[djsumdog]

> meta-analysis

I knew a lot of other grad students, myself included, who would throw anything with meta-analysis in the introduction in the trash. You cannot deal with controls across completely different studies in meaningful ways.

I'm also hesitant about anything that tries to claim things definitively without question. Science is about continually questioning your axioms. Without doubt[1] there is no progress.

As someone who has been on various anti-depressants, I will say that some of them "worked" .. but the side effects were quite high. Working only lasted the first few weeks with several different SSRIs. Eventually the side effects ended up being worse than the treatment.

I found the most effective thing for me was simply a really good therapist. She did try to recommend drugs to me again after I had quit, but she did respect my wishes to not be on them. I feel that having someone who really showed me my options and truly helped examine negative thinking patterns helped a lot more than the drugs ever did.

That being said, I know people who say they'd be in serious trouble or dead without SSRIs. It's a tough line to talk about. I personally would rather not ever be on them again. Dulling the pain for me also meant dulling life.

There are trade offs and we need to talk about them and have full discussions on the consequences of mind alternating drugs. When things are written into pure absolutes, it is a means of killing real discussion and dialogue.

[1]: https://khanism.org/science/doubt/

[tallanvor]

Hopefully you and those other grad students will have learned more by the time you finish your degree. A proper meta analysis does consider the differences in controls across studies, and can be extremely useful in understanding why different studies got different results and identify bad studies. Not only do they help gain a better understanding of results, but they help find ways to better design future studies.

[sjg007]

>I knew a lot of other grad students, myself included, who would throw anything with meta-analysis in the introduction in the trash. You cannot deal with controls across completely different studies in meaningful ways.

You probably need to rethink this. Meta-analysis can be quite stable and valid.

[entropyneur]

> Dulling the pain for me also meant dulling life.

I've heard quite a few people say similar things (including my therapist), but it's such a sharp contrast to my own experience. There are indeed very good reasons not to use these drugs (I currently don't and it's costing me dearly), but "dulling" is not a word that would ever come to my mind if I tried to describe the experience of being on them. The years I was medicating are actually the brightest patch of my adult life.

Well, I guess such differences are to be expected when we don't know what depression is and why these drugs work.

[markroseman]

Glad that worked for you. Having seen many psychotropics poorly chosen/prescribed, your experience is certainly not uncommon, though far from universal.

Best thing would be understanding that different solutions are right for different people, and we get in trouble by generalizing (whether it's about meds, therapy, nutrition, exercise, etc.). One illness, many root causes, many different presentations, and the appropriate solution depends on a multitude of variables.