"I have no problem with "it works."

I actually do if there is no difference between the presence of "it" and the absence of "it" in the claim that a particular agent does something.

The issue is not that Antidepressants sole effect is the placebo effect, the problem lies in valuing them OVER placebos for that effect. To me the placebo proposal seems reasonable; that people be treated with something harmless and inactive first, and only be moved to an active ingredient if no marked improvement is seen.

Its worse yet when the efficacy is solely based on perception and cannot be measured ( unlike the placebo effect. )

Folks pay a lot of money for Astrologers to work up personal charts so they can find out things which are valid which speak to them alone ( and not to everyone on the planet. ) Double-blind tests establish that the chart made specifically for me will be found just as credible when handed to anyone and everyone. At that point why pay when the efficacy is entirely created by the one who pays for the service, not by the one providing the service?

But back to placebo-effect. It puts the medical professional in a bind over lying to the patient. But the measurable effect of nothing goes away if it is revealed to be nothing. So it would be unethical to remove an effective remedy by letting the folks who believe they were being given an antidepressant know the truth. Though agnosticism should let anyone at GC who says that they were treated with an antidepressant know that they cannot know for sure; and that it doesn't matter as to the improvement.

I'm reminded of the way doctors in Japan commonly keep terminal cancer patients in the dark. They believed that if they could do nothing to improve the life of the patient; that they shouldn't deliver depressing news that might cast a pall over the end of life.

In the West we typically think that the terminally ill patient should have the opportunity to seek some sort of closure, or even seek alternative treatments; denied by being uninformed.

Dante