http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/...ntPage=all

Well I'm no pharma-boffon ... but allow me to offer the alternative they don't seem to want to accept:

First ... you're dealing in the chemistry of the brain itself. We are familiar with how other brain chemistry drugs ... of the hard recreational kind ... work. Give a druggie their dopamine high. A week later the same dose isn't even good enough for a buzz.

Could it be that the pharms are only offering a symptom treatment by altering brain chemistry, and not a real cure? And that over time, just like with recreational drugs, the sensitivity becomes less and less for these drugs? The brain, chemically, is a self-correcting system. In most cases, you must fix the fundamental source of the problem instead of merely masking the symptoms. But that's beyond the capabilities of "here take this very expensive pill". I suppose it's easier to become delusional and claim that the whole of science is wrong rather than say "well guys our boondoggle windfall profits are washing up and will eventually shrink to a trickle in this sector ....."

(12-28-2010 10:26 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Well I'm no pharma-boffon ... but allow me to offer the alternative they don't seem to want to accept:

First ... you're dealing in the chemistry of the brain itself. We are familiar with how other brain chemistry drugs ... of the hard recreational kind ... work. Give a druggie their dopamine high. A week later the same dose isn't even good enough for a buzz.

Could it be that the pharms are only offering a symptom treatment by altering brain chemistry, and not a real cure? And that over time, just like with recreational drugs, the sensitivity becomes less and less for these drugs? The brain, chemically, is a self-correcting system. In most cases, you must fix the fundamental source of the problem instead of merely masking the symptoms. But that's beyond the capabilities of "here take this very expensive pill". I suppose it's easier to become delusional and claim that the whole of science is wrong rather than say "well guys our boondoggle windfall profits are washing up and will eventually shrink to a trickle in this sector ....."

The effect they're describing isn't on patients taking the same drugs recuringly, it's on a new group of patients. The effect diminishes, not over time, but just when someone new is given the prescription. This is happening even though the original study was done on a random, representative group or groups, which means it provide nearly identical results on any new (randomly selected) group.

I like this article b/c it presents several possible mechanisms for the observed effect, including some that aren't flattering to the researchers and their methods. Also it doesn't insist that only one mechanism is happening to the exclusion of the others.

This may very well be a (systemic) data analysis and methodological problem.

Related: Why Psychologists Must Change the Way They Analyze. Their Data: The Case of Psi.

Three points that seem important here:

• It doesn't appear that researches were necessarily fraudulent in making these mistakes
• It does have implications for future researchers given the potential for fraud and abuse
• If there are actionable lessons here, then it may help put an end to the attitude of "first they said eggs were good for you, then they were bad for you, now they're good for you again, so I'll never believe a scientist/doctor/etc. again"