such changes and recommendations.

To the extent that this study gets noticed and accepted by the
general public, there's going to be an interesting nocebo effect.

[Poodle]

a tad flawed too as it was done by psychologists (talk therapy) who are not allowed to prescribe medications. I find it even worse where I live with my clients as the meds are Rx'd by a GP and not a psychiatrist. "Oh, your cousin-in-law that you never met died 6 months ago and you are sad, here take these pills." GP's are not trained in mental health let alone what medications they use that interact adversely with anti-depressants and anti-anxiety meds.

I was just checking out an innocent little OTC med on the net a week or two ago - Famotidine - Apparently it does not get along well with many, many anti-depressants.

[Simple Guy]

Hi Poodle,

And sadly, too, lots of psychiatrists are functioning primarily as
"qualified" script writers.

[skip]

Before we get too far afield here ...

This study only examined the effect of light dosages for MILD depression, and the result wasnt 'no effect' at all. The result was 'no better than placebo'.

That aint "NOT EFFECTIVE" baby!

That is actually about 30% effective.

And the study says absolutely nothing about higher doses and the effacacy of this drug at higher doses for severe depression or bi polar, etc.

It didnt even address that!

Now I'm not a fan of drug companies.

And I DO believe all medications including asprin need to be weighed for potential benifit / risk.

But I would hate to see any of you in court explaining why someone severely bi-polar stopped their meds and it went badly, on the basis of you, as a 'professional' advocating that prozac doesnt work, using this study as a source.

cheers,

skip

[Connie]

Excellent points, Skip! Why is it that every word you ever say/type resonates with me as in, "he's so right!" ? Because you're brilliant? I think so. Can I be you when I grow up?

[skip]

Personally I'd aim higher, you CAN be what ever/whom ever you want to be.

I think the epitome is to know that you wouldnt want to be anyone except yourself.

But thanks for the complement.

skip

[azygous420]

Not surprised, I swear that the FDA only legalizes drugs that can be cheaply made and ones which hurt us. I will never pay for an FDA approved drug ever again in my life even if it may be said to cure me. Marijuana, and LSD are safer then these anti-depressants, and self-hypnosis is the safest of all treatments.

[Don]

While I would agree that hetero-hypnosis is a safe treatment, and self-hypnosis by a person who is trained in the process and used by a person working with a professional therapist can be useful, I do not suggest either marijuana or LSD as part of a treatment for depression unless used under the direct supervision of a professional therapist who specializes both in the treatment of depression and in the functioning of those drugs.

Many people who suffer from clinical depression self-medicate using alcohol and/or marijuana (and other drugs). Those do not treat the depression, they only mask the symptoms. This is similar to the use of OTC cold remedies. They don't get rid of the cold, they mask the symptoms until the body finally overpowers the cold. Unfortunately, in most cases clinical depression does not simply go away after a week to ten days, and alcohol or marijuana used to self-treat it is ultimately self-defeating and could put off obtaining real help, actually elongating the duration of the depression.

LSD has some incredible effects which, under the guidance of a trained professional, might achieve rapid and remarkable improvement in a depression patient. Such professionals, however, are few and far between. However, a depressive using LSD without guidance could exacerbate the depression, making things far worse.

I do not advise the use of marijuana, LSD [assuming you could even obtain pharmaceutical quality and dosage], or alcohol to treat clinical depression.

[Terry]

Not surprised, I swear that the FDA only legalizes drugs that can be cheaply made and ones which hurt us. I will never pay for an FDA approved drug ever again in my life even if it may be said to cure me. Marijuana, and LSD are safer then these anti-depressants, and self-hypnosis is the safest of all treatments.
Naturally, you are free to do as you wish, and think as you wish, but this is no place for such a ... post ..., and I suggest our moderators remove it as dangerous and insulting.....

[TaffyE]

The TV report here in Oz said that 30% of people got better with placebo.

Duh, it has been know for years and years that, in double blind trials, UP TO 30% of the trial subjects improve on placebo

[MissPiggy]

A very good treatment when it comes to depression is something very, very simple: sports. Out bodys are not supposed to sit around all day, our bodys are made to move. Unfortunately many people don't want to hear something like this because it's so much easier to take some pills.

[Merlin]

Problems with LSD.
It just hides the symptoms, rather than correct them,
and good, pure, meical grade, AND controlled dosage are rare :(

[Abra-melin]

A new study, based on a review of almost 50 clinical trials by psychologists at a university, shows that:

“The difference in improvement between patients taking placebos and patients taking anti-depressants is not very great.

“This means that depressed people can improve without chemical treatments. Given these results, there seems little reason to prescribe anti-depressant medication to any but the most severely depressed patients.”

Here's the full newspaper report:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6fce3400-e3d5-11dc-8799-0000779fd2ac.html

You may be able to use this information in your hypnotherapy/NLP practice to show people why these drugs may not help them.


Please be careful taking this tack! There are two basic types of depression. Reactive depression, or depression as caused by current events or environment, has never been treated easily with drugs. Endogenous depression DOES get results for some people when the drug provides a recepter reaction similar to a nutritional key. So strictly speaking, anti-depressants can work for some.

