fear-glas
Fear Glas
fear-glas

Not really. In Britain the notion of a man wearing a wedding ring came in during the Second World War, when men serving abroad wanted reminders of their loved ones. In 1945 this would not have been anachronistic.

If being violent, including sexually violent, makes you "manly and virile", then I suppose so but, as a (fairly routinely kilt-wearing, which is unusual these days) Scotsman, it's not a standard of masculinity and virility I'm happy about perpetuating. Hunting? Nope. Rape? Nope. Political warfare? During the

Mhm, but for all those who think Sansa is growing up, you then get, "For me, Alayne thought, as they wheeled it out."

Is it just me with a vision of this oversize phallic symbol tipped with something white in the middle of the table?

I was about to rip in to this, because there genuinely are dangerous idiots who believe what you wrote.

The entire article is about how and why the theory has been discredited. Blindly insisting otherwise doesn't change that.

That's not my issue. My issue is with this notion of "works". What are the criteria for "works"? Is your criterion "I felt better after using it" (which is undeniable, but not generalisable, and could be the result of several factors, many of them having nothing to do with the drug) or "it worked because it fixed a

The pro SSRI movement ignores the overwhelming scientific data of their lack of efficacy. This is my problem - I have no great trust in the pharmaceutical industry, to put it mildly. The evidence says one thing on vaccines (are mostly safe, and work for most people) and something else entirely on SSRIs (barely

On the basis of the randomised controlled trial, in most cases. There are a surprising number of drugs on the market with weak efficacy data.

The placebo effect is surprisingly powerful. If you look at the double-blind controlled trials (all of them, not just the ones shown to the FDA by the drug companies) it's clear at least 75% of the effect is down to placebo. The average difference in improvement in trials is 2 points on a 52 point scale. The drugs do

All respect for that. My degree is in a related field, and I struggle with severe, often suicidal depression and severe anxiety. I've been on several of their drugs, suspect them in some nasty side effects (venlafaxine is linked to violent outbursts), and I'm sick of the bad science surrounding them. I feel like I was

With the slight snag that the actual evidence that they do clinical good (as opposed to a statistically significant improvement) in double-blind controlled trials is very weak, and biased for all kinds of reasons, starting with publication bias and moving on from there.

I'm pleased that you're feeling better. I know that hell, or something very near it.

What, like the anti-vaxxers just "know" that immunisation gave their child autism? I'm not going to accept that "logic" because it's irrational and irresponsible.

I suspect there are many people out there who do genuinely believe it. Many of these will have a vested emotional interest in believing in the drug - they may have concluded that if they now believe that they are responding to a placebo it will stop working.

How do you know it's not the placebo effect? Seriously. All you know is that you and other members of your family took the drugs and then you and they felt better. If someone you know felt better on the drugs the placebo effect is likely to be stronger. That's well known.

I suspect we have pharmaceutical company astroturfers on the scene. It happens a lot when this discussion is raised anywhere. We have the same as soon as climate change is raised, or someone objects to GM.

Your argument would be sound if the imbalance theory wasn't bunk.

Okay, but we are talking about depression here (the anxiety theories are just as weak, but that's another story). Without knowing what condition, what drug and what explanation the doctors are giving I'm not even going to start. Personally, I think the entire profession has been brought into disrepute by this, but I'm