Antidepressents; worthless or not?

[Guest guest]

A must read article by senior NEWSWEEK editor, Sharon Begley, who is widely

known for her ability to cut through the Bull and break down complex

scientific theories  writing about them in simple prose. Below she clearly

shows the market success of antidepressants is based on a mythology about

their effectiveness which is belied  the scientific evidence which has

consistently shown them to be essentially, worthless drugs.

" Yes, the drugs are effective, in that they lift depression in most

patients. But that benefit is hardly more than what patients get when they,

unknowingly and as part of a study, take a dummy pill-a placebo. As more and

more scientists who study depression and the drugs that treat it are

concluding, that suggests that antidepressants are basically expensive Tic

Tacs. "

Despite the consistent, replicated evidence, the number of Americans

prescribed antidepressants doubled in a decade, from 13.3 million in 1996 to

27 million in 2005, and sales  in 2008 reached $9.6 billion in the U.S.

In no small measure, the success of these ineffective, dangerous drugs, is

due to psychiatrists who turn a blind eye to the scientific evidence

analyzed by independent scientists, such as Irving Kirsch who demonstrated

that these drugs' beneficial effects were duplicated by the placebo.

For example, Begley cites psychiatry professor Friedman of Weill

Cornell Medical College whose numerous OpEd essays and letters to the editor

are published in The New York Times, giving him an aura of great authority.

His oft-repeated mantra echoes exactly drug manufacturers' hype:

" There is no question that the safety and efficacy of antidepressants rest

on solid scientific evidence. "

In fact, the difference on the 54-point rating scale that doctors use to

gauge the severity of depression (through subjective assessment of responses

to questions about mood, sleep habits, and the like) is consistently a

measly 1.8 points--hardly of any clinical significance.

" Maybe keeping patients in the dark about the ineffectiveness of

antidepressants, which for many are their only hope, is a kindness. Or maybe

not....more and more scientists believe it is time to abandon the " don't

ask, don't tell " policy of not digging too deeply into the reasons for the

effectiveness of antidepressants. Maybe it is time to pull back the curtain

and see the wizard for what he is. "

If anyone is serious about healthcare reform, surely third party

payers--private or public--should not divert scarce resources from

treatments that help serious illness to pay for " expensive tic tacs. "

FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted (C ) material the use of which

has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such

material is made available for educational purposes, to advance

understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and

social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair

use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C.

section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without

profit.

[Guest guest]

A must read article by senior NEWSWEEK editor, Sharon Begley, who is widely

known for her ability to cut through the Bull and break down complex

scientific theories  writing about them in simple prose. Below she clearly

shows the market success of antidepressants is based on a mythology about

their effectiveness which is belied  the scientific evidence which has

consistently shown them to be essentially, worthless drugs.

" Yes, the drugs are effective, in that they lift depression in most

patients. But that benefit is hardly more than what patients get when they,

unknowingly and as part of a study, take a dummy pill-a placebo. As more and

more scientists who study depression and the drugs that treat it are

concluding, that suggests that antidepressants are basically expensive Tic

Tacs. "

Despite the consistent, replicated evidence, the number of Americans

prescribed antidepressants doubled in a decade, from 13.3 million in 1996 to

27 million in 2005, and sales  in 2008 reached $9.6 billion in the U.S.

In no small measure, the success of these ineffective, dangerous drugs, is

due to psychiatrists who turn a blind eye to the scientific evidence

analyzed by independent scientists, such as Irving Kirsch who demonstrated

that these drugs' beneficial effects were duplicated by the placebo.

For example, Begley cites psychiatry professor Friedman of Weill

Cornell Medical College whose numerous OpEd essays and letters to the editor

are published in The New York Times, giving him an aura of great authority.

His oft-repeated mantra echoes exactly drug manufacturers' hype:

" There is no question that the safety and efficacy of antidepressants rest

on solid scientific evidence. "

In fact, the difference on the 54-point rating scale that doctors use to

gauge the severity of depression (through subjective assessment of responses

to questions about mood, sleep habits, and the like) is consistently a

measly 1.8 points--hardly of any clinical significance.

" Maybe keeping patients in the dark about the ineffectiveness of

antidepressants, which for many are their only hope, is a kindness. Or maybe

not....more and more scientists believe it is time to abandon the " don't

ask, don't tell " policy of not digging too deeply into the reasons for the

effectiveness of antidepressants. Maybe it is time to pull back the curtain

and see the wizard for what he is. "

If anyone is serious about healthcare reform, surely third party

payers--private or public--should not divert scarce resources from

treatments that help serious illness to pay for " expensive tic tacs. "

FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted (C ) material the use of which

has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such

material is made available for educational purposes, to advance

understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and

social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair

use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C.

section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without

profit.

