The chemical imbalance theory is just that, a theory, that has never been proved.
Yet it was leapt upon by pharmaceutical companies in the late 80's as a way of marketing a new class of drugs that were developed to replace the outdated monoamine inhibitors in the hope that they would be better tolerated. Not to mention the small matter of drug patent expiry which dominates r&d and the business models of the pharmaceutical industry.
Interesting comment here:
I think the attitude has been that psychiatry is a black hole and that you put money in and nothing good comes come out – at least nothing particularly novel in a long time has come out.”
In fact, the researchers who originally came up with the theory about serotonin deficiency later rejected their own findings.
Long term studies, with results made known over two decades ago, have shown the benefits over a placebo to have about a 2% differential in success rate.
Also, as is often the case with pharmaceuticals, even effective ones, they don't fully understand the mechanism of action.
https://davidhealy.org
However, the APA who are responsible for the DSM are a) the largest single lobbyist group on Capitol Hill and b) are funded primarily by the five largest pharmaceutical companies in the US/world.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amer...ic_Association
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbyi...ence-campaigns
No conflict of interest there then when drawing up diagnostic criteria and recommended treatment models based on drugs receiving FDA approval.
That's before we get to all the scandals related to ghost writing of clinical trial results, supreme court cases and literally billions of dollars paid out in compensation for documented adverse events ranging from suicide to homicide.
Yet they keep making them and doctors keep prescribing them. Why?
Glad you asked.
Firstly, from the pharmaceutical companies perspective there is no downside. No matter how much they pay out, they take in billions more.
If you think this is some tin-foil hat conspiracy theory, read John Virapen's book Side Effects: Death. Virapen was a senior VP in Eli Lilly and responsible for bringing Prozac to market:
https://www.amazon.com/Side-Effects-.../dp/1602645167
The second part is much trickier and has its roots in the social causes and history of dis-ease and the desire for the medical model on the part of patients suffering from mental distress.
Firstly, the pill solution really does work in terms of offering relief. Long term studies on the placebo effect by have shown that even when knowingly taking a placebo patients find relief. Irving Kirchner, Professor of Placebo Studies at Harvard Medical School, conducted a series of studies on the placebo effect in relation to anti depressants:
https://www.amazon.com/Emperors-New-.../dp/0465022006
Secondly, doctors want a simple solution that can reassure their patients. They don't want to waste valuable surgery time talking to someone about why they may be depressed. It isn't good for their business model or their patient workloads.
Thirdly, and this is possibly the most crucial reason why so many patients and doctors are willing to believe the hokey science behind the medical model of depression, is that is has helped enormously to remove the traditional stigma for those suffering from it.
If it is seen as an illness with a model of treatment available, it removes the traditional, but erroneous, assumption that the sufferer is somehow responsible.
That is not to say that depression is not real and often a completely valid response by the body and mind to distress, with real physical symptoms, simply that applying the medical model at best provides temporary relief that allows people to navigate themselves out of a distressing situation.
However, the fact that it fails to work in quite a significant percentage of cases, or that people can suffer recurring bouts or that even the models of dealing with it rely heavily on the supplementation of therapy or even offer it as an alternative should give most pause to think.
After all, if you were offered talk therapy as an alternative to insulin or blood pressure medication or chemotherapy, or brain surgery would you be entirely confident about the outcome?
Re: Is Depression a Disease?
Originally Posted by Count Bobulescu
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks