Posted by Tabitha on April 23, 2016, at 10:24:46
In reply to Re: the lost sheep, posted by Hello321 on April 21, 2016, at 18:45:05
> If you think about it, this is the approach that psychiatric treatment takes.Well, sure, proponents of any remedy, whether it's medical, alternative-medical, self-help tactics, special diet books, or even religion will typically make a pitch to the consumer offering to help with their problems.
I understand that you see all approaches as equally valid, thus it doesn't make sense to you to place higher value on psychiatric treatment than non-medical interventions like a change of diet. You don't seem to recognize the value of testing to establish that an intervention is safe and effective before selling it to consumers. Without that testing, people are prone to keep buying and buying books, supplements, and "interesting" therapies and belief systems that don't actually work as expected. People are also prone to think things work that actually don't work, for reasons listed in the articles I linked to previously.
> But then too often the person in need of help gets no benefit or is made even worse when they use this treatment. And yes, some do benefit from it greatly.Yes, it's possible that a medication that has been tested to be effective in a population may not be helpful for all individuals. And it's possible that some (or most) individuals will experience undesirable side effects. However, I think you're making it sound like it's a cr*p-shoot. Which again suggests you don't appreciate the value of controlled testing. If a treatment has FDA approval, it has been shown to be safe, and shown to be more effective than placebo for some portion of a population. It may not be perfectly safe and effective, but isn't it preferable to an intervention that has never been shown to be safe and effective at all, or has even been shown to be ineffective (e.g. acupuncture, homeopathic remedies)? If those things did work, wouldn't the manufacturers or book publishers be motivated to present credible evidence that what they're selling works?
>
> But in the end, a chemical developed by an extremely wealthy drug company is developed for the same reason any "get well quick" treatment is developed. To bring in more money to the seller. The sellers interests are highest on the list is of priorities. And one jhas to wonder where mental health treatment would be at today if this weren't the case. If getting help to the ones who are suffering were the highest priority. And this goes for any such medical treatments.Of course, nearly everything available in a capitalist society costs money. How much money do you think the book "Grain Brain" made for its publishers? I often see people defending alternative remedies by arguing that conventional medicine is profit-oriented. I don't understand how they overlook the fact that alternative remedies are also profit-oriented.
>
> As I've said, I'm not trying to discredit anyone who has been helped by a med like Cymbalta. I just try to put things in a different perspective than they're generally presented in.If I read you correctly, you want to present the perspective that things such as FDA approval shouldn't carry any more weight that the claims on a book jacket. It's a pretty contrarian position to take on a board dedicated to psychiatric medication.
poster:Tabitha
thread:1088191
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20160331/msgs/1088401.html