Strong Reactions to 'Antidepressants Ineffective' Study
"People are completely missing the point of this paper and all the other recent re-investigations, the true social and clinical consequences of them. For example: they're saying antidepressants are no good. Ok. What do you think doctors are going to use instead? Psychoanalysis? Nothing? They're going to prescribe antipsychotics. Are you listening to me? I'm not even saying this is clinically wrong to do, but do you not see the setup?"
Ben Goldacre at Badscience, meanwhile, like some of the commenters here on PsyBlog, pointed out it didn't tell us much we didn't already know. But the real target of Ben's article is the failure to successfully regulate Big Pharma:
"This new study - published, ironically, in an open access journal - tells a fascinating story of buried data, and of our collective failure, as a society, over half a century, to adequately regulate the colossal $550bn pharmaceutical industry."
He also pointed out several errors in the reporting of the study, one of which I made myself by talking about SSRI antidepressants. In fact two of the drugs included were nefazodone and venlafaxine, neither of which are SSRIs. I made the mistake of trusting the 'editor's summary' that is published with the article in PLoS Medicine.
Finally for an international perspective on this story, Furious Seasons points out the near-silence on this study in the US:
"I am stunned that in Seattle--the most depressed city in America--that neither of the daily newspapers ran so much as an AP wire account of the study--at least as far as I know. That's weird. But then the New York Times has been mum to date as well. That's even weirder."
» If you enjoyed this post, subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS).
Labels: Depression
4 comments
This story DID make Reuters at least so it hasn't been utterly ignored by larger media groups. http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2527622020080226 The drug company Glaxo Smith Kline's response was that the data looked at was only from before the drug was submitted for US approval. If the drug hasn't changed why should that make a difference?
Bravo PsyBlog.
I'm an avid reader, first time poster... just wanted to add in comment to "What do you think doctors are going to use instead?" by The Last Psychiatrist as quoted --- when will others realise that drugs only treat the SYMPTOMS of the problem... not the problem itself.
How about using hypnotherapy? I'm a cognitive hypnotherapist and have been using very effective drug free treatment for depression for years... which doesn't take years to work.
Since CBT is considered the most successful of all theraputic approaches according to research, just think how combining this being able to work with the unconscious mind can work... it's brilliant.
Sorry didn't mean for this to be a plug... just love what I do.
Brenda Bentley
In response to the post by Brenda Bentley...
It's great that you love what you do and obviously are seeing success in your methods, but hypnotherapy does not work for everyone.
And it may well be true that antidepressants just mask or deal with the symptoms however in some cases it comes down to a choice between using them and having some semblance of a normal life or going into long term analysis costing a fortune and maybe getting some progress there - although there are no guarantees.
I think some of the reanalysis of the data suggest it gives a slanted view at best. But in the end depression is a symptom with many causes. I suspect the many behavioural and pharmacological options would all work better if combined with a thorough diagnistic process with careful individual follow up.