By far the better alternative is to use dietary modification and nutritional therapies after evaluation. Poor psycho-nutrition and hypoglecemia is behind 90% of endogenous depression and related symptoms. Proper treatment can easily replace drug use with natural alternatives and beet depression. It will also provide clear thinking so that hypnosis is more effective and safer.

Abra-melin

[Don]

Hypnosis has been practiced for thousands of years and there is no evidence of anyone suffering physical harm from it. In the hands of a trained professional, hypnosis is highly effective.

While a proper diet is necessary for the good functioning of a body, unless a person has such a poor diet that he or she needs to be hospitalized, I've seen no evidence that diet and nutrition can improve the safety and efficacy of hypnotherapy.

Perhaps, Abra, you can provide a link to a double-blind study indicating the validity of your claim?

[skip]

I believe I would tread a bit more carefully here, Don.

I do agree that the efficacy of hypnosis, in my experience, isnt limited by poor nutrition or an unhealthy lifestyle. At least not short of the extremes, and at the extremes it isnt the diet or lifestyle but complications arising from.

It seems to me, much of what we do, and advocate, is a result of our experience, and when reported, is mere anectdotal evidence.

My range of choices would be severely limited, if I were to self limit, to using only that which has been verified by double blind studies.

I would think it would be pure common sense that ANY protocol would be enhanced by a healthy diet and lifestyle, in ways we both can understand, and ways we do not.

So while I would advocate good nutrition and lifestyle, I do not consider it a prerequisite for hypnotic intervention.

cheers

[Simple Guy]

"While a proper diet is necessary for the good functioning of a body, unless a person has such a poor diet that he or she needs to be hospitalized, I've seen no evidence that diet and nutrition can improve the safety and efficacy of hypnotherapy."

Hi Don,

I've seen some instances where optimizing diet and nutrition nicely
complemented the hypnotherapy. I refer some people to qualified
nutritionists for counsel on diet and nutrition. In one case, the
concurrent application of these two different fields likely saved
the life of one of my clients. She was in a severely debilitated state after three
months of hospitalization that did not help. By the way, this
person's psychologist (one of various professionals that signed off on her
working with me) advertises his services as a hypnotherapist, but,
presumably never mentioned to his client that hypnotherapy is
accepted/proven as helpful for the situation that his client had.
The nutritionist handled the diet and nutrition aspects, as that
is not my field. (If any of the team members are interested, I'd
speak further about this outside of open forum.) But, this isn't
a case study about someone with depression and in no way
speaks about the remarkable safety and efficacy of hypnotherapy
for so many things.

[Simple Guy]

"So while I would advocate good nutrition and lifestyle, I do not consider it a prerequisite for hypnotic intervention."

I'm in full agreement.

[Terry]

I believe that what Abra is saying, is that some depression is purely mental, while some is due to a physical abnormality in the body, which leads to depression! I'm not sure I agree with that, but it does seem to make sense at first glance...
PTSD for example is caused by the continual stress of fear and lack of control, so would easily be dealt with by the aplication of a mental cure, while a physical one such as pills would have no effect on it except perhaps to aleviate stress for a time and give temporary relief..
An athletic person, being in an accident, and losing mobility in a permanent way is likely to fall into depression due to that physical cause, and Abra is suggesting that this will require a different method. If this is so, then I disagree, since I find that hypnosis used properly deals with all three parts, body, mind, and spirit, and therefore as a tool it makes no difference what the cause is, so I agree that a different "aproach" is nescessary, not a different "method"....
Of course I may have misunderstood the intent here, in which case my argument is mute.....

[Don]

Skip: you're correct. Much of what we do is based on anecdotal evidence, and in the past I, too, have pointed this out when it comes to modern and non-established claims.

However certain things about hypnosis have been established as a result of thousands of years of proof. This is similar to the usage of aspirin. It was accepted into the materia medica long before there were double blind tests on any aspect of its use. To legally claim new uses for aspirin, however, does require such tests.

And I fully agree with your statement, "So while I would advocate good nutrition and lifestyle, I do not consider it a prerequisite for hypnotic intervention." I thought that's what I had posted, but it seems I didn't present myself well. Sorry.

Terry, the actual intent of the poster was to drive people to a commercial website. However, I thought his comments were interesting so rather than delete the post as advertising, I simply edited out the URL and the advice that people should go to it.

The title of my original post was intentional hyperbole. The original article on which this entire discussion is based--and since I did include a link I would hope people would read it--clearly states that for most people, antidepressants are no more effective than placebos. Unwritten was that placebos have far less side effects than do antidepressants. The article also made clear that for severely depressed people, antidepressants do have a positive effect.

The point of the original article, IMO, was that for the vast majority of mildly depressed people, antidepressants don't do much good, and therefore, other healing modalities should be sought.

[azygous420]

I'm sorry I didn't mean to use LSD or marijuana as anti depressants! I meant that they are just safer substances then the crap the government says is FDA approved. hehe LSD and depression don't mix, hahahahaha

[MrOmega]

“This means that depressed people can improve without chemical treatments. Given these results, there seems little reason to prescribe anti-depressant medication to any but the most severely depressed patients.”

What if depressed people where airlifted to a remote island left to fend for themselves... surely they would bounce back when their survival instincts kicked in...

Drugs are for packaging product and making a sale... they are not the solution to the human condition...

But I am no registered health professional so I really can't tell you that I know anything about severe clinical depression...