Zoloft doesn't work any better than St. John's wort for depression

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Ilena Rose - 30 Mar 2006 18:23 GMT

I just noticed that Rag-tag Thorson is omitting important parts of
these citations.

The side effects are shown to be significantly lower in St. John's
Wort than Zoloft which pharma-shill Thorson deleted ...

His quote was very misleading ...

Why isn't ACSH / Barrett and the other quacks screaming about
this?????

Maybe they are just pretend watchdogs ... watching products of anyone
but their funders ...

they claim breast implants are 'legitimate' which have harmed well
over a quarter of a million women ... but they go on their Guerrilla
Crusades against breast creams ... which have harmed no one.

As noted in this study:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra
ct&list_uids=15744631&query_hl=11&itool=pubmed_docsum

And this one:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra
ct&list_uids=12053635&query_hl=11&itool=pubmed_docsum

And this trial:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra
ct&list_uids=11939866&query_hl=11&itool=pubmed_docsum

And this one:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra
ct&list_uids=

Reply to this Message

Skeptic - 30 Mar 2006 20:43 GMT

<Ilena> wrote in message news:4s4o22h6koscq87vv13m5995d5bekn40rp@4ax.com...

>I just noticed that Rag-tag Thorson is omitting important parts of
> these citations.

And you're omitting your responses to previous posts. Why was the article
"junk", Ilena? You still haven't read it yet, have you? ... sad.

Reply to this Message

Mark Thorson - 30 Mar 2006 21:31 GMT

> I just noticed that Rag-tag Thorson is omitting important parts
> of these citations.

No, I'm showing that these citations demonstrate
that even the BEST evidence you selected in favor
of St. John's Wort shows how poor the case for
using this herb is. You only cited the best
evidence you could find -- there are many others
you didn't cite which are much more damning.

> Why isn't ACSH / Barrett and the other quacks screaming about
> this?????
>
> As noted in this study:
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra
ct&list_uids=11939866&query_hl=11&itool=pubmed_docsum

The COMPLETE conclusion in the abstract of this
study you cited says:

"CONCLUSION: This study fails to support the efficacy of
H perforatum in moderately severe major depression. The
result may be due to low assay sensitivity of the trial,
but the complete absence of trends suggestive of efficacy
for H perforatum is noteworthy."

[Note: H perforatum is the scientific name for
St. John's Wort.]

If this is the BEST evidence in favor of St. John's Wort,
you can imagine what a selection of evidence against
St. John's Wort would look like. Even a completely
fair, balanced selection of data would look very bad
for St. John's Wort.

Reply to this Message

Jan Drew - 30 Mar 2006 23:58 GMT

> Ilena Rose wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> evidence you could find -- there are many others
> you didn't cite which are much more damning.

<snip>

No, as usual, you are omitting studies, with the BEST evidence that show
St. John's Wort to be have *significantly less side effects* and be a good
first choice. Which I proved several times.

Alone with the FACT, you used your usual *cheap tricks* of follow up to alt
null...which I changed.

Why isn't ACSH / Barrett and the other quacks screaming about

>> this?????

>and this one

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&...

St John's wort or sertraline? Randomized controlled trial in primary care.

van Gurp G, Meterissian GB, Haiek LN, McCusker J, Bellavance F.

Emergency Department, St Mary's Hospital Centre, 3830 Lacombe Ave, Montreal,
QC. gerald.vang...@mcgill.ca

OBJECTIVE: To compare the change in severity of depressive symptoms and
occurrence of side effects in primary care patients treated with St John's
wort (SJW) and sertraline. DESIGN: Double-blind, randomized 12-week trial.
SETTING: Community-based offices of 12 family physicians practising in
greater Montreal, Que. PARTICIPANTS: Eighty-seven men and women with major
depression and an initial score of > or = 16 on the Hamilton Rating Scale
for Depression (Ham-D). INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to treatment
with either sertraline (50 to 100 mg/d) or SJW (900 to 1800 mg/d) in a
double-blind fashion. Assessment of depression was done at entry and at 2,
4, 8, and 12 weeks using the Ham-D, the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), and
a questionnaire asking about compliance and side effects. MAIN OUTCOME
MEASURES: Changes from baseline in Ham-D and BDI scores and self-reported
side effects. RESULTS: There were no important differences in changes in
mean Ham-D and BDI scores (using intention-to-treat analysis), with and
without adjustment for baseline demographic characteristics, between the two
groups at 12 weeks. Significantly more side effects were reported in the
sertraline group than in the SJW group at 2 and 4 weeks' follow up.
CONCLUSION: The more benign side effects of SJW make it a good first choice
for this patient population.

Reply to this Message