On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, mike larkin wrote:
>
> Even if the side effects haven't been fully explored; even if there is a
> temptation to use Prozac, etc. as a quick fix; even if the Lillys are
> pushing these drugs for profit--the benefits are going to be so
> substantial, in suicides prevented and lives restored, that it's worth
> the risk.
You've been reading too many pharma brochures and not enough research papers here. The effects of Prozac on depressive symptoms are not as substantial as you assume. The typical difference between the Prozac group and the placebo group in experimental studies with clinically depressed people is typically a few points on the Hamilton depression scale (a common self-report measure used in depression research). If a single person's score on the Ham improved a few points, clinicians would not consider them "cured" or even substantially "better".
Moreover, placebo effects are especially powerful with children, and I know of five studies in which depressed children's symptoms improved as much with a placebo as with Prozac. The recent research has found a statistically significant difference between the placebo and Prozac groups in clinical trials with depressed kids, but don't confuse "statistically significant" with "substantial".
Regardless of pharma propaganda, it's important to remember that Prozac does not "cure" depression. For some people, it can help to temporarily improve their depressive symptoms, but it's not a magic wand that is worth any possible risks. For instance, does Prozac have a negative impact on cognitive, social, or physical development in children when taken for a long period of time? We don't know yet, because we don't have that kind of longitudinal data. I'm not saying kids should never be given Prozac; I'm just saying we should be very careful about widely distributing powerful drugs with diverse effects.
Miles