CBC: Antidepressant drugs do work, review on almost 120,000 patients concludes

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/antidepressants-meta-analysis-1.4546709 

 

 

Oh Lapis, I feel sick... it's on the CBC website. 

I know, benzohno. I do try to keep an open mind when I see things like this, but I can't help but wonder if they're aware of all of the studies where they cover up the negative effects and only report the positive ones. I guess these things work for some people, but let's just hope they don't get any of the nasty side effects, including bone density issues, low sodium, sexual dysfunction issues, dizziness, etc. It's a long list. And once they start taking them, they might not be able to stop. The withdrawal can be just as debilitating as benzo withdrawal.

 

AHHHHHHH, I could go on, but maybe I shouldn't. 

What about this article that benzohno posted yesterday? http://cepuk.org/2018/02/22/antidepressants-work-new-research-proves-nothing-new/

 

Or is it drowned out by the many articles touting that they work? Did they bother to do long-term studies??? From the Lancet: We recorded the outcomes as close to 8 weeks as possible for all analyses.9 If information at 8 weeks was not available, we used data ranging between 4 and 12 weeks (we gave preference to the timepoint closest to 8 weeks; if equidistant, we took the longer outcome). We checked trial protocols where available and compared published with unpublished data. We extracted data following a predefined hierarchy described in our protocol and gave priority to unpublished information in case of disagreement.8

 

THAT IS NOT A LONG STUDY. That is more like a "honeymoon" study, which always galls me.

Our local CBC Radio morning show had an interview with a doctor about this report, and I was livid when he described how good antidepressants are. He said nothing about the realities of poor results, side effects and brutal withdrawal symptoms.

 

It seems like this one report will give the green light to any doctor who wants to prescribe pills rather than offer counselling or a non-drug option.  The negatives will not be discussed, and people will wonder why they feel so bad when taking the drugs. I fear what will happen if the number of prescriptions for these meds rise even more.

I think we will always believe what we want to believe. If we’re off ADs, we prefer to believe they don’t work. If we’re on them, we have to believe they do. But what knowledge do we really have to prove anything? How much do we know about human brain chemistry? Are we psychiatrists, medical students? Have we followed patients on/off ADs?

 

All we have is our own experience with ADs. If we took ADs with other psych meds, we cannot really say if they worked. Watching some TV Program, which may be sponsored by Big Pharma, isn’t the best source of knowledge.

 

I think it’s fine to be off psych meds. But for some ppl, it’s just not an option. And these ppl are not worse than those off psych meds. They’re just more sick. I condider ADs a "lesser evil". I think a human brain’s chemistry can be sometimes so screwed up that it takes an AD to fix it. Or an AP in case of a schizophrenic/psychotic.

Yesterday was a very upsetting day for us in the UK.  The media was awash with this study of antidepressants which was published in The Lancet.  The Science Media Centre feeds information to the media and obviously this was orchestrated by psychiatry to mislead and misinform the public whilst shoring up the image of psychiatry.  The study is a meta-analysis of hundreds of studies and concludes that A/Ds are effective over an 8 WEEK PERIOD for major depressive disorder.  There are many criticisms, here are some letters published today. It was announced as if it was the definitive study on antidepressants.  It was further reported that an additional one million patients in the UK should be on the drugs.  How irresponsible.  The NHS cannot cope with the patients it already has in the system.  It is estimated that almost one million patients are on antidepressants for no good clinical reason and should be coming off them.  However, we have no effective methods of tapering off antidepressants at present and current tapering guidelines are not fit for purpose as they are based on short term studies much like the paper in the Lancet.

 

I really hope that psychiatry has scored an own goal here, they looked absolutely ridiculous and it was clear this was an orchestrated media campaign designed purely for self-interest.  There has been a backlash on Twitter.  I doubt if the public was fooled by this. 

 

There are more critical voices in the press

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2161911-almost-every-antidepressant-headline-youll-read-today-is-wrong/

 

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/23/why-we-are-sceptical-of-antidepressant-analysis?CMP=twt_a-science_b-gdnscience

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-5424917/John-Naish-disagrees-study-says-antidepressants-work.html

 

And from Prof David Healy on Twitter.

 

"The Cipriani paper discussed today is junk.  It is based on ghostwritten papers with no access to the data.  No one - not MHRA or FDA have had access - none of the notional authors of these papers have had access - none can let an independent expert see what the data shows"

 

Best wishes

 

Fiona 

For me, I would have liked to have been told about the side effects -- low sodium, lowered bone density, sexual issues, dizziness, withdrawal, etc. Had I known about those things, I wouldn't have taken them.  I just fractured my foot a few months ago due to osteopenia and dizziness, and I regret having taken an SSRI, which likely made those issues worse. As well, the combination of benzos and SSRIs can be result in serious side effects, depending on one's genetics.

 

Taking a brain chemistry-altering medication leads to unknown effects in each individual. Now that I know the truth, I would have said that the risks were too high for me to accept such a prescription. I will always regret that decision.

Oh no, Lapis, I am sorry.  I hope your foot heals up.  I have osteopenia too .. no doubt the drugs have contributed to it.

 

Take care

 

Fiona 

This sounds like the repeat of the 1990's, when here in the United States, the doctors were discouraged from prescribing benzodiazepines to patients who hadn't been on them long term and had been encouraged to prescribe anti-depressants, instead. I remember that well. I think that in that particular narrow context, an AD prescription is a lesser evil. But then again, starting with 00's, the benzos were starting to be prescribed to people on AD's, as well. I firmly believe that AD's should be avoided in people who have been on benzos long term, and that benzos should be avoided in people who have been on AD's for a while. And of course, the two classes of drugs should not be prescribed concurrently. Just a bad idea for all involved. Giving an AD to someone who has been on benzos long terms is like pouring gasoline to the fire.

