Posted by Bill LL on September 22, 2003, at 12:57:05
In reply to Re: Effexor Use in Children under 18 - UK Guidelines, posted by pixygoth on September 22, 2003, at 12:18:20
I agree with what you are saying in terms of statistics, that 2% is a difference on the average. But for treating individual people, it's important to keep in mind that:
1) Effexor works extremely well for many people, and
2) Being depressed is a horrible condition.So the conclusion that I would come to is to try SSRI's first, and if that and other drugs don't work, it's better to try Effexor than to just give up and let a child remain depressed.
You have a good point about barometers of society, liberalism and so forth. I think that the lowering of morals in society contributes to depression. But I also think that many, if not most, people who are clinically depressed have a chemical imbalance that they were born with and that probably gets worse as they get older.
I think that natural selection has not reduced depression because depression does not generally cause death before child bearing years. Since 1989, when Prozac and other safe and effective drugs began to be available, people with depression have been "coming out of the closet" so it just appears that more people are now depressed.
> Bill LL -
> don't you think that children of all people should be treated as barometers of society rather than ill people? I can't get why so many of us (young people) are so miserable all at the moment unless it's environmental in some way. It's also spread wide geographically, right? So I'd say it's our INTELLECTUAL atmosphere that's poisoning our moods. (Neo-liberalism as the 'norm', etc.) What do you think?
> And doesn't the survey result say that however small the difference was, the difference Venlafaxine made was that it made people MORE ill than the placebo did? That doesn't sound like effective phamacology at all.
> S
poster:Bill LL
thread:262352
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20030917/msgs/262416.html