Antidepressants no better than placebo?

[plindboe]

http://www.bcx.net/hypnosis/placebo2.htm

The article starts out with an example of the placebo effect, but then goes on to say:

What most patients and clinicians alike don't know is that in the 47 trials used by the FDA to approve the six leading antidepressants on the market, more than half were unable to outperform sugar pills. Placeboes gave better results than the medicines!

Even in those cases where antidepressants outperformed placeboes, the differences were slight. You are not going to hear about this, of course, because the drug companies can't make their accustomed outrageous profits from sugar pills. And it is likely that the demand for antidepressants would seriously diminish if all the facts of their research were widely known.

I know antidepressants often does not work, and the idea is that you sometimes have to try different products before you find one that works for you. But is it true what he says, that the effect(minus placebo) is either non-existant or minimal? Are there no consistant positive results?

[jambo372]

I've heard of studies which say the effect of anti-depressant medications may depend on patients. Depending on the patients brain chemistry they may not be suited to certain drugs.

For example, some patients may have no effect from SSRIs but respond well to a tricylic and vice versa.

[joyrex]

Effect is not that minimal, gives you spasms if you really try

[Xeriar]

Originally posted by plindboe
http://www.bcx.net/hypnosis/placebo2.htm

The article starts out with an example of the placebo effect, but then goes on to say:

I know antidepressants often does not work, and the idea is that you sometimes have to try different products before you find one that works for you. But is it true what he says, that the effect(minus placebo) is either non-existant or minimal? Are there no consistant positive results?

Antidepressants have a goal of correcting a chemical imbalance. This is a bit of an inexact science - I went through several myself before my doctors found two that worked.

If a given chemical deficiency or overabundance is not present, the antidepressant meant to affect that will not have a positive effect, and you're better off with a placebo.

[Goshawk]

Well, that's hardly an unbiased source for "Antidepressants don't work"--it's a website selling self-hypnosis aids (books, videos, etc.).

And the whole point that he's making is "Look at the Power of Suggestion!" with the sub-text, "If you can fool yourself into believing that a sugar pill will cure you, then you can fool yourself into believing that our self-hypnosis course will cure you!"

And of course he'd rather have you buy their books and videos than use pills. And they're deliberately playing up the "you don't know what's in those pills!" and "you can't trust the FDA!" aspect in order to foster the paranoia so essential to good book sales of their "alternative" therapy.

There are many different kinds of anti-depressants, the same way there are different kinds of painkillers, and to make the sweeping generalization, "Anti-depressants are no better than placebos!" is exactly like saying, "Painkillers are no better than placebos!" Some people respond better to different kinds of painkillers as well as anti-depressants, that's all. But just because Tylenol, or Prozac, may not work for you is no reason to categorically state, "Painkillers and anti-depressants are no better than placebos!"

Unless of course you're trying to sell books and videos for your therapy.

[plindboe]

Thanks for the reply Goshawk. I didn't check the source properly, for some unknown reason I had assumed it was a skeptical site, but I now realize it's quite dubious. The "medicine company conspiracy" stuff certainly alerted me, but not enough to check the source more carefully. :(

[skeptigirl]

Excuse me folks but I don't see any research here. I'll admit I read it quickly but it isn't the least bit meaningful as far as evidence based medicine goes.

Did I miss something or is this an opinion piece with a bit of anecdotal evidence? I don't see those studies cited in his bibliography. Are we to take his word for it the research was minimal when the drug approvals were made? You are not going to hear about this, of course, I'm just not buying this assessment over many other experts in the field. The mysterious drug companies are hiding this information but this guy seemed to have no trouble getting a hold of it. Does he think those of us who prescribe these drugs and in my case also take them are incapable of reading research and are little dupes of the pharmacy industry?

