[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...