61 responses to “The antidepressant-debunking study”

  1. frozenrhino

    I’m not saying this is Wikipedia

    BWAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    D00d. You just made me snort peanut butter out my nose.

    PEANUT BUTTER.

  2. skepticle

    Werd.

    Still would like to know more…

  3. Anonymous

    Peer-review

    That is the definition of peer review. Every journal does that. You have a “stable” of reviewers that you can call on regularly – they are called “Academic Editors” but are not employees, just regular referees for the Journal’s papers. Those inner-circle reviewers than choose additional outer-circle reviewers (from the global scientific community) who are the experts in the field. Both the Academic Editors and the outside reviewers review the manuscripts. Then they and the authors work together with Editors – the paid journal staff – to make the paper better.

    If that is not peer-review, I don’t know what is.

  4. klikitak

    SIX WEEKS?!

    I don’t follow many outcomes or samples, but how much can you really detect in such a short time?

    1. klikitak

      zing!

      I will take the trampoline though.

      1. handstil

        Re: zing!

        trampoline for momons ONLY!

  5. etb

    I’m not saying this is Wikipedia, but it’s not the same thing as a traditional journal, either.

    I don’t see how the section you quoted distinguishes PLoS Medicine from a “traditional journal” (by which I guess you mean a toll-access journal?).

    1. catamorphism

      Quite. The bit you () quoted actually doesn’t prove that PLoS Medicine is any different from a non-free journal — proving that it is different would require more details about who PLoS’s professional staff are and how their qualifications compare to the qualifications of non-free journals’ editorial staff (within the same field).

  6. handstil

    6 weeks! I don’t decide if I like a shampoo is 6 weeks!

  7. consonantia

    Oh wow, what a bomb. Thanks for the link.

    It’s interesting because I just read a chapter of Peter Kramer’s Listening to Prozac for my Medical Ethics class. He is all about how incredibly well Prozac works, not only for depression but also for “rejection sensitivity” and whatnot, and he cites lots of cases from his own practice where, according to him, he used the drug to good effect. If I understand him correctly — this wasn’t in the particular chapter I read, but I extrapolated — he used the drug in fact to diagnose people in certain instances; I think that’s what he means by “listening” to a medicine. The book is all about how Prozac can possibly be used cosmetically, not to treat depression but to enhance personality traits. And wow, if Prozac really isn’t effective for depression (six weeks of it at least) — that really is a bomb!

  8. springheel_jack

    He did meta-analysis on just short-term studies because those were the ones that were submitted with the original new-drug application. He also got a bunch of other comparable studies from the literature. The idea was to do a re-analysis of the data that the FDA used to approve the drug, only using the wider pool of similar studies available now.

    This is the third time he’s done exactly the same meta-analysis. He has a big fancy metaphysical theory about the placebo effect, about its separate existence as a real, clinical thing (I personally don’t agree, but it’s not here or there), and his attacks on psych drugs are in that context. Every time he does one of these meta-studies, the profession looks at them and says something like, “even for a meta-analysis this is tendentious. You fit curves to obvious outliers, cherry-pick the data sets, and so-on. But still, it’s suggestive, given that everyone’s data is showing similarly that these drugs are not as effective as we want. It’s time for more, bigger longitudinal studies to nail this down.” Then nobody does those. Then he releases yet another identical meta-analysis of essentially the same data and it gets the same headlines, and so on and on.

  9. Anonymous

    Antidepressants Don’t Work

    The study only points out what many of us have been seeing. All of us have different DNA and different metabolisms. Some herbs and vitamins work better than others. The first thing that is needed is proper nutrition and a good physical exam. As the director of Novus Medical Detox, I often see patients who are on alcohol or opioids, central nervous system depressants, also taking antidepressants. When they detox they find they don’t need the antidepressants.

    This is good news because a Swedish study showed that 52% of the 2006 suicides by women on antidepressants. Since antidepressants work no better than placebos and are less effective than exercise in dealing with depression.

    There is a prescription drug epidemic and these are leaders in the list of terrible abuses.

    Steve Hayes
    http://novusdetox.com

  10. la_lisa

    I smell CCHR (Citizen’s Committee on Human Rights) at work here, the Scientology fronth group that hates psychiatry. Granted, I do agree with them that too many meds are rx’ed to kids (Ablify for pre-teens, holy mother of god). And I do see a lot of “throw a pill at her” family doctors (like my friend’s wife who takes a prozac every three days–not the time release one for PMS either) a sub clinical level and has been doing ttis for 6 years because according to her she is menopausal, wiht no cognitive therapy or anything else–and no suggestion ot lay off the booze and pot either> Idiots.

    Anyway this journal looks like a crock, the study is a crock and while I am a firm believer in diet, nutrition and exercise to help the body do its thing, I also think that sometimes the body needs extra help in the form of neuro-supliments like SSRIs etc.

    CCHR has managed ot get a few articles placed recently and this just smells like their crap.

    Bring on the lithium crystals, Scottie! No wonder Spock was so mellow.

    Abilify for kids is BS though. Exercise, no sugar, decent parenting.

Leave a Reply