Qualifications schwamifications...
Where in the website did the app claim to "fix depression"? From what I can see, it helps you identify and release negative emotions.
Where in the website did the app claim to "fix depression"? From what I can see, it helps you identify and release negative emotions.
Did you read the article at all?
Here is a quote where they state the app can stop the cause of your depressive symptoms. That clear cut enough for you? Or do you still want to be wilfully obtuse?
That sounds like they're making a pretty strong argument for stopping taking the Doctor recommended medication.
A hobby can cure depression. A better diet can cure depression. More exercise can cure depression. Finding purpose can cure depression. Painting can cure depression. Dancing can cure depression. The heavens forbid someone start a dancing class that claims to help release negative emotions without a medical degree and scientific research to back it up.
There's a difference between "these things might help the symptoms of depression" and "Doctor telling you to take life saving medication, what if it makes you crazy? I have no evidence that it will, but I feel like it might. You should use this app instead"
We are not talking about a mere feeling down here. Depression is a clinically defined term with specific criteria, and no nothing you can fix with a new hobby is clinical depression, and yes if you claim to be fixing it with any tool which you make available to public you need to be a licensed professional.
> Nobody owns the intellectual property to "the cure of depression".
Luckily intellectual property protection is not the only protection we have around medical interventions. No one has the intellectual property to tonsillectomy either, and you're free to try operating on your own, but you will get into trouble real fast if you advertised you doing it to public as a fix to some ailment.
Down where? Go to the apps website and find the term "clinical depression", then come back and tell me what we're talking about down here. It most certainly not back there... which is my whole point. Whats the world coming to if someone cannot create an app to help ease negative emotions without being harassed by gatekeepers and rent seekers?
The title of the advertising blog post is literally "I built an app to fix my depression" and goes on to the details of their situation. Certainly we don't have enough data to assess the severity of their n=1 depression but having gone to professionals and used SSRI medication by definition makes them a part of the clinical population.
If they were to say "this app helped me with the negative emotions that came with depression", that would be OK, but they go on to claim that app has fixed their previously SSRI requiring depression, an app they sell a public subscription for. That association is definitely not OK.
> Whats the world coming to if someone cannot create an app to help ease negative emotions without being harassed by gatekeepers and rent seekers?
It is the same world where people have induced harm abusing people's illnesses or desperation in the name of a quick buck. I am not saying this is the intention of the app maker, but the gate-keeping is there for a reason.
Look at this way, anything claiming to be potent enough to fix something can also be potent enough to hurt you. We can't have it both ways with wishful thinking. That is why we need discrete labels, concrete processes and well evidenced claims when we go about what is an antibiotic or what is a cure for depression.
He has every moral and legal right to share his story of what inspired him to create his app. He also has every right, to share his story about his struggles with depression, and what did and did not work for him. You too, have every right to be cynical about his intentions and healing. If he makes money out of his work, good for him. If you read some of the comments here, many have already found it beneficial. Good for them too. And your twitter friend just gave him even more publicity and marketing. so you keep living in your world of fear and cynicism. I'll live in mine of love and courage.
On the contrary, I don't doubt much about their intentions or healing. But that alone isn't sufficient to absolve them from responsibility or scrutiny while talking about a paid product for a holy grail medical problem like depression.
> He also has every right, to share his story about his struggles with depression, and what did and did not work for him.
But that is not the only thing they are doing now, is it? They are linking their paid app to that story, and that puts it in the realm of false advertising. FTC and FDA regulates the real world, independent of our being full of love or fear, and if that app was big enough it would likely be in trouble.
> so you keep living in your world of fear and cynicism. I'll live in mine of love and courage.
I'd watch for confirmation bias.
In the United States, the FDA considers personal anecdata forbidden when it comes to the sale and marketing of dietary supplements -- for example, statements such as "This product cured/helped/relieved/improved/fixed my/my aunt's/someone's diabetes" (on a product label, website, or even verbally by a salesperson or retail clerk in a store) are strictly forbidden as they may be construed to be medical advice
This is covered by the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994. I don't know if DSHEA covers websites/apps/digital products -- probably not -- but I would be very surprised if there wasn't similar legislation covering websites, apps, and digital products
Note that DSHEA does prescribe language for safely discussing the effects of non-drug therapies. It's called structure-function language -- OP should definitely read up on it (better: talk to a lawyer versed in these matters, and note that I am not a lawyer, none of the above is intended as legal advice)