Hacker News Reader

Comment by vajrabum | Hacker News Reader

They have the same kind of evidence. There are double-blinded studies demonstrating their efficacy or they wouldn't be on the market. When used properly most vaccines are highly effective and protect the large majority of people who get them. Maybe more importantly we understand in some detail how they work. Psychiatric conditions and their treatments are much less well understood. The medications generally don't have as powerful an effect as a vaccine. That isn't a reason not to use them.

View on HN

Can you link to one?

Why would anyone want to continue to engage with your bad faith argument? Science doesn't work on the basis of "linking to one study" and to try to make a point by demanding one shows that you're not interested in an actual discussion. But, sure, here's a single, arbitrary metanalysis on several studies on the efficacy of a single antidepressant: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/204512531662907...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bupropion#Depression

Thanks for proving my point.

Edit: Oh, you're the grandparent comment. I explicitly wasn't talking to you, since you're not even pretending to argue in good faith.

You've linked an article that cites one study which found weak evidence for the effectiveness in depression of one particular medication that is not widely approved for use in depression.

What is the point of this link supposed to be? That we shouldn't be prescribing bupropion to patients? Perhaps - most likely SSRIs and other drugs are more reliable, but it doesn't hurt to have a wider variety of classes of drugs to try.

"We"? are you a doctor?

"We" as a democratic society that can make new rules.

You're incredibly hostile in your remark to someone asking for a study. I haven't made any argument, and you continued with logical fallacies (strawman argument), I never said anything about one study proving anything.

I've actually researched this area for years, I was curious what your study would show and how it would evaluate the efficacy of antidepressants.

What your arrogant and antagonistic communication hasn't mentioned is that there is no link here to show anything a link to the brain, only to the symptoms (which you did mention), but failed to take the actual argument -- which is about chemical imbalances which Psychiatry as an industry (as an individuals) have been claiming they're close to since the 70s and have failed to prove that claim -- ever.

Blocking symptoms also needs to be shared with the accompanying side effects which were neglected both in your study reference and in any mention of the drug -- and you will find them _with all_ anti-depressants.

The particular one you mentioned, also in the Wellbutrin family, has had studies in eight different countries which detail their side effects, including suicide, mania, and psychosis.

Literally every psychiatric drug on the market has a clincal trial or study. In order to be FDA approved any drug has to have large scale double blind studies to prove it's safety and efficacy and those studies are public. That's the law. Here's how to find info on them. That isn't to say every drug is good, or that occasionally there are side effects which cause a drug to be withdrawn from the market, after approval, but that's very rare.

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/help/how-find/find-study-resu...

Thank you. This is a much more intellectually honest response.

> That isn't a reason not to use them.

To give one example of where this is unclear, consider antipsychotics. Brain shrinkage is a known issue in schizophrenic patients that hasn't been ruled out as not coming from medication due to ethical issues in conducting the associated studies. Some schizophrenic patients also recover without them.

Comparing a valid concern like that to anti-vaxxers seems disingenuous to say the least.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com