Its is an accepted standard in empirical science that the burden of proof lies with those who make the claim - if they cannot substantiate it, then the null hypothesis is accepted (no pun intended). In other words, if I make a claim that, say, powdered tiger whiskers increase male potency and have other healing powers - I have to provide a positive proof that stands upt to scrutiny. Until such proof is provide, the most rational thing is to reject the claim i.e. accept the null hypothesis stipulating "no effect." That is research methods 101.
> Back up there, dude: the evaluation research on
> psychoanalysis and other forms of "talk" therapy
> is quite clear on this point. These types of
> therapy are generally effective, and in some
> studies are even more effective than the much
> hyped drug therapies like SSRIs.
SSRI's are used in many affective disorders - and claiming that they are less effective than talk therapy is plainly false. For example, talk therapy has very little effect in bipolar disorders (although it is sometimes used in conjunction with medication) - SSRIs have a much better track record there. But as far as I can tell, serious practitioner and SSRIs manufacturers openly say that they do not know exactly how SSRIs affect the affective disorders - they just know that they sometimes help, but sometimes other (n0n-SSRI) drug families have better effect.
On the other hand, SSRIs (prozac) and other anti-psychotic drugs are frequently prescribed simply to improve the mood of the patient rather than to treat a mood disorder, but that is a very different story. It is like saying to someone who tries to shoot a fly with a gun - I can do it more effectively with a swat. Obviously - but only because drugs or guns were overkill in that particular situation.
Wojtek