[astazangasta]

Most medications DON'T work for most people. For example here[1] is a meta-analysis from 2004 of the top 6 antidepressants which finds that 80% of the effect is achieved by placebo, and the remaining effect is statistically, but not clinically, significant (that is, the effect size is tiny). Here[2] is another follow-up that shows that there may be effects only in the most severely-depressed patients. In addition the theoretical foundation of many drugs is lacking - the seratonin theory underlying SSRIs, for example, is now widely rejected (although SSRIs continue to be prescribed for some reason probably relating to drug company profits).

Given the well-known addictive nature of most anti-depressants, I have always advised my friends to steer away from them, or wean themselves off, and favor talking therapies instead. Everyone else should do the same.

[1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228550299_The_Emper...

[2] https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jo...

[DanBC]

Do you know you're listing a paper widely described as one of the most controversial psychology papers?

Here's a response, using the same data, but getting different results: https://annals-general-psychiatry.biomedcentral.com/articles...

> The results reported here conclude the debate on the efficacy of antidepressants and suggest that antidepressants are clearly superior to placebo. They also suggest that baseline severity cannot be utilized to dictate whether the treatment should include medication or not. Suggestions like this, proposed by guidelines or institutions (e.g. the NICE), should be considered mistaken.

[astazangasta]

I'd expect any paper that shits on an entire field and especially on a massively profitable industry to be controversial. Here is Kirsch's reply to Fountolakis's paper, by the way: https://academic.oup.com/ijnp/article/15/8/1193/659638

[DanBC]

Note that in this case it's psychologists calling the paper controversial. Psychologists in BPS, the organisation that put out shit like Understanding Psychosis[0] or Power Threat Meaning Framework[1] - for an anti-psychiatry organisation to call an anti-psychiatry document "controversial" shows the document is pretty poor.

[0]Here are links to critiques of both version of Understanding Psychosis: https://www.nationalelfservice.net/mental-health/psychosis/u...

https://www.nationalelfservice.net/mental-health/schizophren...

[1] Here's a link to critiques of PTMFramework https://www.nationalelfservice.net/mental-health/power-threa...

[atomical]

Do none of your friends have severe depression? CBT doesn't work for severe depression without medication in my experience.

[denerio-a]

That seems a strange reply to a comment that acknowledged medication only really has a real effect in severe cases.

Even for a friend who is severely depressed, which medication will work? How long does each one need to be tried for? What is meant by ‘work’ exactly? Meanwhile, the serious side effects aren’t even fully understood, and you’ll be buying them from companies that actively denied and hid such information from legislators and the public.

[atomical]

You're taking my comment completely out of context. Please reread.