Our expert says:
When you google such a broad subject with such a VERy ooaded phrase, you'll selectively find a load of very highly biased, inexpert and exclusively critical stuff. Evidence on the valuee of such drugs will not be picked up as "the truth about..." Search with biased terms, and you will find biased material, from people with personal axes to grind.
To deny that there is such thing as Depression is simply naive and stupid - it has existed throughout human history, and in every culture known on earth.
Now, I certainly don't believe that the evidence for specific ADs is overwhelming or conclusive, but it is true that a significant proportion of depressed people find benefit from such drugs. I don't think, though, that more than 70 % at most, find significant benefits from any one drug, so there are fairly good odds that the first one tried might not suit your highly individual brain chemistry and prove helpful.
I despair of doctors ( you don't mention whether you're being treated by a specialist psychiatrist or only a GP ) who prescribe ANY drug to ANYONE at ANY time, without a full explanation of the diagnosis, the drug, what it may or may not do, possible benefits, side-effects, and so on. They should ALWAYS review your progress or lack of it on any new drug within the first month, and if you have not reacted favourably to an AD within a month, its is perfectly clear that this is not the right treatment for you, and a different plan should have been made.
Perhaps you should consider a non-drug method, such as CBT, Cognitive-Behaviour Therapy, where there is good research showing lasting benefits.
I would not use Mirtazpine as a first choice for a new depression, and there are other varities of AD which might both be more helpful for you and without these particular side-effects.
You're right to ask for good scientific proof - if we waited for totally conclusive proof in most useful medical interventions, a great many people would suffer for far longer without the help they deserve.
Do, by all means, ask for a discussion of relevant research, but don't just accept the negative conclusions of people with a strong bias who are often selling a different or rival approach.
Criticising ADs as "mind-altering" is a bit odd - DEPRESSIon is, beyond question, horribly and dangerously mind-altering, and something that will alter the mind in a more useful way is worth considering seriously.
"no better than placebos" is also a dodgy argument. In most of the research, such drugs are tested comparatively against either placebos ( which certainly do have some benefits ) and against existing, standard drugs. It'd be hard to get them licensed for sale without reasonable proof of benefits beyond those of placebo.
The utter give-away of the source of your bias is when you quote the enormousl biased website of the CCHR - which is considered a front for Scientology, an organization which in some countries has been banned and in other has been refused the status it asked for, as a religion. They carefully collect all the negative material they can, about psychiatriy in general and psych treatments - because they are proposing and selling a competitive approach, that of Scientology, for which there is not any good evidence of effectiveness and safety - but of course they don't really discuss that in such websites.
The information provided does not constitute a diagnosis of your condition. You should consult a medical practitioner or other appropriate health care professional for a physical exmanication, diagnosis and formal
advice. Health24 and the expert accept no responsibility or liability for any damage or personal harm you may suffer resulting from making use of this content.