I'll wait for something more definitive besides this guy's opinion before I decide to go off the buproprion I've been taking for 14 years. Given there have been 3 suicides in my close relatives, (grandfather, great grandfather and great uncle), I'd hate to decide against a mountain of valid clinical research because of this essay.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Just anecdotal evidence here. I had a friend that was bi-polar or manic-depressive or whatever the hot word for the day is. He would vary from flying into a rage to boo-hooing on the couch. He saw a psychiatrist and had medicine. When he took his medicine, he was cool. When he didn’t he’d flip out. He didn’t like to take the drugs. His girlfriend would sometimes slip the drugs to him un-noticed. He was always cool then. Sometimes he would flip out and they had no more drug, so his girlfriend would make up something that looked like the drug (a placebo) and give it to him to calm him down. It never worked.

[Gavinimurthy]

First of all, why a person becomes depressed?

Could it be because of the various medicines he takes indiscriminately?

I am not talking about mental cases. I am talking about perfectly mentally sound people, becoming depressed.Are there any studies to suggest why this happens?

Murthy

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by skeptigirl
The mysterious drug companies are hiding this information but this guy seemed to have no trouble getting a hold of it.

Thats true, conspiracy theories are "in fashion". On the other hand, it is also true that drug companies will take any kind of positive result as a "go" to sell their products, even if those results are not spectacular and can, at times, be taken as not much better than placebo.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
Thats true, conspiracy theories are "in fashion". On the other hand, it is also true that drug companies will take any kind of positive result as a "go" to sell their products, even if those results are not spectacular and can, at times, be taken as not much better than placebo.

That's true too but, presumably, that's why we see doctors when we have medical issues, not drug companies. Admittedly, doctors are influenced, sometimes highly, sometimes possibly illegally, certainly sometimes inethically, by the drug companies, to prescribe drugs that do not best suit the [overall] best needs of their patients. I think that happens less often than conspiracy theorists might suggest. To the extent it does happen, that is the real area that should be addressed.

(for the record, I don't think anti-depressants fall much into this catogory.)

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
First of all, why a person becomes depressed?

Could it be because of the various medicines he takes indiscriminately?

I am not talking about mental cases. I am talking about perfectly mentally sound people, becoming depressed.Are there any studies to suggest why this happens?

Murthy

You are supposed to know about this stuff.

But, just for a change, let's play fairly with the amateur asking a fair question provided the amateur accepts his status.

1. Familiarise yourself with the concepts of endogeous and reactive depression.

2. Ask yourself whether anyone who understands anything of psychology could frame a question that includes the phrase "perfectly mentally sound people". Are you capable of defining a state that is 100% sound so that everything outside that state is to a greater or lesser degree unsound?

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
First of all, why a person becomes depressed?

Could it be because of the various medicines he takes indiscriminately?

I am not talking about mental cases. I am talking about perfectly mentally sound people, becoming depressed.Are there any studies to suggest why this happens?

Murthy "Perfectly mentally sound people" - which I interpret as people within the range arbitrarily defined as "normal", get depressed because they have someting to be depressed about. It can be a particular traumatic experience or it can be something in their life-situation. For such people, antidepressants are rarely the right choice, and will rarely help (they mainly need councelling).

Depressive people are people who get depressions for no apparant reason, or for reasons that would not make "normal" people depressed. For such people, the right antidepressant will nearly always help. It has to be chosen individually, however, but then, I surely need not stress the importance of individualization to a homeopath, right ;)?

Hans

[skeptigirl]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
First of all, why a person becomes depressed?

Could it be because of the various medicines he takes indiscriminately?

I am not talking about mental cases. I am talking about perfectly mentally sound people, becoming depressed.Are there any studies to suggest why this happens?

Murthy "mental cases"? Do you call diabetics "pancreas cases"?

Any organ in the body, including the brain, is subject to malfunction. Too low a level of serotonin in the nerve synapses of the brain is one cause of depression, just as not enough dopamine causes Parkinson's symptoms.

[skeptigirl]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
Thats true, conspiracy theories are "in fashion". On the other hand, it is also true that drug companies will take any kind of positive result as a "go" to sell their products, even if those results are not spectacular and can, at times, be taken as not much better than placebo. No one would argue drug companies have suppressed results that aren't in the best interest of marketing their product. They also have been hiring 'experts' in various fields to present drug company research as if the research was done by the paid 'expert'. Those of us in the medical field are aware of and concerned about these practices. But we aren't drug company puppets who don't read anything but the companies' slick brochures and magazine ads. These are prescription drugs for a reason. One reason is the decision to use them does not depend on marketing messages. Not that practitioners are immune to marketing but most of us do have a brain and an education and can read.