[Guest guest]

A must read article by senior NEWSWEEK editor, Sharon Begley, who is widely

known for her ability to cut through the Bull and break down complex

scientific theories  writing about them in simple prose. Below she clearly

shows the market success of antidepressants is based on a mythology about

their effectiveness which is belied  the scientific evidence which has

consistently shown them to be essentially, worthless drugs.

" Yes, the drugs are effective, in that they lift depression in most

patients. But that benefit is hardly more than what patients get when they,

unknowingly and as part of a study, take a dummy pill-a placebo. As more and

more scientists who study depression and the drugs that treat it are

concluding, that suggests that antidepressants are basically expensive Tic

Tacs. "

Despite the consistent, replicated evidence, the number of Americans

prescribed antidepressants doubled in a decade, from 13.3 million in 1996 to

27 million in 2005, and sales  in 2008 reached $9.6 billion in the U.S.

In no small measure, the success of these ineffective, dangerous drugs, is

due to psychiatrists who turn a blind eye to the scientific evidence

analyzed by independent scientists, such as Irving Kirsch who demonstrated

that these drugs' beneficial effects were duplicated by the placebo.

For example, Begley cites psychiatry professor Friedman of Weill

Cornell Medical College whose numerous OpEd essays and letters to the editor

are published in The New York Times, giving him an aura of great authority.

His oft-repeated mantra echoes exactly drug manufacturers' hype:

" There is no question that the safety and efficacy of antidepressants rest

on solid scientific evidence. "

In fact, the difference on the 54-point rating scale that doctors use to

gauge the severity of depression (through subjective assessment of responses

to questions about mood, sleep habits, and the like) is consistently a

measly 1.8 points--hardly of any clinical significance.

" Maybe keeping patients in the dark about the ineffectiveness of

antidepressants, which for many are their only hope, is a kindness. Or maybe

not....more and more scientists believe it is time to abandon the " don't

ask, don't tell " policy of not digging too deeply into the reasons for the

effectiveness of antidepressants. Maybe it is time to pull back the curtain

and see the wizard for what he is. "

If anyone is serious about healthcare reform, surely third party

payers--private or public--should not divert scarce resources from

treatments that help serious illness to pay for " expensive tic tacs. "

FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted (C ) material the use of which

has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such

material is made available for educational purposes, to advance

understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and

social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair

use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C.

section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without

profit.

[Guest guest]

A must read article by senior NEWSWEEK editor, Sharon Begley, who is widely

known for her ability to cut through the Bull and break down complex

scientific theories  writing about them in simple prose. Below she clearly

shows the market success of antidepressants is based on a mythology about

their effectiveness which is belied  the scientific evidence which has

consistently shown them to be essentially, worthless drugs.

" Yes, the drugs are effective, in that they lift depression in most

patients. But that benefit is hardly more than what patients get when they,

unknowingly and as part of a study, take a dummy pill-a placebo. As more and

more scientists who study depression and the drugs that treat it are

concluding, that suggests that antidepressants are basically expensive Tic

Tacs. "

Despite the consistent, replicated evidence, the number of Americans

prescribed antidepressants doubled in a decade, from 13.3 million in 1996 to

27 million in 2005, and sales  in 2008 reached $9.6 billion in the U.S.

In no small measure, the success of these ineffective, dangerous drugs, is

due to psychiatrists who turn a blind eye to the scientific evidence

analyzed by independent scientists, such as Irving Kirsch who demonstrated

that these drugs' beneficial effects were duplicated by the placebo.

For example, Begley cites psychiatry professor Friedman of Weill

Cornell Medical College whose numerous OpEd essays and letters to the editor

are published in The New York Times, giving him an aura of great authority.

His oft-repeated mantra echoes exactly drug manufacturers' hype:

" There is no question that the safety and efficacy of antidepressants rest

on solid scientific evidence. "

In fact, the difference on the 54-point rating scale that doctors use to

gauge the severity of depression (through subjective assessment of responses

to questions about mood, sleep habits, and the like) is consistently a

measly 1.8 points--hardly of any clinical significance.

" Maybe keeping patients in the dark about the ineffectiveness of

antidepressants, which for many are their only hope, is a kindness. Or maybe

not....more and more scientists believe it is time to abandon the " don't

ask, don't tell " policy of not digging too deeply into the reasons for the

effectiveness of antidepressants. Maybe it is time to pull back the curtain

and see the wizard for what he is. "

If anyone is serious about healthcare reform, surely third party

payers--private or public--should not divert scarce resources from

treatments that help serious illness to pay for " expensive tic tacs. "

FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted (C ) material the use of which

has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such

material is made available for educational purposes, to advance

understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and

social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair

use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C.

section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without

profit.