|
|
|
|
|
by khed
3535 days ago
|
|
I am a practicing physician with 2 years of graduate level course work in neuroscience. Point 3 and 4 are wrong. There is no evidence that SSRIs work by fixing a chemical imbalance. There are multiple metananlyses in top tier journals that indicate that SSRIs have an irrelevant clinical effect. SSRIs are almost all placebo with the downside of causing serious side effects. The small effect that isn't due to placebo is probably not clinically relevant. The only cogent defense of SSRIs I have read is http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/ssris-much-more-than-yo.... The author is a practicing psychiatrist. The main disagreement he has with the large metaanalyses is that even though the effect size is small it's better than nothing. |
|
I asked her how accurate these tests were and she said that, while you can't read everything off a sheet, there are patients, where she can already guess the result of the tests from the bodily symptoms the patient is describing (energy level at which times of the day, feeling of hunger, insomnia etc.).
Quite often serotonin is low and once it has been boosted (verified by an additional test a couple of month later) the patient is feeling a lot better.
Which, like I said, doesn't imply that that's all there is to mental well-being.
These tests also measure stress hormones, which usually are out of bounds as well.
> There is no evidence that SSRIs work by fixing a chemical imbalance.
I don't even know how one would define "chemical imbalance" in such a complex system as the human body.
All I know is that there are average ranges for transmitters and the more somebody's results are inside these ranges, the better he typically feels.