[Dancing David]

FYI this is a very serious topic in the mental health community.
(Hey, I am back at that and out of the DV shelter!)

There is a book called Talking to Prozac that makes a very cogent case for the inefficacy of antidepressants bvased upon similar research.

As a mental health worker and consumer I am in total disagreement with it. Wrath of the Swarm had a long thread on this.

My point is two fold, the studies that show that antideoressants have about the same effect as placebo are based upon short term studies that use the Beck Depression Inventory (or a similar tool).

The short term nature of FDA trials means that they will almost always miss the long term effect of ADs. The receptor turn over takes six weeks and the systems of the brain take much longer to reach a balance. So short term studies are not going to show an effect very often.

The Beck Depression Inventory, while a very useful tool, is geared towards finding acute severe depression, it focuses on the severe sysmptoms and suicidality. And while it is useful for saying that someone is depressed, it is not very good at gauging the level of depression. So it is not a good tool, in my opinion, for gauging the effects of ADs. I think a tool that focuses ob quality of life and is measuring the more subtle symptoms of depr5ession would show more of an effect of antidepressants.

Then there is the 'regression to to the mean', I am a crisis intervention worker. No one ever gets help when they first need it they wait until the twent fifth hour when thier life is totaly falling apart. When I asses people in an intake or the ER they have usualy been depressed for a very long time and are suffering from some acute life crisis that causes them to seek treatment. These people and those who are suffering grief or stress related depression are going to get better because they are going to get better. But the question then becomes , did the Ads spped thier recovery and make them more comfortable.

There is this rumor that has some scientific basis for the three year effect, many people who take ADs only have benefit for three years and then have to switch medications.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Gavinimurthy
First of all, why a person becomes depressed?

Could it be because of the various medicines he takes indiscriminately?

I am not talking about mental cases. I am talking about perfectly mentally sound people, becoming depressed.Are there any studies to suggest why this happens?

Murthy

Hiya Gavinmurthy, what a bunch of mopes these sceptics are! Can't even ask a question without them moping on you!

1. People become depressed because they have a biological vulnerabilty to depression, all people have one. Some just express the vulnerablility to a higher degree than others. So one eperson will become depressed in response to very low levels of stress while others will become depressed in response to trauma or grief.
There is also the factor of 'coping skills' which covers the gamut of life events that people engage in to deal with life. If you come from a negative family or have less than healthy coping skills they can create or worsen depression.
Depression is a bilogical state that causes people to have a sad mood and frequently disturbances of sleep , appetite and perception.

2. Medications are not generaly thought to create depression, however alcohol sure can and frequently does! Also marijuana and other street drugs can create depression in some people. If you have an imbalanced system and add chemicals to it they frequently make the imbalance worse.
Medications like psuedoephedidrine can deplete the body of nuerotransmitter and create a pseudodepression.

3. I am going to ignore the pejorative use of the word 'mental cases'. Just remeber that 10% of the people around you are such. Lack of sleep and high levels of stress will almost always create a depression is someone who has a very low vulnerability to depression. Other people will manifest a stress related response by having sysmptoms of anxiety, emotional lability or psychosis. Every person has different vulnerabilities to stress, some pople eat more, some people sleep more, some people become addicted, it varies from person to person, it is mediated by coping skills and varies from culture to culture.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
Thats true, conspiracy theories are "in fashion". On the other hand, it is also true that drug companies will take any kind of positive result as a "go" to sell their products, even if those results are not spectacular and can, at times, be taken as not much better than placebo.

Very true!

However when you are working with desperately sick people you tend to use the medicatons that seem to work. Hence a lot of people with anxiety get Paxil or Zoloft.

Even stranger is the 'off lable' use of medications by psychiatrists, they try a lot of things to help their patients and keep doing the ones that work. Like the use of 'mood stabilizers' to accentuate the use of antipsychotics.

