Quote:
Originally Posted by lonely-and-sad
But I would challenge the view there is no money in advocating a certain position. What about book sales? Or sales of tickets to conferences. And then there are those that sell supplements. [...] So I strongly challenge your assertion.
|
I asserted there is no
relative money, because it's really not comparable. David and Goliath.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lonely-and-sad
I do have one question. Where did you get the information that antidepressants were designed for any length of time? Short, medium or long. Who designed that? And when was it designed that way?
|
Quite sure I did not use the word "design". If a given anti-depressant was ever meant for long-term therapy though, there should have been clinical trials looking at how that worked for people long before putting it on the shelf (especially since any one newly patented formula is only ever of relatively marginal improvement on any former), and so far I have never heard of a pharmaceutical company doing so. I don't want to be a guinea pig, especially uncompensated. Each time I've consulted with them to ask what range or ranges of time for taking a given AD work best, they don't have an answer (that they'll share), only that it takes X weeks to kick in -- but that is a very different question. The fact that they haven't even bothered to find out (or publish) what durations of time are the most efficacious (or least efficacious .. or most deleterious)
at the outset seems to me negligent, at best, and duplicitous at worst. It certainly says something about intent.
In the interest of full disclosure, I've personally suffered permanent injuries as the result of erroneously applied healthcare in multiple fields, so it may indeed slant my attitude towards what *I'm* willing to accept as settled science. Guess I'm just unlucky!
Be well.