4 ms·
The two mentioned in the article met the FDA definition of remission. It doesn’t say, how many improved in general. This is important specifically since the sam
by argsv 5y ago
The two mentioned in the article met the FDA definition of remission. It doesn’t say, how many improved in general. This is important specifically since the sample size of the trial is small.
- KarlKemp 5y agoIt's the important & useful of the two endpoints they measured. Anything will have a positive effect on depression if it comes with a lot of high-tech vodoo and people in lab coats. Only it won't last and it will the "yeah, I guess I'm feeling better"-level of improvement.
- eru 5y ago> Only it won't last and it will the "yeah, I guess I'm feeling better"-level of improvement. Who says it won't last? Most depressions actually do get better by themselves. How do you think humanity has survived so far? (Most, but not all. And even if it eventually gets better without meds, there was still a lot of suffering.)
- lazyasciiart 5y agoIt's quite possible humanity has survived because most people never get depressed. You need to be quite clear about definitions to have a meaningful conversation on this.
- eru 5y agoMaybe. So please ignore the part where I speculate about evolution, if you want to. Empirically, most clinical depressions get better by themselves today. Similarly, most alcoholics improve by themselves. (Of course, effective treatment is still useful!)
- webinvest 5y agoUnfortunately your genes don’t care about whether you’re happy or not beyond your gene’s needs for survival and reproduction.
- eru 5y agoYes. And given the prevalence of continued prevalence of depression, there might be some evolutionary benefit for the genes that also cause depression. No clue whether it's the depression itself, or whether that's just a side-effect of something else that's useful.
- mlyle 5y agoI agree both endpoints are interesting-- but arguably remission is more important of an outcome measure than improvement.