The media excitement over the antidepressant meta-analysis occurred because the psychiatric consensus — that the drugs work moderately well — is not the message they’d heard.
-
-
-
My impression was that everyone except Kirsch and a handful of his followers would overestimate antidepressant efficacy if asked. Do you think the opposite?
-
David Healey would be another. But I find that many people in the humanities and social science will explain to me how antidepressants are ineffective or harmful, and cite the scandals.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Also worth noting, all psychoactive drugs affect other functions of the brain as well. (Entropy says probably for the worse.) A small positive outcome on what is being measured (in this case the Hamilton Rating Scale?) does not necessarily equate a net positive outcome overall.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Idk how to comment on your blog so I’ll just tell you here. You’re source link for 5.4.2 of the Anti-Reactionary FAQ is not there.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Great follow up article! My problem with anti-depressants is that depression, to me, is a very effective canary in the coal mine. Using antidepressants too often just kills the canary, but they do help sometimes.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks! There is also this: https://twitter.com/newscientist/status/966667422454435846 … (paywalled unfortunately)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.