Allen, Seriously. These two articles are ancient history now. With the recent revelations that the published body of articles is itself a highly biased sample of the research that has actually been conducted (essentially, if you didn't get a positive effect, you didn't get published), there is little doubt that the "new" anti-depressants have a serious credibility problem now. My main suspicion, however, is that this has been allowed to come out by the drug companies at this point because the patents on most of these drugs are now running out. So they will be in a position to simultaneously denounced their old newly-unprofitable just as they are gearing up to announce a new generation of (even more expensive) "breakthrough" drugs, and the sorry cycle will start again. The only way to avoid this on into eternity is to undo the scientific (not to mention human) damage done when, in the Reagan era, government essentially handed over to the drug companies themselves the "responsibility" for doing the safety and effectiveness testing on their own products. How anyone could have ever thought that was an intellectually sustainable regime is totally beyond me, but for those who couldn't see the obvious, the data are now in.
Regards, -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ "Part of respecting another person is taking the time to criticise his or her views." - Melissa Lane, in a /Guardian/ obituary for philosopher Peter Lipton ================================= Allen Esterson wrote: > On 25 February 2008 Paul Okami wrote on the Kirsch et al article on > anti-depressants: > >> For those who want to read the paper and not a news report, your can read >> it at PloS: >> > http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=index-html&issn=1549-167 > 6 > > >> It's by Irving Kirsch who has been blowing the whistle on these @#%$ >> drugs for years. >> > > And before there is uncritical acceptance of Kirsch et al's meta-analysis, > he's also been subjected to severe critical analysis: > "Listening to Meta-Analysis but Hearing Bias" > http://content.apa.org/journals/pre/1/2/6 > > There really are two sides to this debate: See, e.g., > F. M. Quitkin, J. G . Rabkin, J. Gerald, J. M. Davis, and D. F. Klein > "Validity of Clinical Trials of Antidepressants" > Am J. Psychiatry 157: 3, March 2000, pp. 327-337 > > http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/157/3/327 > > Allen Esterson > Former lecturer, Science Department > Southwark College, London > http://www.esterson.org > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > > --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
