As I always I struggle between my desire to push what I think are important points to my overwhelmingly well informed readership and my basic belief that there are some conversations that should not be had in public.
I understand that the conversation is being had whether I approve of it or not. Nonetheless, participating is an issue of personal ethics I haven’t completely worked out.
In the past I’ve chosen obtuseness as the middle path. I’ll stick with that for now.
For those inclined to look Professor Kramer of Brown University has a take in a major daily that mirrors much of my own on the issue. Indeed, the problem of improperly selecting test subjects is likely responsible for the general rise in "relative ineffectiveness” we see across the drug spectrum.
In any case, I think the attention this issue gets in terms of medical funding and research is vastly inadequate relative to issues like cancer and heart disease. The landscape is too dominated by folks with strong opinions and axes to grind. While the issue itself is frankly more important than bodily health.
To update C.S. Lewis, you don’t have a mental state. You are a mental state. You have a body.

6 comments
Comments feed for this article
Sunday ~ July 10th, 2011 at 4:20 pm
rhmurphy
So… secularized ghost in the machine?
Monday ~ July 11th, 2011 at 10:23 am
Shangwen
I work in this area and, while I think there is no question of specialists having been captured by Rx, there is a much larger problem of research quality. Systematic reviews of clinical trials are much less rosy about effectiveness, and when one gets down to the nitty-gritty of specific conditions, then there is a clear case for broad skepticism. However, as always, there is the need to work with those affected so that we are at least trying something that may (or may not) be helpful. And, although many people like to paint psychotherapy as the “nicer” (non-industrial) aspect of treatment, that is a technology as bedeviled by problems in its real delivery as medication is, if not more so.
Felix Salmon has a reply today to the NYT article that is much more in line with my own views. I don’t share the “it’s all a big fake/conspiracy/scam/marketing ploy” view, but I think our skill in real diagnosis and treatment is embarrassingly weak, and more research of the kind generally carried out is unlikely to change that.
All the best to you Karl.
Monday ~ July 11th, 2011 at 4:32 pm
Th
Personal experience with several friends and family members has been that one particular anti-depressant is very effective at relieving chronic pain and/or chronic fatigue syndrome but none have been very good against depression.
Monday ~ July 11th, 2011 at 4:43 pm
engineer27
Radiolab has a recent podcast on an apparent issue with all behavioral research, basically that the more you study an effect the less pronounced it grows.
http://www.radiolab.org/blogs/radiolab-blog/2011/may/03/cosmic-habituation/
Monday ~ July 11th, 2011 at 6:21 pm
Wonks Anonymous
Felix Salmon is annoyed by Prof. Kramer.
Wednesday ~ July 13th, 2011 at 12:15 pm
Wonks Anonymous
Robert Whitaker responds to Kramer’s article.