Depression Treatment Wanes Following FDA Warnings
Peter and I, among others, were attacked for pointing out that hijacking of science surrounding the risks of antidepressants would lead to public health problems including an increase in suicide. In particular Shannon Brownlee and Jeanne Lenzer unleashed an ad hominem attack on both of us and Dr. Fred Goodwin that resulted in a witch hunt on Goodwin's reputation. Meanwhile the pseudo-scientific biases of Brownlee and Lenzer about the use of SSRIs in particular -- Brownlee claims that biochemically, "the drugs might trigger suicide and bipolar disorder" -- and asserts that there is no biological link between serotonin and depression (Scientology claptrap) or that doctors do not know which patients will respond to which meds (see the STAR-D trial for that) were used to fuel an attack not on the merits of the position but on funding sources.
Well, facts are stubborn things, particularly in biology where observation is...well, as Groucho Marx used to say, "who do you believe? Me or your eyes?" Scaremongering by Brownlee and Lenzer, combined with the witchhunt against shrinks who received pharma money allows those who "know" despite the data that SSRIs are a holocaust in waiting to dominate both the media and the mainstream medical journals who feed on each other.
And meanwhile the connective tissue between patient and doctor is shredded by fear. The public health suffers. People get sicker. They kill themselves.
Perhaps the relationship between industry and academia needs or needed a shakeup to focus more on risks and benefits. Industry deserves blame for not staying ahead of the curve on many of these issues and responding in a more timely fashion to potential problems. But the Brownlee and Lenzer school have an ideological approach to medicine: industry corrupts all it touches and it buries its pollution (the risks of its products) as a matter of policy. Much like the anti-vaccine groupies, in the face of mounting evidence they are wrong they find new excuses to remain unconvinced and unpersuaded.
We have seen the damage of their approach. They are partly responsible for promoting the decline in treatment and are responsible for the consequences.
Advisories led to 'unintended consequences,' researchers say
Posted June 1, 2009
By Karen Pallarito
HealthDay Reporter
MONDAY, June 1 (HealthDay News) -- Newly diagnosed cases of depression in America have dropped sharply since the government's warning of an increased risk of suicidal behavior among children and teens taking antidepressants, a new analysis finds.
Read more herePeter and I, among others, were attacked for pointing out that hijacking of science surrounding the risks of antidepressants would lead to public health problems including an increase in suicide. In particular Shannon Brownlee and Jeanne Lenzer unleashed an ad hominem attack on both of us and Dr. Fred Goodwin that resulted in a witch hunt on Goodwin's reputation. Meanwhile the pseudo-scientific biases of Brownlee and Lenzer about the use of SSRIs in particular -- Brownlee claims that biochemically, "the drugs might trigger suicide and bipolar disorder" -- and asserts that there is no biological link between serotonin and depression (Scientology claptrap) or that doctors do not know which patients will respond to which meds (see the STAR-D trial for that) were used to fuel an attack not on the merits of the position but on funding sources.
Well, facts are stubborn things, particularly in biology where observation is...well, as Groucho Marx used to say, "who do you believe? Me or your eyes?" Scaremongering by Brownlee and Lenzer, combined with the witchhunt against shrinks who received pharma money allows those who "know" despite the data that SSRIs are a holocaust in waiting to dominate both the media and the mainstream medical journals who feed on each other.
And meanwhile the connective tissue between patient and doctor is shredded by fear. The public health suffers. People get sicker. They kill themselves.
Perhaps the relationship between industry and academia needs or needed a shakeup to focus more on risks and benefits. Industry deserves blame for not staying ahead of the curve on many of these issues and responding in a more timely fashion to potential problems. But the Brownlee and Lenzer school have an ideological approach to medicine: industry corrupts all it touches and it buries its pollution (the risks of its products) as a matter of policy. Much like the anti-vaccine groupies, in the face of mounting evidence they are wrong they find new excuses to remain unconvinced and unpersuaded.
We have seen the damage of their approach. They are partly responsible for promoting the decline in treatment and are responsible for the consequences.
