Steve Perry wrote:
>
> as a lifelong cyclical depressive myself, i think both doug's points ring
> true. in fact i've often wondered if point 1 isn't the reason that we hear
> these harum-scarum statistics from time to time seeking to link
> anti-depressants to suicide--perversely enough that may be a testament to
> the drug's beginning to work.
>
There is a real problem, of course, in that in anti-depressants as in the case of almost all research in pharmacology control is exercised by the large pharmaceutical companies. That does not automatically discredit it, but it does raise unending complexities. Paxil may or may not trigger suicidal thinking -- but there is no very strong reason to expect research controlled by SmithKline-Beecham (which has since merged with GlaxoWellome to become Glaxo-Smith-Kline, or GSK)to reveal that fact.
There is evidence that the maker of Paxil did conceal some of the research on it that indicated dangers. But it may also be true as Steve and Doug suggest that those dangers come from the success rather than the weaknesses of the damn medication. As long as meds are produced for profit there will be no clearcut resolution of this particular crux. There is no real motive for any extensive (and expensive) research into depression that is not tied not just to pharmaceuticals but to NEW pharmaceuticals.
Another possibility. No one claims that ADs work on more than (at most) 70-80% of sufferers from depression. And for an anti-depressant to fail to remedy a long-lasting depression could produce suicide. Usually my depressions last only 2 months or so. In 1998 I was in continuous depression from April through early 1999, and though I remained abstractly convinced that sooner or later it would go away, that conviction became thinner and thinner as it were as the months wore on.
Carrol