RainAndSadness
Administrator
- Jun 12, 2018
- 2,146
Why is the science you agree with more valid that the science you dont like?
There are plenty of studies that demonstrate the efficacy of antidepressants.
You mean studies that were funded and approved by the pharma industry? You're naive if you really believe money doesn't play a big role here. They don't publish studies which portray anti-depressants in a bad light, obviously - which is also explained in the meta-study which I've linked previously. Studies that remained unpublished showed smaller efficiency of anti-depressants than published ones. I wonder why...
Again, read the study which I've linked.
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/6/e024886
Here is a snippet of the conclusion:
Publication bias of antidepressant trials is pervasive and distorts the evidence base. Many industry funded antidepressant trials remain unpublished or are inadequately reported. Cipriani included 436 published and 86 unpublished studies, but as many as a thousand antidepressant studies may have been conducted. We did a random-effects meta-analysis of the placebo comparisons according to publication status and found that the average effect size was lower in unpublished studies than in published studies. Our findings are very similar to those reported by Turner in 2008 of published versus unpublished antidepressant trials registered by the United States Food and Drug Administration[...].
Here is more research:
Many Antidepressant Studies Found Tainted by Pharma Company Influence
A review of studies that assess clinical antidepressants shows hidden conflicts of interest and financial ties to corporate drugmakers
www.scientificamerican.com
[...]people who read scientific papers as part of their jobs have come to rely on meta-analyses, supposedly thorough reviews summarizing the evidence from multiple trials, rather than trust individual studies. But a new analysis casts doubt on that practice as well, finding that the vast majority of meta-analyses of antidepressants have some industry link, with a corresponding suppression of negative results.
Almost 80 percent of meta-analyses in the review had some sort of industry tie, either through sponsorship, which the authors defined as direct industry funding of the study, or conflicts of interest, defined as any situation in which one or more authors were either industry employees or independent researchers receiving any type of industry support (including speaking fees and research grants). Especially troubling, the study showed about 7 percent of researchers had undisclosed conflicts of interest.
Last edited: