Talk:Management of depression/Archive 1

Cannabis as an alternative, natural anti-depressant
its a natural remedy for depression that millions use, obviously some strains can make anxiety worse but some strains with higher levels of CBD and lower levels of THC can help relieve anxiety (especially indica dominant strains such as Blueberry, Northern Lights, etc). and in the cannabis dispensaries there are strains sold specifically to help anxiety / depression. i would say it is more useful than St. John's Wort (which has been shown to be no better than placebo) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.138.8 (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * St. John's Wort has been proven to have chemical significance in the body. In fact, certain people can't take St. John's Wort because it interacts with certain medication. I don't think a placebo would have such an effect on the body. While pot might be a natural remedy, there haven't been enough studies done on it to confirm it as an anti-depressant. Perhaps you are thinking of medicinal marijuana when distributed for treatment. Often the patients when they are given such treatment may be depressed about their condition, and not necessarily have clinical depression. ForestAngel (talk) 04:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

These are very low quality citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.167.198.121 (talk) 17:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Hi folks. I created this article to fill a gap. There was plenty of info on depression, but not much on the potential contribution of natural therapies. Hope you like it. Sardaka 10:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV
I tagged the article as violating WP:NPOV. The selection of "therapies" here appears fairly arbitrary. The labeling of these therapies as "natural" promotes a specific viewpoint that I don't think we can define well enough to be useful.

While I think this article should be deleted or merged, I'd like to hear others' viewpoints on the NPOV issue. --Ronz 17:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply
Some points: 1) the selection of therapies may appear to be fairly arbitrary, but the fact is that no article can possibly cover all therapies, so no matter what therapies were covered, someone could always say "Why this one, why not that one," and so on. The title implies pretty clearly that it is dealing with various therapies and how they may affect depression. It doesn't claim to be covering all therapies.

2) Calling the therapies "natural" doesn't imply a bias of any kind. The expression "natural therapies" has been used for a long time now and has been accepted by the medical profession; not in the sense that they have given their official approval, but in the sense that they recognise that these therapies exist and have a place. They are often referred to as supplementary therapies and are seen as a valid supplement to conventional medical treatment. I have seen this especially with HIV-positive people, where supplementary therapies are widely accepted. No bias is implied.

Sardaka 09:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Your rhetoric and attitude (to say nothing of your agenda) is NOT appropriate for an encylopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.167.198.121 (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

PoV Fork?
How is this article not a WP:POVFORK and what should be done to make sure we're not in violation? --Ronz 01:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * After reading through POVFORK carefully and looking at how this article was started, I think we're in violation. --Ronz 02:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Missing
Starting a discussion on missing entries: Exercise, socialization, and lithia water immediately come to mind (no pun intended). --Ronz 01:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, how about a healthy sleep schedule. So obvious to most people that it is easily overlooked —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.221.93.139 (talk) 05:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have added sections on exercise and sleep. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Depression
Is there any reason why this article cannot be merged with Depression? It can form a section or two under the main article.  Shot info  01:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that the article is a povfork that was not created properly per WP:POVFORK and that the information here is duplicated mostly in Clinical_depression, I don't see much to merge. Probably best to start a formal merge proposal. --Ronz 02:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If the article is moved to the main Depression page, perhaps more, who are searching for a non-prescriptive means of relief, would be exposed. It does have merit to stand alone. There should difinately be a link and short mention to this article on the main Depression article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.211.17 (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree
Merge I think that it makes sense to merge the articles together. It would only make the article better. ForestAngel (talk) 04:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Disagree
I can't agree that this article is a POVFORK. It was not created as a way of putting forward a POV. It was created to cover areas that are not covered by other articles. The section on dietary supplements does not cover everything covered by this article.

As for merging, it may have some merit. Personally, I think this article deserves to stand on its own, but some may think it should be merged. Probably doesn't matter all that much.

Sardaka 09:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep these articles separate but have them interlink better. Currently, Clinical depression doesn't link to this article, for instance. There seems to be enough info here to justify having a separate article. That being said, Depression and natural therapies should be expanded perhaps to discuss in greater detail the history behind using natural therapies to treat depression. I think that would certainly make the article even more encyclopedic. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note that this is not a vote. Thanks! --Ronz 17:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Did I seem to insinuate that it was? I was just letting you know my position and provided justification. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the discussion is here: Talk:Clinical_depression. --Ronz 17:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Article rename
Sardaka attempted to "rename" this article, but did so in an improper fashion, so I have undone the redirect. We need consensus for a new name for the article before such a rename takes place, and it must be done in a proper fashion (as a move, not just a redirect). I'm copying over the first post made about the name here:


 * The new name for this page seems unsatisfactory. (and the talk page was left behind at Talk:Depression and natural therapies).  Here's some thoughts on possible key words and their meanings before we progress:


 * 1. Natural - this is the converse of artificial (man-made).  A good example would be exercise.


 * 2. Complementary - this indicates a treatment in parallel to another.  An example would be counselling in addition to drugs.


