There are serious discrepancies between the anectotal evidence for antidepressants (my own included) and the literature, which says they are only very slightly better than placebos for all but a few, very severe cases of depression.
The analogy to fixing a processor is a very poor one. Applying a single small molecule to a system like the human brain is more closely analogous to kicking a malfunctioning television. Seratonin for instance has diverse functions at different times and places. The “Seratonin Theory” of depression arose because compounds which increased seratonin were observed to aid depression. Recently, anti-depressants which lower seratonin have been observed. The theory has been compared to the conclusion that an absence of aspirin in the teeth causes tooth-aches. Drug companies are now moving away from small-molecule approach to treating psychiatric illness towards electromagnetic stimulation implants.
Anecdotal, I know several people who have taken antidepressants and believe the effect is simply to disrupt thought in general and thereby inhibit rumination. Most of them do believe the drugs helped, at least in the short term.
I say all this not to dissuade you from taking antidepressants but to warn you not to think of depression as a simple matter of “chemical imbalance”. Even if one does exist, in some or all cases, there is no reason to believe it causative, rather than as a marker for some underlying process. Fixing yourself will not be a matter of kicking the television—you’ll have to rewire it as well.
Can you point to a good summary or meta-analysis of the literature of you’re referring to? From what I understand this is a hotly contested point—and very relevant to many people’s choices!
There are serious discrepancies between the anectotal evidence for antidepressants (my own included) and the literature, which says they are only very slightly better than placebos for all but a few, very severe cases of depression.
The analogy to fixing a processor is a very poor one. Applying a single small molecule to a system like the human brain is more closely analogous to kicking a malfunctioning television. Seratonin for instance has diverse functions at different times and places. The “Seratonin Theory” of depression arose because compounds which increased seratonin were observed to aid depression. Recently, anti-depressants which lower seratonin have been observed. The theory has been compared to the conclusion that an absence of aspirin in the teeth causes tooth-aches. Drug companies are now moving away from small-molecule approach to treating psychiatric illness towards electromagnetic stimulation implants.
Anecdotal, I know several people who have taken antidepressants and believe the effect is simply to disrupt thought in general and thereby inhibit rumination. Most of them do believe the drugs helped, at least in the short term.
I say all this not to dissuade you from taking antidepressants but to warn you not to think of depression as a simple matter of “chemical imbalance”. Even if one does exist, in some or all cases, there is no reason to believe it causative, rather than as a marker for some underlying process. Fixing yourself will not be a matter of kicking the television—you’ll have to rewire it as well.
Can you point to a good summary or meta-analysis of the literature of you’re referring to? From what I understand this is a hotly contested point—and very relevant to many people’s choices!