"I'm just saying that, in my experience, antidepressants have made a positive impact in my life and those around me and I am quite convinced that this is not a placebo effect."

The whole point of the double-blind test is to eliminate your opinion from the validity of the claim.

Unfortunately the evidence is in that the claim you are making about your antidepressants doesn't tell us whether you have ever actually received one. ( Maybe yours is a long-term double-blind. )

Nobody who was receiving placebos while believing that they were antidepressants would've said anything differently from you.

Now the only valid question is "what" were producing the effects which have helped you? The evidence is in; even if your particular "trial" isn't over yet.

"And even if there are side effects, the benefits could outweigh them."

Not given the findings of the meta-study. ( At least not for any but the extremely severely depressed. ) For all others, yourself included, the introduction of an active ingredient contributes nothing but risk.

In other words, if you aren't hallucinating or delusional due to psychotic features, then its a good thing that you are presently among the placebo group in your trial. ( ;p )

"Whether it is a placebo effect or not does not matter, if it helps."

Agreed. Although if you can eliminate risk AND receive the same benefit, why choose risk?

" And it is not always a placebo effect."

Not according to the meta-study.

It seems very strange to me that someone proclaiming the benefits of medication would deny the validity of the very tests the drug manufacturers use to determine if they are barking up the right path.

Isolating Aspirin from Willow bark involved testing to determine what were the active ingredients and which were inert. The whole point was to take a pill containing acetylsalicylic acid, not the cellulose.

It seems as if you're retreating from the method when the data tell you that something else is at work from what you want to believe.

"Agreed if it really does no better. Since I know it can do better, I defend."

The whole point of the double-blind is that neither you, nor any other who was on the receiving end of a "antidepressant" knew better. Now the evidence is in so that they can make an informed evaluation separate from their uninformed beliefs as subjects of the trials.

Its up to you to read for yourself.

The placebo effect is VERY strong.

And I suspect that there is some prejudice against feeling duped which, combined with a general failure to understand just what a strong chemical arsenal our bodies produce unconsciously, leads those benefitting from it to wish to deny it.

An overwhelming number of the placebo treated patients were markedly improved by their "antidepressants," enough so that unless you knew the provenance, it was impossible to tell.

Removing them from their "drug" of choice would be unethical. Which is why breaking the news to them when it advances nothing would be wrong.

Maybe if there were antidepressants more effective than placebos. But since there aren't any in this case, the choice is clear to let the placebo patients continue to attest to their belief that their "drug" is better than a placebo.

At least this is what Ethan and the NIH counsel.

Dante