| > Ooh, here come the Scientologists! So, because some critics of psychiatry are Scientologists, therefore all critics of psychiatry are Scientologists? I can only recommend a crash course in logic. > to say with such grandiose broad-stroked generalizing that psychiatry (or, perhaps you mean instead/also neurological pharmacology) is not science is simply untrue. The burden is not on critics to prove that psychiatry isn't a science, the burden is on psychiatry to prove that it is (for the history-illiterate, it has never been a science and many of its staunchest advocates freely admit this, including Freud). The recent NIMH ruling, to which I alluded in my post above, suggests that the granting agencies aren't going to wait for that burden of evidence to be met ---- psychiatry is not a science, is not an evidence-based practice, and can't masquerade as such without evidence. > Anyone with Google at their fingertips can find a dozen peer-reviewed articles about serotonin's link to mood and behavior. Yes, and there's a name for that: confirmation bias. Have you bothered to ask yourself how the FDA could come out and say that SSRIs don't actually work, and how that meta-analysis could coexist what all those other studies that claim otherwise? And how could this most recent study, which shows no correlation between serotonin and depression, survive the critical eyes of editors and reviewers to find its way into print? The FDA meta-analysis, which for the first time included studies that the drug companies funded but then chose not to publish, and which showed no clinically significant effect from SSRIs, is not by itself conclusive, but the silence that followed it certainly is. There are too many interested parties involved for that study to go unchallenged ... if a challenge were possible. This most recent study simply shows why SSRIs don't work -- because serotonin and depression aren't correlated, therefore SSRIs cannot possibly work, in principle. |