[Art Vandelay]

"What most patients and clinicians alike don't know is that in the 47 trials used by the FDA to approve the six leading antidepressants on the market, more than half were unable to outperform sugar pills."
What does that mean? Were there 47 drugs tried, 24 were worse than placebos, and 6 were approved? Were there 6 drugs tried 47 times, and 4 of the drugs failed at least one of those trials?

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
"Perfectly mentally sound people" - which I interpret as people within the range arbitrarily defined as "normal", get depressed because they have someting to be depressed about. There's an important distinction between clinical depression and the common use of the term "depression". CD, by definition, is not merely a reaction to events. It may be initiated or exacerbated, by events, but it extends beyond that.

[Anathema]

Originally posted by Dancing David
The receptor turn over takes six weeks and the systems of the brain take much longer to reach a balance. So short term studies are not going to show an effect very often. Add to this the fact that it may take several successive 6-12 week cycles to even determine the right AD for an individual. You have to take the drug, wait out the time, then hem and haw for a while, trying to remember how you "felt" months prior to guage if you really are feeling any better. Give up too soon, you might miss your optimal prescription, go too long, and you protract the time between diagnosis and remedy. It is far too touchy a business to expect short term conclusiveness.

[Barbrae]

and sometimes herbs are better

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10759336&dopt=Abstract

[Zep]

Originally posted by Barbrae
and sometimes herbs are better

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10759336&dopt=Abstract No, not "better", just positive results in a specific study.

Look at the title of the study: "Equivalence of St John's wort extract (Ze 117) and fluoxetine: a randomized, controlled study in mild-moderate depression."

I've highlighted the words for you to think about. It was a comparative study ("equivalence") and a specific medical condition ("mild-moderate depression"). That there is now good evidence of positive results under such conditions is both heartening and adds to our body of reliable medical knowledge. Would that all herbal medicines be subject to such examination...

[Barbrae]

Originally posted by Zep
No, not "better", just positive results in a specific study.

Look at the title of the study: "Equivalence of St John's wort extract (Ze 117) and fluoxetine: a randomized, controlled study in mild-moderate depression."

I've highlighted the words for you to think about. It was a comparative study ("equivalence") and a specific medical condition ("mild-moderate depression"). That there is now good evidence of positive results under such conditions is both heartening and adds to our body of reliable medical knowledge. Would that all herbal medicines be subject to such examination...

and yet, how many MD's care about this study? How many have recommended the herb over prozac for mild depression? How many furthur studies have been done? It's herbal so financially it just ain't worth looking into.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Barbrae
and yet, how many MD's care about this study? How many have recommended the herb over prozac for mild depression? How many furthur studies have been done? It's herbal so financially it just ain't worth looking into.


MD's care about that study, 5 years old though it might be. I'm also sure that pharmaceutical companies and other lab research organizations cared. The lack of follow-up studies likely has nothing to do with it not be financially viable; if it worked, it would be.

Nor is that conclusion indicative of "herbs being better."

On the other hand, it's just one study, dated from 5 years ago, and what I wonder, has been done to update or follow up on that study anyway? Surely, with that positive result, more funds would have been available for further study...

[Barbrae]

Originally posted by Suezoled
MD's care about that study, 5 years old though it might be. I'm also sure that pharmaceutical companies and other lab research organizations cared. The lack of follow-up studies likely has nothing to do with it not be financially viable; if it worked, it would be.

Nor is that conclusion indicative of "herbs being better."

On the other hand, it's just one study, dated from 5 years ago, and what I wonder, has been done to update or follow up on that study anyway? Surely, with that positive result, more funds would have been available for further study...

and if more studies had been done? and they showed postive results as well? Better than placebo and equal to many prescription drugs? Far less side effects? Then what? Wouldn't you expect it to be known? Wouldn't you expect some MD's in the US to be recommending it?

Have I read these wrong? Do they not deserve attention? Why do you suppose this is not acknowledged by the allopathic world?

