In any case, he writes interesting articles. I’m not saying I always agree – just that I usually find them interesting and well thought out. Right now I’m finished up his short editorial from the Sept. 27th 2010 Newsweek (yes, I’m behind…) entitled “A Lonely Success: Don’t forget: the bailouts worked” – and it is an interesting read. I do question whether there is quite the cause and effect relationship between the bailout as Zakaria seems to suggest – it seems to me that the involved factors are too many and too complex to yield to such a straightforward analysis – but still, Fareed highlights how much of the bailout we are likely to get back, how in this case – if it did work – people are still attempting to avoid being associated with it, and highlighting the bipartisan work that made it happen.

There is still one question I have – why did we bail out the banks instead of the people? Before people jump on me for suggesting we should have taken the bailout – please not, I’m not taking a position on that topic – I’m simply asking if we were going to do a bailout (and we did) why did we use the money to bail out the banks? This seems like a trickle down approach in which we have to rely upon the good-will of the banks, etc. to let the bailout trickle down to the average man…whereas if the average man had been bailed out, this would have resulted in a forced trickle up – e.g. if instead of foreclosing on people we utilized the bailout to pay banks for parts of mortgages – the money would have both saved a lot of people from homelessness and financial hardship and still made its way into the banks coffers.

I’m no economist, so perhaps someone with more financial savvy than I can explain…

Related articles

• Fareed Zakaria Jumps To Time From Newsweek (huffingtonpost.com)
• Fareed Zakaria Joins Time (observer.com)
• Zakaria Doesn’t Care about iPad, Business Models (observer.com)

Tonight I am sadly disappointed. I finally had a chance to read the Feb. 8 2010 issue with a promising cover story on antidepressants by Sharon Begley. I had expected, in common Newsweek fashion, to find an extended report on the overall story supplemented by articles from various perspectives – I was sadly mistaken. Begley’s article used recent controversial findings to smack around the efficiency of anti-depressants rather ferociously, then there was a small, one-page response from Robert Klitzman, a psychiatrist, author, and professor at Columbia University.

Jon Meacham, what happened here? Begley’s article highlights some interesting and thought-provoking research findings, but doesn’t seem to seriously consider the issues with the research findings. Klitzman’s article, while raising some important issues, is too short to offer a resource defense against Begley’s article. Klitzman’s use of personal, subjective experience is entirely worthwhile, but in an article this short it seems to overshadow the more scientific issues relating to researchers’ methodology in acquiring these results.

I haven’t had time to read the original research publications and probably won’t…nor am I a qualified mental health professional…but as an individual who has suffered from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) and Major Depressive Episodes for all of my conscious life, I’d like to share a few observations:

• One must correlate not only the effectiveness of a single drug but the effectiveness of a class of drugs on the individual. For example, this study reflects that an individual in a clinical trial for say Prozac experiences only a 1% decrease in symptoms – similar or identical to a placebo effect. What the study does not correlate is how that same individual responds to different drugs used to treat the same disorder. For example – if this individual uses Zoloft, Paxil, etc. do they experience a more significant reduction in symptoms? One of the differences (for me) between Zoloft and Prozac is weight gain versus weight loss/stability. Future studies need to consider the effectiveness of a class of drugs in treatment of an individual versus an individual drug. Thus the question is, would any drug within this treatment class significantly reduce the symptoms of the sufferer? If so, this is a victory for “anti-depressants” in general. One cannot suggest that anti-depressants as a class are ineffective without considering their effectiveness as a class on the individual. Ineffectiveness in a case study of treatment of an individual with a single drug is not evidence that anti-depressants don’t work but that that specific anti-depressant doesn’t assist that individual.
• The lumping in of the varied forms of depression is a significant issue as well. There are significant differences between the forms and intensity of depression which is further complicated by coexisting disorders. Yes, situational depression (e.g. death of a friend or family member) is likely to resolve itself – but this is very different from the depression which simply sits upon a person like a funk – with no rhyme or reason. Dysthymic Depression has different implications than a sudden Major Depressive Episode.
• I’m not aware of anyone advocating that we pop anti-depressants like tic tacs and yet the article seems to indicate that these anti-depressants are being handed out to anyone who is experiencing a bit of grief. There is little disagreement, as far as I am aware, that medications are not a panacea for depression and that they should be utilized in moderation, in combination with other approaches, and for depression which appears to be ongoing and severely limiting rather than limited and minimal.
• Begley recommends psychotherapy as an effective alternative treatment, but that is a very general class – much more general than the anti-depressants mentioned. What sort of psychotherapy is being referred to? Psychoanalysis? Cognitive-Behavioral?

