Posted by bulldog2 on October 26, 2009, at 9:57:37
In reply to Re: Why antidepressants don't work for so many » linkadge, posted by SLS on October 26, 2009, at 4:32:40
> Ok. You are right. You convinced me.
>
> :-)
>
> I was hasty in condemning the whole paper.
>
> I guess the part that elicited a strong reaction in me was that in which the author of the paper proposed that antidepressants treat stress rather than depression. I interpreted it out of context. However, the rationale that there are few genes that overlap between stress and depression does little to refute the idea that one can trigger the other. Other than that, the paper offers some new perspectives that might require a change in rat study paradigms.
>
> Poor, poor depressed rats. :-(
>
>
> - Scott
>1. Scott makes an important point about the overlap of genes really does not refute the idea that stress can trigger depression.
2. It would not be immoral to do this study in people. Just take soldiers in Iraq or afgahanistan and test them.
3. I remember seeing articles about the high rate of suicide and depression among soldiers in Iraq. That was during the high combat days. You don't think that might have anything to do with stress.
4. My p-doc told me of a study where rats were in a cage where everytime they tried to cross an electronic barrier they were shocked. Eventually they became stressed.
5. It's very common that people under heavy stress often become depressed.
6. So we know stress can trigger depression.
7. Apprently some people can become depressed without depression.as you said you are.
8. You might make a case that the ssris address depression by modulating stress. However that would not be the case with tcas.
9. The reality is real world studies are more important than a rat gene study. Stress is a trigger for some. Maybe you need to have a depression gene to make this connection. But you still have to prove this in people.
10. I have seen studies that show how inaccurate animal studies are. And Link they are immoral. These animals have rights and these rights include not to be abused tortured for studies that rarely pan out. I saw a study that showed a ridulously low percentage that yield useful data.However great for grants and funding.
11. If studies on people which would be the most accurate since we are treating people are immoral. I've read that computer modeling of people might be the way to go.
12. I am not stepping on the study. But I'm not sure she has even made her point with rats. But it is worth exploring.
13. At this point i'm not sure what this scientist has given us to develope new ads.
14. I agree with you that we need better drugs. We also need bette diagnostics that would lead to better use of the drugs we have
poster:bulldog2
thread:922361
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20091021/msgs/922583.html