3 ms·
I concur. If I am not mistaken, it's quite difficult to separate signal vs. noise. I remember readying a study that observed that something like 50% of depress
by hirvi74 2y ago
I concur. If I am not mistaken, it's quite difficult to separate signal vs. noise.
I remember readying a study that observed that something like 50% of depressive episodes in people spontaneously resolve within a year without any treatment whatsoever.
Obviously that makes things quite difficult. If one starts an antidepressant, and six months later, is free from depression, then what evidence is there that the antidepressant vs. time was the resolution?
Perhaps stopping the antidepressant would be an indication? But then again, any rebound depression might just be from the disruption in homeostasis that the body has become accustomed to from the antidepressant.
- kelseyfrog 2y agoEven with a high signal, you can have non-etiologically-based treatments. I'm sure with a high enough sample size, you could statistically conclude that giving depressed people $1000/week their levels of depression as measured by the Beck Depression Inventory. That doesn't necessarily mean that being poor is etiologically connected to depression. I'm certain people were depressed before the invention of money. There is, however, a strong bias toward unnecessarily searching for a causal connection between treatment and disease, but also dismissing effective treatments where cause and treatment aren't sufficient connected in people's minds. eg: you're only treating the symptoms as if that can't substantially improve peoples' lives.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]