I have taught in hospitals, trained as a psychotherapist and more than that have documentation from independent researchers who come to conclusions other than medical ones, looking at the same evidence. More than that, I listen to patients and have been writing on the subject for a number of years.

Looking at contradictions is perhaps essential, not believing what you're told, but seeking independent proof.

The drugs actually work at the majority of the population. There are individual differences and all medications do not work for all persons. That is why there is a battery of medications to choose from. Would you like to go back to the time when people where enclosed and put under a wooden cover into cold baths? This was not long ago in Sweden. Was not that more like wishful thinking.

By the way, serotonin is a neurotransmitter not a hormone. Read about the difference between the two: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-hormones-and-neurotransmitters

No, but I cringe at this too easy acceptance at what the medical profession tells us. Don't forget it was the medical profession that endorsed, ran and kept going for longer than necessary the process of incarceration: who practised water-boarding as a cure, lobotomy, ECT, etc. We all make mistakes-perhaps.

My point here is does it really work and as the medical profession, who after all control the giving of drugs and the recording of their affect, are the main verification, is that response reliable? Many Eastern doctors express concern at the one hat fits all approach of Western Medicine, as do I. It is particularly marked in the treatment of mental health.

Honestly, Beatrice, what proof do you actually have that these drugs work? If the proofs offered were offered in any science it would cause mockery.

My impression is that they can on occasion work, albeit briefly. Many of my clients insist that they do not work any longer than a month-I do not know the validity of this-and after they simply feel strange.

I have taught in hospitals, trained as a psychotherapist and more than that have documentation from independent researchers who come to conclusions other than medical ones, looking at the same evidence. More than that, I listen to patients and have been writing on the subject for a number of years.

Looking at contradictions is perhaps essential, not believing what you're told, but seeking independent proof.

I am glad that treatment decisions are increasingly being based on science, and not on statements like My impression is that they can on occasion work, albeit briefly, and a reference to many of my clients.

For a more balanced view, have a look at this recent systematic review of 522 trials comprising 116 477 participants.

Article Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 21 antidepressant ...

I agree that seeking independent proof is vital. And I would be the last to claim that antidepressants are miraculous in their effects, but my view of them is based on the data to hand to date. I regard it as a professional responsibility to know the evidence before giving an opinion on the management of a health condition.

Ronan,

This was good. I always appreciate your inputs:) "All antidepressants were more efficacious than placebo in adults with major depressive disorder. Smaller differences between active drugs were found when placebo-controlled trials were included in the analysis, whereas there was more variability in efficacy and acceptability in head-to-head trials."

Thanks Ronan,

But we need to accept that outside of the medical profession many do not agree with these viewpoints. They must be listened to-as must my clients.

Interestingly here in the UK Valium has been placed on a risk list, it is now difficult to obtain, something I and many others have been insisting on for a long time.

Serotonin is not a real solution to these mental boggling cases. Granted, Serotonin has had some degree of successes in regulating many mental situations. Personally, I see a lasting solution not in medicine but in psychotherapy.

Dickson, I really am not convinced by the benevolent affects of such drugs but that giving them fits in with the way the medical profession is structured. Their curative properties are selective and dare I say it slickly numerated. The profession assesses a problem, finds a cure, usually drug-based, applies it, assesses the results and then accordingly raise their arms in triumph, the whole package then bought as a given. We know serotonin works because they tell us it does. Maybe? My patients tended to disagree. But what did they know, especially when face with clinical expertise (sic).

No-one is forced to accept anything. But patients are entitled to effective treatment, regardless of the personal beliefs of the treating professional. I would include both antidepressants and some forms of psychotherapy as being of proven effectiveness.