Take a look at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12153829&dopt=Abstract

or

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12053635&dopt=Abstract

or

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12222670&dopt=Abstract

or

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11552767&dopt=Abstract

or

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11518077&dopt=Abstract

[skeptigirl]

Originally posted by Barbrae
Why do you suppose this is not acknowledged by the allopathic world?

Take a look at ............ What an excellent point. There are a lot of claims by the herbalists, etc that their remedies have not been tested for various reasons, (mostly fallacies), but not much discussion from the same advocates about their own examination of the usual medical research.

[Barbrae]

what did you think of the links?

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Barbrae
[B]and if more studies had been done? and they showed postive results as well? Better than placebo and equal to many prescription drugs? Far less side effects? Then what? Wouldn't you expect it to be known? Wouldn't you expect some MD's in the US to be recommending it?

Have I read these wrong? Do they not deserve attention? Why do you suppose this is not acknowledged by the allopathic world?


(snipped)

Very good Barbrae. You not only mentioned herbs are suprerior, you also mentioned that there isn't enough study to verify efficacy, and yet you were able to find studies, regardless.

Now, did you actually read those links?
Because link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12153829&dopt=Abstract
Only mentions the conclusions reached are better than placebo. How are they in comparison to actual SSRI's, MAOI, Tricycs, etc?

I'm also wary of the one that mentions 50-60% ethanol solutions.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12222670&dopt=Abstract
In ten studies, based on extracts prepared with 50% or 60% ethanol in water (V/V), the dosages ranged from 300 mg to 1050 mg of extract per day

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12053635&dopt=Abstract

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes from baseline in Ham-D and BDI scores and self-reported side effects. RESULTS: There were no important differences in changes in mean Ham-D and BDI scores (using intention-to-treat analysis), with and without adjustment for baseline demographic characteristics, between the two groups at 12 weeks. Significantly more side effects were reported in the sertraline group than in the SJW group at 2 and 4 weeks' follow up. CONCLUSION: The more benign side effects of SJW make it a good first choice for this patient population.
Here I can't help wondering if the community based trials came upon the conclusion that the side effects were fewer because possibly SJW was not in fact in present in sufficient dosage (where did the patients get the SJW from?). In fact, the synthetic medication itself held more side effects, but one could be guaranteed that the dose received was the dose received. Also, fewer side effects are noted in placebo.

Twenty-two randomised controlled trials were identified. Meta-analysis showed St John's wort to be significantly more effective than placebo (relative risk (RR) 1.98 (95% CI 1.49-2.62)) but not significantly different in efficacy from active antidepressants (RR 1.0 (0.90-1.11)). A sub-analysis of six placebo-controlled trials and four active comparator trials satisfying stricter methodological criteria also suggested that St John's wort was more effective than placebo (RR 1.77 (1.16-2.70)) and of similar effectiveness to standard antidepressants (RR 1.04 (0.94-1.15)). There was no evidence of publication bias. Adverse effects occurred more frequently with standard antidepressants than with St John's wort. The mechanism of action of St John's wort remains unknown. Future research should include large scale, appropriately powered comparisons of St John's wort and standard antidepressants.
Aagain, more effective than placebo... fewer side effects than synthetic meds... was this for trials of mild to moderate depression? Were the trials from patients who were taking other meds? What trials are they referencing?

And this link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11518077&dopt=Abstract

No. This abstract's conclusion shouldn't even be admissable, since it shows and references no known or real trials. It's an opinion.


Someone help me here. Or rather, what am I missing? Am I being too picky?

[Eos of the Eons]

Double post.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by Barbrae
It's herbal so financially it just ain't worth looking into.

As. If.

And just what makes you think doctors are benefitting from the sale of pharmaceuticals when they bill for visits and the pharmacy is the one that takes your money for drugs...not the doctor?

Your little conspiracy theory is ridiculous. I know many drug companies selling herbals now. Might as well. If your little claim is true, then doctors could benefit from the recommending crap to their patients over actual tested and regulated medications.