 * 3. Alternative - this indicates a different therapy which is implicitly unorthodox, e.g. Rolfing


 * 4. Traditional - hallowed by long use, e.g. Traditional Chinese Medicine.


 * There are other variations such as Complementary and Alternative, which I see abbreviated as CAM.


 * My feeling is that the word natural best conveys what the likely readership is looking for here. But perhaps it should be Natural and alternative.   But I don't like complementary because of the hanging implication that it is complementary to something else which is not necessarily the case.


 * Colonel Warden (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. The move was done improperly and I have now reversed it. I've moved this discussion over to Talk:Depression and natural therapies where we can properly discuss renaming the article. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I changed the name to "complementary therapies" because some people got stuck on the word "natural". Someone even suggested that "natural" indicated a bias, which it doesn't, but some people were getting stuck on it so I thought it would be a good idea to change the name. I chose "complementary" because I have found it is widely accepted, having worked as a therapist with HIV people. However, other people may have other ideas.

Sardaka (talk) 08:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Such a rename should be done with consensus, however, and you also did not do the rename in the proper fashion, as I mentioned on your talk page. AnmaFinotera (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Natural
This article seems to have lost momentum. I plan to revamp it considerably with a focus upon the word natural. To me, this means not artificial or man-made. The lede indicates that this is what people are looking for - in particular, they don't want drugs. But the current list does not map onto this definition too well. For example, acupuncture seems as artificial a procedure as electroshock or lobotomy - it is just less violent. The scheme I favour would include the following categories:


 * change (of job, partner, location, etc)
 * counselling
 * diet (including vitamins, herbs, etc)
 * exercise
 * hobbies
 * meditation
 * religion

Things like acupuncture and reiki belong in a different article which focusses upon alternative therapies. Ok? Colonel Warden (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No, not really. For practical purposes, it is not worth distinguishing between natural and alternative. A natural therapy obviously means a non-technological one, ie not involving drugs, machinery or surgery. The list you provide above is mostly valid, but it can be made part of the article as is.

I have just finished revising this article to make it more NPOV. It was criticized by some for being POV. This criticism had some validity, as I now recognise, so I have eliminated the POV elements. I think most people would agree it is now more impartial. All it needed was for the wording to be changed.

Sardaka (talk) 09:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * People use words like "natural" or "chemical" in an attempt to refer to distinct (and, in the case of this pair of words, opposite) sets of things, and then discover, once they really try to explain what they're talking about, that there's a meaningful sense in which the words could refer to anything and everything in the entire cosmos. The solution for this article, as we've discussed in the major depressive disorder article, is probably just to rename the article, so that "natural" is replaced with another word, like "alternative," which at least implies pretty strongly some diversion from the mainstream. I'll be happy to rename (i.e., move) it once consensus is reached or once five days pass without objection, whichever happens first if any happen at all. Cosmic Latte (talk) 04:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with changing the name of this page to "alternative" management of depression. There is not a lot of talk about anti-depressants or other medications that are usually prescribed to patients diagnosed with Depression. If nothing else, perhaps a section in this article discussing the drugs prescribed and their mechanisms of action, or a redirect to the page about medications for Depression. However, if a redirect is re-introduced for this particular section, I think there should still be some discussion about the prevalence of medication being one of the main treatments for this disorder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LEHussain (talk • contribs) 13:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Improving this article
First I believe there should be a distinction in the article between natural (non-pharmacological) treatments that have been researched extensively (fish oil, psychotherapy, meditation, exercise, B-vitamins) and those than have not. Secondly, I feel it is a shame that some of the most well-researched options, such as psychotherapy and exercise, do not even appear. Do I have permission to add them?Postcrypto (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Add away! --Ronz (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Rename and refocus to avoid POV forking
OK, this article is only 19 kb. How about we rename it Treatment of depression and make it inclusive of and focus on all treatments? Then we don't have to worry about what is 'alternative' etc? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

All in favour....


