corner
Healthy Skepticism
Join us to help reduce harm from misleading health information.
Increase font size   Decrease font size   Print-friendly view   Print
Register Log in

Healthy Skepticism Library item: 11005

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

 

Publication type: Journal Article

Moncrieff J.
In Debate: Are Antidepressants as Effective as Claimed? No, They Are Not Effective at All
Can J Psychiatry 2007 Feb; 52:(2):96–97
http://publications.cpa-apc.org/media.php?mid=328


Abstract:

Antidepressant drugs are claimed to have specific effects on depressive symptoms. It is assumed that they do this by acting on an abnormal brain state that gives rise to depression. In contrast, I suggest that there is no evidence for this position. The effects of antidepressants seen in depression trials can easily be accounted for by nonspecific pharmacologic and psychological actions.


Notes:

Free full text at Can J Psychiatry site

Links to rest of debate:

Are Antidepressants as Effective as Claimed? Yes, But . . .
Lakshmi Ravindran, Sidney H Kennedy
http://publications.cpa-apc.org/media.php?mid=325

Rebuttal: Depression Is Not a Brain Disease
Joanna Moncrieff
http://publications.cpa-apc.org/media.php?mid=329

Response to Dr Moncrieff
Lakshmi Ravindran, Sidney H Kennedy
http://publications.cpa-apc.org/media.php?mid=326

 

  Healthy Skepticism on RSS   Healthy Skepticism on Facebook   Healthy Skepticism on Twitter

Please
Click to Register

(read more)

then
Click to Log in
for free access to more features of this website.

Forgot your username or password?

You are invited to
apply for membership
of Healthy Skepticism,
if you support our aims.

Pay a subscription

Support our work with a donation

Buy Healthy Skepticism T Shirts


If there is something you don't like, please tell us. If you like our work, please tell others.

Email a Friend








Cases of wilful misrepresentation are a rarity in medical advertising. For every advertisement in which nonexistent doctors are called on to testify or deliberately irrelevant references are bunched up in [fine print], you will find a hundred or more whose greatest offenses are unquestioning enthusiasm and the skill to communicate it.

The best defence the physician can muster against this kind of advertising is a healthy skepticism and a willingness, not always apparent in the past, to do his homework. He must cultivate a flair for spotting the logical loophole, the invalid clinical trial, the unreliable or meaningless testimonial, the unneeded improvement and the unlikely claim. Above all, he must develop greater resistance to the lure of the fashionable and the new.
- Pierre R. Garai (advertising executive) 1963