[lutusp]

> I wish depression was the same as a physical illness, because then I could simply go to a doctor and be given a cure.

1. In point of fact, much scientific evidence shows that depression is a physical illness, not a mental illness.

2. The only reason treatments are not available for the physical illness of depression is because of the primitive state of neuroscience.

3. But neuroscience research is moving apace, and is very promising. Read this: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/02/magazine/02depression.html...

4. A quote from the above-linked article: '"So we turn it on," Mayberg told me later, "and all of a sudden she says to me, 'It's very strange,' she says, 'I know you've been with me in the operating room this whole time. I know you care about me. But it's not that. I don't know what you just did. But I'm looking at you, and it's like I just feel suddenly more connected to you.' '

"Mayberg, stunned, signaled with her hand to the others, out of Deanna's view, to turn the stimulator off."

'"And they turn it off," Mayberg said, "and she goes: 'God, it's just so odd. You just went away again. I guess it wasn't really anything.'"'

5. Psychiatrists and psychologists, of course, insist that depression is a mental illness and is treatable with therapy and drugs. But there is no reliable scientific evidence for this view.

6. President Obama recently announced a major "brain initiative", meant to speed up the pace of neuroscience research. More here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/04/02/fact-s...

7. Notice that the initiative is not called the "mind initiative". The reason? Psychology had its chance and failed. It's time for a new approach.

> It's especially problematic because mental illness is a fault in your thoughts, and not in, say, your arms or legs.

That's what psychiatrists and psychologists would like you to think, but it's false. Some day this way of describing mental illness will be judged to have been criminally false.

[illuminate]

"1. In point of fact, much scientific evidence shows that depression is a physical illness, not a mental illness."

A false dichotomy there.

"Psychiatrists and psychologists, of course, insist that depression is a mental illness and is treatable with therapy and drugs. But there is no reliable scientific evidence for this view."

Stated without actual evidence, naturally. On a scale of One to Clear, how much do you love L Ron Hubbard?

[lutusp]

>> "1. In point of fact, much scientific evidence shows that depression is a physical illness, not a mental illness."

> A false dichotomy there.

Dichotomy, yes. False, no. The evidence is copious. I posted evidence, you posted opinion. Which part of the evidentiary links that I provided caused you the greatest amount of emotional upset?

Which part of "drugs and therapy do not work, but neuroscientific treatments do work" didn't you understand?

> "Psychiatrists and psychologists, of course, insist that depression is a mental illness and is treatable with therapy and drugs. But there is no reliable scientific evidence for this view."

> Stated without actual evidence, naturally.

I said there is no evidence for the belief that psychiatrists and psychologists can treat depression. Your reply? Where's my evidence that there's no evidence? You are clearly unaware of (a) the impossibility of proving a negative, (b) of the role played by the null hypothesis in scientific thinking, and (c) who has the burden of evidence to provide positive evidence for a claim.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

Quote: "Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others ..."

In other words, you are a scientific ignoramus.

Psychiatrists claim to be able to treat depression, the claim is formally unfalsifiable, there is no evidence for this claim and copious counterevidence, and the burden of evidence belongs to psychiatrists and psychologists.

Nevertheless, in spite of the fact that the burden belongs to those making the claim:

Title: "Treating depression with the evidence-based psychotherapies: a critique of the evidence"

Link: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0447.2007....

Quote: "... the specificity of CBT and IPT treatments for depression has yet to be demonstrated."

Title: "Initial Severity and Antidepressant Benefits: A Meta-Analysis of Data Submitted to the Food and Drug Administration"

Link: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fj...

Quote: "Meta-analyses of antidepressant medications have reported only modest benefits over placebo treatment, and when unpublished trial data are included, the benefit falls below accepted criteria for clinical significance."

Title "The Emperor's New Drugs: An Analysis of Antidepressant Medication Data Submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration"

Link: http://alphachoices.com/repository/assets/pdf/EmperorsNewDru... (PDF)

Quote: "If drug and placebo effects are additive, the pharmacological effects of antidepressants are clinically negligible. If they are not additive, alternative experimental designs are needed for the evaluation of antidepressants."

The scientific consensus? Depression drugs and therapy don't work.