 * Aye Major depressive disorder has ballooned to 111 kB, making it in desperate need of spin-out articles. The fact that some treatments are more plausible than others can be adequately treated here. The recommended treatments all have their own articles, so this can be just an alphabetical list. - Eldereft (cont.) 04:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Now that's not a bad idea at all..I was trying to think of some nexus between it all. I was initially thinking of a more detailed overview of treatment, but then again, each modailty listed should have that so...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree We've been discussing this for a long time now. The other alternatives offered didn't address the pov problems we currently have. (see below for alternative) --Ronz (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not sure there is a need for the Treatment of depression article. It is essentially covered in just three articles Antidepressant, Psychotherapy and ECT. Possibly, an article called Alternative treatments of depression may be worth creating instead of this one. However, I am afraid that it will be a magnet for the junk, and thus the strictly evidence-based information I collected in the corresponding section of the MDD article will be overwritten or buried. Paul Gene (talk) 00:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Although if it were just a list, then those three treatments prominently listed at the top may be a good thing (?) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting point. I will not actively argue against it. But imagine, a new article Treatment of depression is a huge undertaking, and we are not done with MDD yet ;). Paul Gene (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * True that. I won't be prioritising this one, but raised it due to Ronz questioning our progress on it. Mainly raised it as there were problems with this article before and for a focus so if there is a clear consensus to change the scope then it will be thus changed. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Major_depressive_disorder currently has five subsections, one sub-subsection, and some 60 references. Two of the subsections are lists: "Other conventional methods of treatment" has four entries, and "Alternative treatment methods" has 10 entries.  Certainly Major depressive disorder doesn't need this level of detail. --Ronz (talk) 05:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Alternative: Merge
Alternatively, we could merge the contents of this article into Major depressive disorder. This would resolve the pov problems once, after the merge, the new content was brought up to the standards of the rest of the article. --Ronz (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Except that that article is very large and near to the point of requiring pruning..not sure yet.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Article renamed
I was bold and went ahead with it. --Ronz (talk) 15:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've merged in Major_depressive_disorder and partially cleaned up the article. Needs lots of work still. --Ronz (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted this move which I consider to be a significant change of topic and so unwarranted. The focus of this article is natural therapies for depression. If you want a more general article, then please start a separate one to which this can be linked. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Moved for discussion: B-Vitamins
I moved the "B-Vitamins" section here for discussion. This appears to be WP:SYN, but without access to the article, I'm not 100% certain. --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

B-Vitamins
It has been shown that some people with depression have an impaired folate metabolism and that taking a daily B-vitamin complex tablet can help with depression.


 * I would reword it to stress that the cause of one particular subtype of depression has been linked to impaired folate metabolism. In most cases, B vitamin supplementation is worthless against depression (and even in the relevant cases you need to make sure that whatever is provided is actually bioavailable to the patient). A better source would be the NIH and references therein (from the B-12 article). - Eldereft (cont.) 05:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV revisited
I rewrote the lede from sources to remove tendentious material and so took the NPOV tag away too. Ronz has added the tag back. We now need some specifics on the NPOV issue because I'm not seeing it and can't address a vague assertion. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The problems have yet to be addressed. --Ronz (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What problems? You still have not provided any specifics.  Please see WP:NPOVD:  Everyone can agree that marking an article as having an NPOV dispute is a temporary measure, and should be followed up by actual contributions to the article in order to put it in such a state that people agree that it is neutral. ... If your sole contribution to an article is to repeatedly add or remove the tag, chances are high that you are abusing your "right" to use the tag. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Addressed above. Please observe WP:NPA, thank you. --Ronz (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In your discussion above with Sardarka, you assert that the selection of therapies is arbitrary. This is a contradiction since arbitrariness would imply the absence of a POV.  Sardarka contends that the term natural is readily understood and I have confirmed this by finding and referencing multiple comprehensive sources which use the term in this way.  The topic is thus notable, well-defined and provides ample material for a substantial article.  Other therapies such as SSRIs likewise require much space for good coverage and there seems to be scope for many articles covering all this ground.  Anyway, if you do not provide specific details to be addressed then the general tag cannot stay as it is intrusive and unhelpful.  Since Sardarka had exactly the same trouble in interpreting your objection, it seems you need to communicate your meaning better.  Colonel Warden (talk) 15:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "This is a contradiction since arbitrariness would imply the absence of a POV." Not at all.  See [WP:NPOV]]
 * "I have confirmed this by finding and referencing multiple comprehensive sources which use the term in this way" See WP:FRINGE as well.
 * "Anyway, if you do not provide specific details to be addressed then the general tag cannot stay as it is intrusive and unhelpful." Again, please observe WP:NPA.
 * Maybe we could change the topic to something about the promotion of substances deemed "natural" as possible ways to address depression? Otherwise, we have POVFORK, NPOV, SYN, and FRINGE problems, especially in contrast to the information that is much better sourced in the related articles. --Ronz (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Still you provide no specifics, details or examples for any of your complaints. Please instance the precise portions of the article to which you object.  If you object to the entire article and its theme then the tag is redundant since what you want is to remove the article entirely per your AFD.  Tags are intended to be used for the purpose of improving the article.  If you have no specific improvements in mind then a tag is not appropriate.  Colonel Warden (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. See my comments above. --Ronz (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I had already read all the comments above but have done so again. The only specific details are the absence of coverage of Lithia Water and Socialization.  I have now added some details of the former but the latter does not appear to be a therapy - just a risk factor for depression and a technique used in counselling such as CBT.  In any case, these points do not support the complaints made in the tag.  Two of these post-date the comments above and the article too has changed significantly as a result of my editing.  You are therefore required to state or restate your detailed objections per WP:NPOVD which states, "clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why.".  Colonel Warden (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry that you don't understand the situation. Every part of the article has problems, and the article as a whole is especially problematic.  This has been discussed in detail for almost a year now.  I don't think any significant changes have been made to solve these problems.
 * It would be helpful for you to explain your edits in detail, as some appear to be very helpful, but your edit summaries really don't explain what you're doing or why. --Ronz (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Again it seems that the only problem is that you want the entire topic to go away. This would not be in accordance with our policies and seems unlikely to happen.  As for my edits, if the edit summary is insufficient, one can see their effect by either looking at the diffs or reading the result.  In general, I am improving the article by adding content related to the topic while sharpening up the presentation as appears appropriate.  The next step will perhaps be to address the talking therapies.  These were not covered originally but seem relevant insofar as they are not drug-based. Anyway, you are still failing to clarify your objections as specified by WP:NPOVD. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"Again it seems that the only problem is that you want the entire topic to go away. " Please discuss the article contents, rather than discussing other editors. Thanks!

