Depression Scientism
Elliot Temple
I like the organization of this article in short, clear and understandable sections including one about the problem situation they want to address, plus a link to the actual paper. But the substance is bad:
> METHODOLOGY: To test if an objective biological test could improve diagnosis accuracy, scientists recruited 36 adults with major depression and 43 healthy participants for a blood screening. They measured the levels of nine biomarkers associated with depressive symptoms, such as inflammation, the development and maintenance of neurons, and the interaction between brain structures involved with stress response and other key functions.
This is predicated on being able to know who is depressed in the first place. But since depression is a psychiatric label used for social control purposes, rather than a medical condition, there are no objective criteria for judging who has it or not.
So this doesn't work. You can't just recruit a group with depression and a group without depression before thinking about what depression is and how to assign people to those groups. And you can't establish an *objective* blood test by studying groups defined without objectivity.
One has to get the philosophy of the topic right before he can know what kinds of studies and methods make any sense, and which of his initial steps may not work as he wants them to.
> study co-author John Bilello hopes that "the biological basis of this test may provide patients with insight into their depression as a treatable disease rather than a source of self-doubt and stigma."
Biological detectability does not imply:
1) biological cause
2) biological interventions could change it
3) that it's a disease
The study author is therefore either or both:
1) incompetent (there's no excuse for not knowing these basic facts, outlined above, when you do this kind of work)
2) dishonest (a common form being to mislead the press, and be misleading in one's abstract, title and conclusion, while avoiding some of those false or misleading claims in the heart of your articles)
-- Elliot Temple
http://beginningofinfinity.com/
Rami Rustom
> http://www.theatlantic.com/health/print/2012/02/study-of-the-day-blood-tests-can-accurately-diagnose-depression/252664/
>
> I like the organization of this article in short, clear and understandable sections including one about the problem situation they want to address, plus a link to the actual paper. But the substance is bad:
>
>> METHODOLOGY: To test if an objective biological test could improve diagnosis accuracy, scientists recruited 36 adults with major depression and 43 healthy participants for a blood screening. They measured the levels of nine biomarkers associated with depressive symptoms, such as inflammation, the development and maintenance of neurons, and the interaction between brain structures involved with stress response and other key functions.
>
> This is predicated on being able to know who is depressed in the first place. But since depression is a psychiatric label used for social control purposes, rather than a medical condition, there are no objective criteria for judging who has it or not.
>
> So this doesn't work. You can't just recruit a group with depression and a group without depression before thinking about what depression is and how to assign people to those groups. And you can't establish an *objective* blood test by studying groups defined without objectivity.
How could it be done objectively? I think it can't.
All they could do is ask the subject questions. Their answers are
subjective. Hence no objectivity.
Or is there a possibility for asking the subjects objective questions?
-- Rami