Bayer's St. John's Wort products:

http://search.bayer.com/newbayer/search.php?tag=E%25&hilfe=0&wf=12424&ps=10&o=0&q=wort


valerate (val·er·ate) (val¢[schwa]r-[amacr]t) a salt or ester of valeric acid.

valerian (va·le·ri·an) (v[schwa]-l[emacr]r¢e-[schwa]n) [NF] [L. valeriana] any plant of the genus Valeriana. The dried roots and rhizome of V. officinalis L. (Valerianaceae) of Europe are antispasmodic and sedative and are used for nervousness and insomnia.

Greek valerian, the European plant Polemonium caeruleum L. (Polemoniaceae), or Jacob's ladder, used as a topical application to ulcers.

valeric acid (va·le·ric ac·id) (v[schwa]-l[emacr]r¢ik) a monobasic organic acid derived from valerian, used as an intermediate in pharmaceutical manufacture.

.

http://www.mercksource.com/pp/us/cns/cns_hl_dorlands.jspzQzpgzEzzSzppdocszSzuszSzcommon zSzdorlandszSzdorlandzSzdmd_v_02zPzhtm

THAT is from a medical dictionary. Valerian is a herbal supplement.

Bayer sells products with Valerian. They're a huge drug company. Have fun searching for their versions of "alternatives".

http://search.bayer.com/newbayer/search.php?tag=E%&wf=12421&ps=10&hilfe=0&q=valerian

Drug companies love to jump on the "alternative" bandwagon. The stuff is cheap to make. It doesn't need to be tested or go through that annoyingly long approval process.

Bayer's range of multivitamins and supplements includes the following brands:
Berocca®
Pentavite®
Redoxon®
Supradyn®
Pluravit®

http://www.bayer.co.nz/dir218/bayerweb.nsf/af7560fdee4a8f33ca256d2c000a0df4/29e89ee3027414cdca256fb3001a71fb?OpenDocument

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Barbrae
and if more studies had been done? and they showed postive results as well? Better than placebo and equal to many prescription drugs? Far less side effects? Then what? Wouldn't you expect it to be known? Wouldn't you expect some MD's in the US to be recommending it?

Have I read these wrong? Do they not deserve attention? Why do you suppose this is not acknowledged by the allopathic world?


There is a small but important point you have overlooked. The path from proof of principle for a drug to licensed product is long and complicateed and if you have ever read scientific literature you will sometimes see research papers bubbling along for years before a licensed product appears.

he path is long and complicated, because a few studies are not enough to get a drug licensed. There are specific paths to follow to demonstrate efficacy and safety and an increasingly litigious patient population means that a medial professional going out on a limb and recommending something on a whim is becoming frowned upon.

This is either a good thing or a bad thing depending on your point of view, but either way it is informed by a public mood that wants to hold medicine accountable for 1 in 1,000 and 1in1,000,000 risks while merrily popping any onld unregulated rubbish from a herbal health centre provided its supplier and the associated alt meddlers steer carefully around the legal restrictions.

If St Johns wort really works and is really safe enough for widescale use (remember, millions will probably receive it) then licensed products will appear.

Your problem is that you float in a world that is never called to account for treatment failures or side effects.

[Suezoled]

Eos, BSM... marry me. Either of you. Both of you.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Barbrae
and yet, how many MD's care about this study? How many have recommended the herb over prozac for mild depression? How many furthur studies have been done? It's herbal so financially it just ain't worth looking into.

Er? Why isn’t financially worthwhile to look into it? After all a months supply costs around £10. Plenty of companies are profitable making generic drugs available at that sort of price point.

(The funny thing is that in the UK Prozac would be cheaper for the patient then St. John Worts supplied by a "Big Business" like Holland & Barrett!)

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Barbrae
and yet, how many MD's care about this study? How many have recommended the herb over prozac for mild depression? How many furthur studies have been done? It's herbal so financially it just ain't worth looking into.

Hmm, actualy a lot of psychiatrists are aware of the effects of St. John's Wort and if someone gets benefit from it then they recommend that the use contnue, in fact my psychiatrist perscribed Zoloft to me because I had responded to St. John's Wort. However it did nothing for my depression, it just made me calmly depressed, gave me headaches and made me very sleepy.