I'm once again asking you to either use more detailed edit summaries, or to summarize you edits in some other way, especially given that there are multiple problems here.

In the meantime, could you identify some of the sources used to achieve NPOV? I don't see any, but then again I'm having a hard time making out what you and past editors think given the edit summaries. --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, per WP:NPOVD, "clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why.". Colonel Warden (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I see absolutely no sources being used in any way to follow NPOV. Please list a few.  How's that? --Ronz (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The article cites 48 sources and you're saying that absolutely all of them are violating NPOV in some way? This seems absurd and it would be pointless to list some since you say that they are all bad.  Again, this is an untenable blanket assertion which cannot be taken seriously and does not help us forward.  Please be specific, as required by WP:NPOVD. Failure to provide specifics when repeatedly asked seems to indicate that you are engaged in pointy disruption.  Since this tagging may be deliberate defacement in support of your AFD nomination, I shall continue to remove tags which are not supported by adequate details here. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF. Toddst1 (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "The article cites 48 sources and you're saying that absolutely all of them are violating NPOV in some way?" Please follow WP:TALK and WP:CON and avoid misrepresenting others. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You say above, "I see absolutely no sources being used in any way to follow NPOV". Again that is, "absolutely no sources being used in any way".  Now, this seems to mean that you are suggesting that all sources have an improper NPOV.  If you have some other meaning then please list the specific sources or interpretations to which you object as you have been asked repeatedly per WP:NPOVD: "clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why.".  Colonel Warden (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've clearly and exactly explained, "Every part of the article has problems, and the article as a whole is especially problematic." I have not found any section that has sources used to balance the content per NPOV.  I've asked you to help me identify such sources and you've ignored my request. If you cannot identify even one, what am I to think? That you cannot identify any either?  That there are none? That you don't understand NPOV?
 * Again, this article is a POVFORK. --Ronz (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Now, this seems to mean that you are suggesting that all sources have an improper NPOV" What does it mean for a source to have an improper NPOV? --Ronz (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You keep avoiding the specifics which are required by the process. You say that there are numerous parts of the article with problems.  Please start listing them and specify what the problems are.  Until you do this, we cannot even begin to talk of balance because you have not stated any particular detail which is unbalanced or in what direction.  You talk of other sources but have yet to produce any to substantiate your personal opinion.  Colonel Warden (talk) 21:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you understand NPOV, given your comment above. I see no need to proceed further here if you are going to ignore each and every other topic and suggestion I bring up.  --Ronz (talk) 23:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I read through this discussion. I too would like to read what specific issues Ronz has with this article in terms of NPOV. Please explain what sections specifically you feel are in violation and please describe why. You may have valid points, but we can't know what they are if you don't explain them to us. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please show some indication that you have actually read the above discussions by making comments that follow WP:TALK, rather than just repeating comments that border on harassment. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 00:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please WP:AGF. I have indicated that I have read the above discussions. If you need more of an indication than that, then allow me to add that in all of my reading, I failed to see any place where you've backed up your NPOV violation claim with any sort of specific example. What I am kindly asking you to provide here now is such an example so I can weigh the merits of your NPOV violation claim. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming good faith. I'm looking for evidence that I should continue to do so. Please read WP:POVFORK if you haven't done so, as it describes the problems here. --Ronz (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that WP:POVFORK applies here. I don't think that an article which describes natural therapies for depression necessarily avoids any NPOV. We have many "alt med" type articles on Wikipedia. Are we to believe that each one of those is a fork? I think there is room to put both negative and positive aspects of this subject in this article. Of course, I may be missing something which you may see. If so, please enumerate why you think POVFORK applies here. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:CON says otherwise. And of course, this is not a vote.  Please follow WP:TALK and WP:CON.  Thanks!

