> People who make treatment decisions based on financials and kickbacks are not going to care about all this "science" and "logic" and "statistics" stuff where their wallet is concerned.
Can you elaborate on who these people are? You're casting a wide net here.
My partner works in mental health. The reality I've observed is mental health is incredibly challenging. Much of it is highly situational and requires hours and hours of extremely time consuming, labor intensive therapy to even begin creating a meaningful treatment plan. If mental health had unlimited time, many providers would love to be able to provide this level of care.
In practice, medications are a highly cost-effective means of improving people's mental health. They can increase people's baseline significantly with therapy (time and cost) focusing on rounding out the rough parts. Many patients are not interested in the therapy component if they can get "80%" better with some medication.
IMO, this is why we're seeing such a boom in "pill mill" mental health startups. A large portion of the affected population is content being "mostly better, quickly" rather than "fully better, slower".
You are commenting on the article that says that it is BS. The most upvoted comment on the article at the moment says "it [the ineffectiveness] is old news hardly worth mentioning"
No, the article does not say this is BS. The article is about a specific theory on anti-depressants. Not about their ineffectiveness as a whole.
> Antidepressants are an effective, NICE recommended treatment for depression
This fact remains. It's pretty well known in medicine that we don't really know why anti-depressants work, but they do. Different people react differently to different versions.
This article is simply stating that the original "simple" theory of "low serotonin" is not sufficient to explain depression.
Can you elaborate on who these people are? You're casting a wide net here.
My partner works in mental health. The reality I've observed is mental health is incredibly challenging. Much of it is highly situational and requires hours and hours of extremely time consuming, labor intensive therapy to even begin creating a meaningful treatment plan. If mental health had unlimited time, many providers would love to be able to provide this level of care.
In practice, medications are a highly cost-effective means of improving people's mental health. They can increase people's baseline significantly with therapy (time and cost) focusing on rounding out the rough parts. Many patients are not interested in the therapy component if they can get "80%" better with some medication.
IMO, this is why we're seeing such a boom in "pill mill" mental health startups. A large portion of the affected population is content being "mostly better, quickly" rather than "fully better, slower".