Posted by rovers95 on March 6, 2013, at 19:29:26
In reply to Re: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2012/better-antidepr, posted by jono_in_adelaide on March 5, 2013, at 20:26:32
> Well, drugs that influence monoamine levels have been in use for depression since 1957, and they are the most effective drugs found to date, so i think they have a reasonabkle knowelege base behind them
>
>
> > I like this article.
> > 8 years ago when I first started seeing a psychiatrist I figuref there was some pretty strong science behind how the current meds help emotional problems. After a while I realized the science is very weak. I think 50 years from now everyone will look back and say WTF were they thinking!?
>
>Playing devils advocate here, but wouldn't you agree they the best of a pretty bad bunch. And are there better drugs out there that haven't been licensed for depression e.g. riluzole, or we are scared of their addiction potential e.g. buprenorphine.
I would also propose that the scientific evidence for the many popular ADs are pretty weak when compared to placebo. One may also argue that opposed to the alteration in monoamines directly causing any improvement seen from many ADs, there could be something else going on e.g. increases in BDNF, that may lead to any antidepressant effect.
Cheers
Rover
poster:rovers95
thread:1039509
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20130222/msgs/1039744.html