A "natural therapy" is an ill-defined term. Trying to distinguish it from a pharmaceutical means avoiding science, mostly. That's fine, except there is no reason except for the fact that some fringe practitioners parlay the fear of modernity into a slick New Age package selling alternative quackjuice. Let's just keep all the treatments on the same page since they all deal with the same fundamental topic. If the page becomes too large, then we can properly fork. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Given the lead rewrite, I think what the editors here want to do is create a category of non-pharmaceutical treatements for depression. It's not clear though. --Ronz (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute...
Colonel Warden has asked me to take a look at this. I don't want to address the interpersonal issues that he has raised, as this would probably devolve into needless drama, but I advise that some discussion occur before major edits are made to this article. After the recent ill-considered move, we have both Treatment for depression and Treatment of depression, which is not good. After the AfD, we are presented with two options: merge both into one article, or preserve this one as a WP:SS spinout of the other. Could we stop the merging and moving for a minute and discuss this?  Sandstein  19:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry that it's a bit confusing. I'm a bit inexperienced at merges, and wanted to retain as much history as possible per Colonel Warden's concerns.  I thought that Treatment of depression as it exists would be deleted, and Treatment for depression would be renamed.  --Ronz (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Organizing Alternative treatment methods
Since there are so many of them, they should probably be organized into groups. I thought the Alternative_medicine might be good: --Ronz (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Whole medical systems
 * Mind-body medicine
 * Biologically based practices
 * Manipulative and body-based practices
 * Energy medicine

Merge discussion from Talk:Treatment of depression
As discussed in the above, I really see no need to segregate treatments for depression in this, if you will pardon the pun, artificial way. The topic can be treated with adequate depth and better style using this single article and main links to full discussions. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, thank you. The division is not artificial as there are numerous, voluminous sources with a specific focus upon natural therapies and so the topic is well-recognised.  There are also numerous pharmaceutical therapies for depression and there will be much confusion if we try to cover everything in one place.  Just addressing the natural therapies alone is already proving quite trying as we fuss over the details.  I suggest that Treatment of depression be renamed Pharmaceutical treatment of depression.  This is a substantial topic which will not be helped by wrangling over Reiki, Meditation, etc. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you have a reliable source which disambiguates the two? I haven't seen any presented. Even so, we can present them on the same page and fork later if this article becomes too big. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Everything that was worth keeping in that article is now here. There is still some cleanup work to do here, though. Thanks everyone for taking care of that awful piece of (expletive deleted) formally known as Depression and natural therapies. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

FRINGE, NPOV, SYN
Everything needs to be gone over with WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, and WP:SYN in mind, especially the content merged from Depression and natural therapies, where the problems have existed from article creation and were never resolved. --Ronz (talk) 02:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Light Therapy Ref
While cleaning up the light therapy section, I thought this reference to a recent study might be worth saving: The Can-SAD Study: a randomized controlled trial of the effectiveness of light therapy and fluoxetine in patients with winter seasonal affective disorder

--Ronz (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Strange assertions
I've removed an extremely dubious claim that meditation is "fraught with danger" (what kind of danger, anyway?) for depressed people, as well as a blurb about liver/gallbladder flushes. If anyone would like to re-add any of this stuff, I'd request a justification of it on the talk page. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Reiki
Can someone cite the "2008 systematic review of the current scientific research" about reiki? Someone obviously has the source, but neglected to cite it precisely. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. Don't know if it's the same systematic review as the previous author intended, but reaches the same conclusions. /skagedal</tt>... 14:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Extra bit
Because of the difficulties of carrying out controlled clinical trials of longer duration, the approval of most antidepressants for the prevention of recurrence is based on trials that lasted up to a year.

