I'm always alarmed by medical research that only looks at a little piece of a much bigger

Take a recent study out of Italy that concluded that Zoloft and Lexapro are the best antidepressants. The catch? They're the "best" only when compared to the current generation of other Big Pharma antidepressants.

The study didn't compare them to any other form of treatment. Not one!

It's like two men at the top of a Montana cliff arguing over the best way down – jumping over the top or tumbling down the side – all the while ignoring a nearby path.

But to me, the bottom line is still the bottom line: None of these pills will help your body make more serotonin or dopamine, the two crucial neurotransmitters that patients battling depression need.

That's a little like selling an anti-balding treatment that won't help you grow more hair.

And then there are those famous side effects. These pills come with a barnyard full of them, including nausea, insomnia, diarrhea and sexual side effects, not to mention withdrawal symptoms when trying to get off them. 

And yet this study has somehow decided which of these are "best." As if the best out of a series of bad choices might somehow be a good choice.

Call me old-fashioned, but that's just not how I practice medicine.

The real question isn't which drug is the best, but whether people should be taking any drug at all when battling depression, especially when there are ways to treat and manage it without costly and addictive prescriptions and horrible side effects.

Heck, even plain old exercise has been shown to be as effective as Zoloft, and the most common side effect of that is general fitness and overall good health.

But Big Pharma won't make a dime off that.