Science Vs
Science Vs
Oct 28, 2016
Antidepressants
Play episode · 42 min

There’s an intriguing body of research that suggests the power of antidepressants doesn’t come from chemicals in the drugs, but from the power of placebo. Not everyone agrees, though. We speak to researchers and medical professionals on either side of the debate, and some wedged in-between -- Prof. Peter Kramer, psychiatrist and author of Ordinarily Well: the Case for Antidepressants; Prof. Irving Kirsch, psychologist and author of The Emperor’s New Drugs: Exploding the Antidepressant Myth; psychiatrist and radiologist Prof. Helen Mayberg; and psychiatrist Prof. Gregory Simon.

Crisis Hotlines:US National Suicide Prevention Lifeline 1-800-273-TALK (2755)US Crisis Text Line Text “GO” to 741741Australian Lifeline 13 11 14Canadian Association for Suicide PreventionOur SponsorsCasper - Get $50 towards any mattress by visiting casper.com/sciencevs and use the promo code SCIENCEVSThird Love - Go to thirdlove.com/sciencevs to start your free trialWealthsimple – Investing made easy. Get your first $10,000 managed for free.Credits

This episode has been produced by Wendy Zukerman, Heather Rogers, Shruti Ravindran, and Diane Wu. Our senior producer is Kaitlyn Sawrey. Edited by Annie-Rose Strasser and Caitlin Kenney. Fact checking by Michelle Harris. Sound design and music production by Matthew Boll, mixed by Martin Peralta and Matthew Boll. Music written by Bobby Lord and Martin Peralta.

Selected References2008 study suggesting that antidepressants are not much better than placebo for people suffering in severe depression.2016 study suggesting that antidepressants were way better than placebo in treating people suffering from severe depression. 2016 study on how drug companies under-report side effects in clinical trials. 2003 round-up of the most common side-effects of antidepressants. 2013 study which uses brain imaging to try to pinpoint whether patients would respond better to medication or psychotherapy. 

Radiolab
Radiolab
WNYC Studios
Kittens Kick The Giggly Blue Robot All Summer
With the recent passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, there's been a lot of debate about how much power the Supreme Court should really have. We tend to think of the Supreme Court justices as all-powerful guardians of the constitution, issuing momentous rulings from on high. They seem at once powerful, and unknowable; all lacy collars and black robes. But they haven’t always been so, you know, supreme. On this episode of More Perfect, we go all the way back to the case that, in a lot of ways, is the beginning of the court we know today. Also: we listen back to a mnemonic device (and song) that we created back in 2016 to help people remember the names of the justices. Listen, create a new one, and share with us! Tweet The key links: - Akhil Reed Amar's forthcoming book, The Constitution Today: Timeless Lessons for the Issues of Our Era - Linda Monk's book, The Words We Live By: Your Annotated Guide to the Constitution The key voices: - Linda Monk, author and constitutional scholar - Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law at Yale - Ari J. Savitzky, lawyer at WilmerHale The key cases: - 1803: Marbury v. Madison - 1832: Worcester v. Georgia - 1954: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1) - 1955: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (2) Additional music for this episode by Podington Bear. Special thanks to Dylan Keefe and Mitch Boyer for their work on the above video. Support Radiolab by becoming a member today at Radiolab.org/donate.
40 min
More episodes
Search
Clear search
Close search
Google apps
Main menu