Could be added when a reliable source found. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Also see - Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Addition of some treatments
I am a therapist and researcher who specializes in non-pharmaceutical treatments for depression. There are several treatments not included in this section that have been shown to treat depression effectively. Some include volunteering, negative ion generators, and multiple nutritional supplements. Please review www.depressiontreatmentworks.org to see if you agree there are several treatments on that site that warrent inclusion. That site is fully referenced. Thank you Postcrypto (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Rant on this page and the above-suggested treatments to add
Sorry to be obvious, but people with severe depression cannot "volunteer" (as a treatment for depression) because they can't get out of bed, eat decently, or speak civilly to anyone, (to name just a few of numerous examples of symptoms of severe and even just moderate depression). Please qualify that statement if it is to be added anywhere on the main page. And, negative-ion generators (ozone generators) generate toxic gas (ozone), so I'm not sure how that helps people with depression or anyone else other than perhaps by further harming their health and our environment down here on earth (ozone is good up in the atmosphere, bad down here on earth). "Multiple nutritional supplements" (the general statement you made, to which I will respond generally) are actually combinations of DRUGS whose actual production (potency,cleanliness, etc.), let alone efficacy in treating depression, have not been FDA-approved, and often appear on the product recall lists due to quality control production problems. Hm. I wonder why? One such nutritional supplement underwent a serious FDA-approved clinical trial, but the trial had to be stopped due to serious side-effects on the users (including, I believe, life-threatening ones). Why is it better to take 8 "nutritional supplements" at a cost of a small fortune than one or two FDA-approved drugs? Every time you hear the word "nutritional supplement", you need to hear the word "drug" and not the word "natural" because plenty of things like ozone are "natural" but deadly--mercury, radium, arsenic, lead, and even beer in sufficient quantities. (No, I haven't been drinking, I'm just torqued after reading the disastrously outdated, "Management of depression"). It's horribly outdated in many places (1990 references? Really?), rarely states which levels of depression are helped by various treatments, includes treatments now thoroughly debunked or even dangerous, doesn't even mention modern gene therapy, and besides most of the non-FDA-approved drug treatments don't work for severe depression and can be dangerous because they're not being monitored by the FDA or your doctor, which fact is conveniently not mentioned. Someone with mild depression might benefit from bright light therapy in the winter, and it might help someone with severe depression a little, but who wants to sit within 14 inches of a VERY bright, VERY expensive light for hours each day ruining their eyesight just to get the slight benefit in depression that it provides? I'm frustrated because I have some of these answers from personal experience but can't figure out the ridiculously complex notations I'm supposed to use to get anything actually changed/updated on Wikipedia, not to mention the fact that women's ideas never seem to manage to make it to the front page around here so most of us leave or just lurk. The section on VNS therapy was particularly riddled with errors, and I swear I recognize quotes from the company's marketing brochures rather than their scientific results, which DID show it worked on a broad spectrum of symptoms--but very-long-term (I'm talking months to a year or more before seeing maximum benefits from it). Such a treatment shouldn't be panned because it doesn't fit in the typical 6-week trial box that most meds are limited to before the doctors decide they do or don't work. No offense, but we really need to cite SCIENTIFIC research (not small-scale anecdotal "studies") that was done in modern times (1990? Really??) and make darn sure that what we're saying hasn't since been disproven conclusively when we say things like "volunteering" and "poisonous gas generators" and "untested, impure drugs" used in various combinations/doses should be used to treat this life-threatening, high-morbidity, soul-sucking, and mostly misunderstood disease. Isn't "www.depressiontreatmentworks.org" on the quackwatch.com website now? If not, I recognize most of its treatments from reading the real MD.'s research on quackwatch. Volunteering, poisonous gas, and long-term exposure to blinding light don't require an MD, let alone the FDA, to see the problems with them, however. (end of rant by someone who's survived since birth with severe depression and stupid, useless treatments and idiotic comments about it for over 4 decades). Dorthea Glenn (talk) 05:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Balancing article

 * I can see psychotherapy bit needs expanding


 * So does antidepressants


 * Oh heck, I saw Antidepressant - this should be cleaned up and meebe brung here.

Anyway...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I added the unbalanced template to the top. The article really does need help. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey yeah, some interesting additions here...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm really overwhelmed by the problems. The primary problem is that we are using very different types of sources, which have very different levels of reliability and quality. We're presenting them in a way that invites comparison even when in most cases they are not comparable. --Ronz (talk) 02:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, maybe you need a cold shower...but seriously this is where weight and size can come in - i.e. have bigger paragraphs on things which have robust secondary refs, plus maybe some other material, and slim listings on the others. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Additional Information on Zinc
Most of the zinc found in the human body are located in the brain, mainly in the hippocampus and cerebral cortex area. Lack of zinc influences zinc homeostasis and leads to a change in learning, behavior, mood swings, mental function and epilepsy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kapric3 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Music Therapy
Studies have demonstrated that music can bring about different moods, conditioned by different emotional states. Music has the property of facilitating self-expression and in this way giving vent to disturbing emotional upheavals and dissipating them. Music has been proven that it can reach the sub-cortical centers of the brain and thereby helps to integrate the personality that is being disrupted by unhealthy emotions. Researchers have shown that music therapy is effective in patients. It has been shown that clinically depressed patients who were made to listen to soft, dissonant-free, melodic music gradually became more emotional and rhythmical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kapric3 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

What do I need to do to understand my woman depression.
Its hard some days, I just found out she has major depression....   Our relationship started normal, hot and spicy with a lot of social activities and bonding. Then all at once, one night she had just finished cooking and got super aggreviated.....then just left the house....  and now shes been distant for the last 2 months.....  she does try to spend time with me sometimes but not a lot of time....  and then we have no sex at all now.....    My question is how do I cope with this situation....   I always think about her and wonder when she is going to get out of this episode.....   I'm here to support her, I just need advice on how I deal with this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.155.69.49 (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You Should add in Religion
I've had depression about 2 times in my life and it was the worst experience of my life. However, I started to read my Holy Bible, and got really close to God, and I was so happy after that, that I could not even believe it. I strongly think that you should add this in, because I don't think that I'm the only one either.

24.94.242.109 (talk) 00:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)Jennifer


 * Actually, religion already has a section in the article. --sciencewatcher (talk) 04:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Moved from Depression (mood)
I don't have time at the moment to check if any of this information can and should be merged into this article. --Ronz (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Treatment
There exist a number of different treatments for depression: Antidepressants include clinical drugs like Prozac and herbal remedies like St John's Wort. Physical activity has been linked to the increase in blood serotonin after exercise, similar to the effects of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI). Research published by the American Medical Association concludes: Findings are consistent with a beneficial effect of physical activity on feelings of sadness and suicidal behaviors in Hispanic and non-Hispanic white boys and girls. Various initiatives promote dialogue and non-drug therapy, arguing that drugs should be only used as last resort in cases of depression. R U OK Day, an Australian initiative promoting depression awareness and dialogue, received nationwide media coverage at its inauguration on 29th November 2009.