Treatment of mental health problems is beset by a failure to emerge from the pre-scientific era, in which the personal biases of the treating professional were the only guiding principle. We now know that professionals, using nothing but their skill and judgement are appallingly bad at diagnosis, recognising comorbidity, recognising failure to respond to treatment or worsening of symptoms, and adjusting treatment on the basis of changes in symptoms. See 1. Zimmerman M. Does the Adequacy of Clinicians’ Diagnostic Practice in Routine Clinical Settings Matter? J Clin Psychiatry. 2015 Jul 22;:e888–90. for a good introduction to the problem.

http://www.psychiatrist.com/jcp/article/Pages/2015/v76n07/v76n0708.aspx

The issue is made more disastrous because studies of measurement-based treatment show that when you compare professional judgement with formal assessment and treatment protocols, not only do people get better faster, but more people get better. That's right: there are more treatment failures among those relying on their personal experience and professional judgement than among those who are actually following the evidence. See, for example, 1. Guo T, Xiang Y-T, Xiao L, Hu C-Q, Chiu HFK, Ungvari GS, et al. Measurement-Based Care Versus Standard Care for Major Depression: A Randomized Controlled Trial With Blind Raters. American Journal of Psychiatry. 2015 Oct;172(10):1004–13.

Article Measurement-Based Care Versus Standard Care for Major Depres...

I'm sorry, but "in my personal experience" is no longer adequate. People have a right to effective treatment, or, where there is no effective treatment, have a right to know this.

Ronan, I completely agree with you, although the issues are somewhat wider. I believe, as with many others, based on talking to recipients of drugs, that they cause personality changes. I further believe that doctors re-diagnose the effects of their own drugs as severer illnesses.

Nevertheless, Sofia you have identified one of those wider issues. Why should we all seek to be happy, certainly as that is further identified as somatic-drug-induced? Dealing with levels of stress and anxiety is part of life in all its unevenness and challenge. Look at Brave New World, by Huxley.

It's a mistake to think of people who are depressed as simply seeking to be happy, as though being depressed were an equally desirable state. It is not. People who are depressed want not to be depressed because waking up every morning with intrusive thoughts of worthlessness, hopelessness and even suicidality which will accompany your every waking moment isn't fun.

I agree, though, that we live in a profoundly depressing society. The biggest single predictor of poor mental health in the Irish national health and lifestyle study was loneliness – the painful sense of lacking social connection.

Ronán,

This loneliness feeling never happens to us because we have RG:)

Although like other subjective problems Placebo Effect is not negligible, we have found from our recent projects that administration of dual-acting antidepressant Venlafaxine (that inhibits serotonine and norepinephrine reuptake) may have important advantages but it is also important to consider other simultaneous pharmacotherapies like MMT. You can see them below:

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-89132017000100311&nrm=iso

http://bcn.iums.ac.ir/article-1-499-en.html

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321332165_Administration_of_venlafaxine_after_methadone_detoxification_reduces_spontaneous_freezing_withdrawal_behavior_in_rats_positive_correlation_with_hyperalgesia

Do they? How do you confirm this? I am genuinely interested as it seems the processes of acquiring data are flawed.

Times Newspaper Magazine:

Article: The Depression Epidemic. Quote: 'A Doctor prescribing drugs has no idea if a patient's Serotonin is low. He's just guessing. '

Psychiatry functions in an anecdotal not a scientific fashion. (Me).

Quote: 'In medicine, drugs are usually prescribed to respond to biomarkers. For instance, a doctor might diagnose an inflammatory disease by analysing a blood sample, and then to prescribe a blood sample..............It is shocking that in the world of mental illness in 1990, doctors were prescribing drugs that might or might not work, without responding to a biomarker. its even more shocking that they're still doing it now. Nothing much has changed for almost 30 years.'

Contrary to medical propaganda they remain largely oblivious about the effects of the drugs they are giving, do not do appropriate tests, as they base their understanding on observation, their understanding is anecdotal not scientific. Oh, the above writer is Edward Bullmore, a psychiatrist. Does the fact that he's a qualified medic change your reception of his accusations? Recently my views were dismissed on here with 'you are not a doctor', even though I'm a trained psychotherapist. Do we elevate doctor's unrealistically, project onto to them intelligence and skills they do not possess?