I would have liked to see someone like Peter Kramer who wrote the excellent book Against Depression write a response to Begley’s article (I think Klitzman is also fully capable of writing an article of such a nature given a more extended page count…I mention Kramer because he has written extensively on this subject). In the end, I simply want to suggest that Newsweek should be more careful in how they handle topics like this. It felt extremely one-sided and was not provided the depth or breadth I’ve come to expect from Newsweek.

The article raises good questions. We need to be considering the efficiency of our antidepressants. We need to be pushing for alternative treatments that don’t require the introduction of potentially harmful chemicals into our bodies. We need to smash any mentality that considers every blue mood an instance of depression and worthy of a few pills.

But where, oh where, where the articles talking about what sorts of psychotherapy are effective for treating depression? Where was the article even defining depression? Where were the articles talking about the efficiency of these same anti-depressants for other disorders – for example Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder? Where were the articles on how to improve our system?

Update 2/06/10: I’d like to thank Peter Kramer for taking the time to comment on this article and would like to point everyone’s attention to the several articles he has written in response to Newsweek’s article and the underlying research used in the article

• Here is an article for Slate that Kramer wrote explaining Irving Kirsch’s understanding of tianeptine and why it isn’t the clear-cut evidence Kirsch suggests. Kramer has some fairly strong words for Newsweek, “To set aside the testimony of animal model research, brain enzyme research, the new work on neurogenesis, and on and on—this stance has the whiff about it of science denial. It is one that a major magazine should have showcased cautiously, if at all, and only after having done some serious homework.”
• Here is another article for Slate in which Kramer evaluates the results of the recent JAMA study and demonstrates significant concerns acknowledged by the U. Penn researchers themselves concerning the efficacy of drawing conclusions on minor depression from this study.
• Finally, Kramer responds to arguments that individual responses to placebos are significant by noting that the test groups in studies reflecting this result oftentimes include a number of test subjects who don’t have the disorder – thus the apparent efficiency of placebos.

Image via Wikipedia

I’m big on utilizing the internet for a lot of my research. Books are quickly outdated – even magazines, especially on technology topics, are often outdated before they hit the shelves. But, despite predictions otherwise, paper has not died. One still cannot beat the feel of paper between the fingers. A computer screen is great, but for long reading hauls and ensuring top quality content, sometimes paper is still the best way to go. Yes, Amazon‘s Kindle[1. Yes, I want one.] is changing all that, but I don’t have one of those yet and paper will be with us for a while yet…

This year Charity made a membership drive donation to National Public Radio (NPR)[2. Despite earlier life influences suggesting NPR was liberal media, I find it generally fair-handed. In any case, much better than the constant ranting and fear-mongering I hear on many AM talk shows or the absolute nonsense of some FM talk shows.]. In the process we received a free year’s subscription to Newsweek – 53 issues (an issue a week). Newsweek doesn’t attempt to cover all the news, rather it covers major stories – oftentimes in-depth, and sometimes off-beat but important stories. I find it a great way to stay up on current politics and opinions…and okay, I admit, I really love their political cartoons and quotes section!

If you enjoy National Public Radio, I can almost guarantee you will enjoy Newsweek. They have a very similar feel – but unlike NPR where you are sometimes forced to listen to exceedingly boring stories, you can just skip a few pages with Newsweek.

Well, that’s about all I have to say about that. But if you are looking for something good to read and enjoy magazine subscriptions – consider Newsweek. If you catch NPR on a membership drive you may be able to get Newsweek for free with your NPR membership of $50 or more (a years subscription to Newsweek is $40[3. Magazines make most of their revenue off advertising anyways, subscriptions are a minor portion of revenue. Additionally, Newsweek hopes you will fall in love with their magazine and renew after your NPR sponsored year expires.]).

On a personal note – Charity is the main driver behind magazines in our house. Most of them are girly – Real Simple, Woman’s Day, etc., etc. (ad infinitum). Charity is a voracious reader. I read aloud almost constantly which significantly slows my reading but increases my retention capabilities and helps the fluidity of my public speech[4. Which I do frequently.]. Charity can read 200 page books in 2-4 hours, its crazy. A similar book will take me days or weeks! She can never keep enough books in the house, so she gets magazines to supplement her regular library visits.