 * That is just a summary of what is in this article - it doesn't need to be merged. I have put it back into the main depression article. --sciencewatcher (talk) 03:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Exercise in a natural setting
I removed some commentary about the effect of exercise in a natural (outdoor) setting because it was unsourced. I've just found



which concludes "This review has shown some promising effects on self-reported mental wellbeing immediately following exercise in nature which are not seen following the same exercise indoors. However, the interpretation and extrapolation of these findings is hampered by the poor methodological quality of the available evidence and the heterogeneity of outcome measures employed. The review demonstrates the paucity of high quality evidence on which to base recommendations and reveals an undoubted need for further research in this area." --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Sleep
The text on sleep is problematic. While controlled sleep deprivation is useful as an alternative measure for depression that has failed to respond to first-line measures, it can be harmful for people with subclinical depression seeking self-treatments. Chronic subclinical depression may hide a latent bipolar disorder, and sleep deprivation can set it off hard. This isn't a merely academic point -- bipolar mania is extremely destructive even in short bouts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.241.149.237 (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Study on Exercise by Chalder et al (2012)
I've removed the entry claiming that this study actually found out that exercise does not help with depression. The study was poorly designed and even more poorly reported by the media. It helps to actually know some statistics and science theory to understand a study. Here's a nice walkthrough (pun intended) why this study fails to source the removed statement: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/scicurious-brain/2012/06/11/exercise-doesnt-help-depression-lets-take-a-real-look-at-that-study/

--84.130.188.183 (talk) 12:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Magnesium
Up to sixty percent of cases of depression appear to be treatment resistant depression (TRD). In the Western world, magnesium (Mg) has been largely removed from processed foods, especially refined grains, which may be the cause of the great increase in the incidence of depression during the preceding 100 years. Inadequate brain Mg causes N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) coupled calcium channels to be biased towards opening causing neuronal injury and neurological dysfunction, a process that might result in MD. Oral administration of Mg to animals produced antidepressant-like effects. Brain Mg has been found low in TRD using phosphorous nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy, an accurate means for measuring brain Mg. Blood and cerebrospinal fluid Mg do not appear correlated with major depression. Brain Mg deficiency reduces serotonin levels. Antidepressant drugs have been shown to have the action of raising brain Mg. Excessive calcium, glutamate and aspartate intake can greatly worsen MD, especially where brain Mg is inadequate. The first report of Mg treatment for depression was published in 1921 showing success in 220 out of 250 cases of agitated depression. A 2008 clinical trial showed that Mg was as effective as the tricyclic antidepressant imipramine in treating MD in the elderly with type 2 diabetes. Magnesium oxide in treating depression was ineffective due to lack of bio-availablity. Although there appears to be sufficient evidence to implicate inadequate dietary Mg as contributing to the cause of MD; independent clinical trials are needed to confirm the efficacy of Mg in treating MD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeeby (talk • contribs) 07:13, 8 December 2013 ‎

Ketamine
There is evidence that ketamine can terminate depression within hours. See the ketamine page for details.


 * This drug is likely VERY important to the future of anti-depressant research. As we all know the main problem with the current batch of anti-depressant drugs is that they have a delayed effect, maybe weeks or even a month before they start to work.  With ketamine it is only hours.  Surely the side effects of ketamine will limit its legal use, but it will continue to be researched and some people, perhaps mainly those with suicidal idealization, will be given ketamine.  Therefore, I suggest that a link  be inserted on the Ketamine section (between section title and text) back to the main page for Ketamine, or perhaps to the anti-depressant section on the ketamine page.  Link shown above.

Jytdog, I don't know what your objection to the magnesium and ketaine entries is. Please explain to me how to do it right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeeby (talk • contribs) 07:13, 8 December 2013 ‎


 * Hi User:Georgeeby, first let me thank you for coming to Talk! So much better than edit warring.  The problems with each one are different. The ketamine one is the easiest and I will address that first.  Because Wikipedia is available under an open license, and an articles can be taken and used separately from the rest of Wikipedia, every article needs to stand on its own.  In a situation like this, a brief summary of the Ketamine/depression section should be used, with a Template:Main reference to that section at the top.   That said, I read the relevant section in the Ketamine article, and it needs a bunch of work.   The problems it suffers with, are similar to the problems with the new Magnesium section that you added.   And here it is - wikipedia's policy on sources is hereL {{WP:PSTS]] and it says that all Wikipedia content should be supported by reliable secondary sources.  There is an additional guideline for sourcing health-related content, which is here: WP:MEDRS.   MEDRS makes clear what kind of sources best fulfill PSTS for health related content, namely review articles that are published in the biomedical literature. The best articles, are systematic reviews (or "meta-analysis") of clinical trials  Cochrane reviews are the gold standard systematic reviews.  This article is pretty well sourced, and if you search it for )"meta-analysis", "systematic review" or "Cochrane" you will see that these sources are used a lot, especially in the section on emerging treatments.  When you want to generate new content in Wikipedia on a health related content, you should find a couple of recent systematic analyses, read them, and then write the content based on what those gold standard sources say (so many editors unfortunately do it backwards -- they decide what they want to write, and then go looking for sources that support that;  this leads to warped content more often than not).   Doing it right - reading authoritative sources and writing content that reflects them, ensures that content in our articles provides reliable, mainstream health information to readers that reflects the current scientific/medical consensus.   I hope you can see now why I wrote above that the antidepressant section of the Ketamine article is sourced very badly - that is something I will try to work on today.  Once I am done I will create a new section here for Ketamine.   And I hope this answers your question; thanks for asking.  I will be happy to explain more and help you find sources for magnesium, if you like.Jytdog (talk) 12:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Jytdog, Please work on both magnesium and ketamine.  I have no interest in getting into an edit war with you.  I have researched magnesium for depression for many years and am considered an expert by other magnesium researchers.  The best article for magnesium and depression is chapter 23 of this book.   I couldn't figure out how to cite it for Wickipedia.  When you get to the contents page, just click on chapter 23 and it will take you there.  The articles in this book are written by those considered to be the best experts in their field.  I think that work on ketamine will eventually solve the problem of depression.  Ketamine appears to have something to do with magnesium in the brain.  See   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeeby (talk • contribs) 15:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Georgeeby Thanks for replying! I am glad you have no interest in edit warring.  I checked out your contributions and it looks like you have a lot of interest in working on health related articles. We do have a great need for subject matter experts who play by the rules;  I do hope you read WP:MEDRS and abide by it.  While we greatly value subject matter experts, we value them for their knowledge of the subject matter and the literature, and their ability to very efficiently improve articles according to policy and guidelines.  I am emphasizing the rules, policies, and guidelines because neither your nor anybody else's personal authority is useful for actually sourcing content  (imagine the mayhem that would ensue here if it did!)  MEDRS is the guideline that allows us to have rational, civil conversations about how to source content on health related matters; that's why I hope you read it and abide by it.  Thanks again for talking.  (btw I read your (!) chapter 23;  there has been only 1 RCT, in a very small number of patients who were low in Mg, comparing Mg with Imipramine and there was no difference between the arms.  That is pretty tenuous evidence for efficacy - I do hear you that the biochemical basis and the animal models look promising.  But as we saw with the SELECT trial of Vitamin E and selenium, even the most promising treatments turn out to not work, or to even be harmful when they are adequately tested.   I do hope you are able to garner sufficient resources to do a robust, placebo controlled RCT so we can know whether Mg is safe and effective for MDD and in what subset(s) of patients.) Jytdog (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, I really don't care if magnesium and ketamine are on or off this wickipedia page. People can google magneesium and depression or ketamine and depression and make up ther own minds. I personally doubt that there will be much more research done on either of these topics since there is little to no money to be made by pharmaceutical companies on them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeeby (talk • contribs) 16:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I am sorry you place so little value on solid information being presented to the public.  With respect to funding the trial, i understand that problem well... for private money to flow there needs to be some incentive; that is only rational.  i have seen the problem of unpatentable, promising treatments languishing for lack of funding to properly test them, lots of times. Heck even promising patented interventions have a hard time getting funding from the private sector;  it is a very risky business.  However, the NIH sometimes funds these things - they paid for the SELECT trial I referenced above, and they paid for Phase II and III clinical trials of coenzyme Q in Parkinson's... the NIH would be your best bet.  But I am sure you know that.  Good luck! Jytdog (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Jytdog, I have placed solid information on magnesium and ketamine on Wickipedia and you took it off. What do you think about this page as a third party reference?   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeeby (talk • contribs) 17:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi George - please read WP:MEDRS - we cannot have a rational conversation if we are not considering the same criteria. (if you had read MEDRS you would not have suggested that article as a source; we have clear criteria) thanks Jytdog (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Jytdog, which article are you referring to when you write "you would not have suggested that article as a source"? Is it in the magnesium or ketamine part?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeeby (talk • contribs) 20:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I meant the psychology today article. Jytdog (talk) 00:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Jytdog, here is a brand new review that I didn't know was available. What do you think of this?   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeeby (talk • contribs) 20:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That is PERFECT! how great is that! Jytdog (talk) 00:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * your book chapter was great too, btw.Jytdog (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Jytdog, Is there a tool for creating reference for the "article" page? Or do we just tough it out?  If there is, please provide me a link to it.  Thanks, Georgeeby  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeeby (talk • contribs) 16:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Jytdog, While doing a search about magnesium and depression, I found this page  which shows that my 2010 Medical Hypotheses article (the one you didn't like} is one of the most cited articles published by them since 2008.  Pretty cool for an old country boy!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeeby (talk • contribs) 20:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)