 

The call for more people on antidepressants is a bad one this time around, as more and more people are already on 1 psychiatric drug or more, and adding an anti-depressant is not really that good of an idea. Also, there are many antidepressants with a lot of bad side effects, so it's good to be mindful before making a decision to take them. Some of the side effects listed on antidepressant labels as rare are sometimes not that rare.....

Thank you for all the updates on this thread.  I haven't read the righteous backlash in the press yet, but I will. I still feel destroyed after all that happened yesterday. My mind would not stop spinning last night.  It still is.

 

I read the 3,000 replies after the Daily Mail article and thankfully and surprisingly the vast majority of the public who responded knew they were being had.  I think they've been keeping up to date with all the articles about AD's that preceded that one.  I up-voted and down-voted as I saw fit and that at least made me feel like I had a voice.  A great many of the comments were understandably angry rants at the Daily Mail for the way they framed the subject and at the pharmaceutical companies.  Fiona, I recognized your comments and you were articulate and knowledgeable as usual.  Why I was the only one to up-vote you, I do not know.  Perhaps what you said was either stunning or over people's heads.  No one even replied.  Maybe they are pondering, as they well should.

 

I have nothing but regret for all the years I trusted the psychiatrists I worked for and the two I saw.  I swallowed those pills that I truly believed were helping me.  It is abundantly clear to me now the damage they have done and in retrospect how much more physically and mentally sick I became.  I hope those that follow will be able to see through this massive deception. 

 

Here is Dr. Peter Goeszsche's response on CEPUK to that review that I posted yesterday on the other threads:

 

"Cipriani review does not add anything":

 

http://cepuk.org/2018/02/22/peter-gotzsche-cipriani-review-not-add-anything/

I think we will always believe what we want to believe. If we’re off ADs, we prefer to believe they don’t work. If we’re on them, we have to believe they do. But what knowledge do we really have to prove anything?

 

We know that since these drugs became common "treatments", mental illness has increased exponentially. Maybe there are some people who benefit from them but the stats don't lie.

 

How much do we know about human brain chemistry? Are we psychiatrists, medical students? Have we followed patients on/off ADs?

 

The smartest people in the world don't know much about brain chemistry. We don't know how the brain works, but it's a good idea to alter said brain chemistry with drugs we know even less about? What are the long term effects of these drugs? If you are going to use "we don't know" to justify these drugs you have to acknowledge how much we don't know on both sides of the argument.

 

 

Thanks, benzohno.  I haven't gone back to look at the Daily Mail comments but I too was pleased to see that most readers were not fooled by yesterday's headlines.  It may be that no one has read my comments but I do feel the need to respond to people in the hope that someone might just notice them.  I spent most of the day on Twitter voicing my outrage .. that made me feel much better.  I think the tide of public opinion is turning in our favour in the UK, at least I do hope so.

 

Take care

 

Fiona 

In response to FloridaGuy, I say, "Exactly." There are certain things we don't know, but there are other things we DO know. We know that the meds alter not only brain chemistry, but in some, they alter bone metabolism, electrolyte balance, vestibular function (i.e. balance), etc.

 

When it comes to sexual function, the alteration of brain chemistry can cause long-lasting issues in some people. I remember reading posts by a very distraught young man here on BB who wanted to give up on life due to the effects of these meds on his sexual function. I'm not sure what happened to him, but I do hope he's okay. His posts were very sad and desperate, and clearly, his antidepressants had caused him very serious depression. Nice job. 

 

This article explains a bit about AD effects on sexual function:

 

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/769813

 

 

This makes me so frustrated cause yeah, they do work.  These drugs make people who felt depressed feel better.  I'm not really against feeling good or better; however,  benzos work too.  Benzos work amazingly well for anxiety.  That's not my problem with any of these drugs.  These drugs do not work forever, and may make the original problem worse.  That's my complaint.  That and making anyone have terrible violent thoughts.  That's my problem with psychotropic drugs altogether.

I think we will always believe what we want to believe. If we’re off ADs, we prefer to believe they don’t work. If we’re on them, we have to believe they do. But what knowledge do we really have to prove anything?

 

We know that since these drugs became common "treatments", mental illness has increased exponentially. Maybe there are some people who benefit from them but the stats don't lie.

 

How much do we know about human brain chemistry? Are we psychiatrists, medical students? Have we followed patients on/off ADs?

 

The smartest people in the world don't know much about brain chemistry. We don't know how the brain works, but it's a good idea to alter said brain chemistry with drugs we know even less about? What are the long term effects of these drugs? If you are going to use "we don't know" to justify these drugs you have to acknowledge how much we don't know on both sides of the argument.

 

I was watching a TED talk with Dr. Amen, and he was saying that before doing anything, he looks at the person's brain. He had training in psychiatry, but is pretty livid that doctors only go by what they hear the patient say and then prescribe a drug for them. It was really informative:

Terry,  I used to think well of Dr. Amen too,  used to watch him on PBS,  but I think what he claims to be able to do has been debunked.  He's also made a lot of money doing this, which does not sit well with me.

 

Washingon Post:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/daniel-amen-is-the-most-popular-psychiatrist-in-america-to-most-researchers-and-scientists-thats-a-very-bad-thing/2012/08/07/467ed52c-c540-11e1-8c16-5080b717c13e_story.html?utm_term=.4b7f8e43d146

 

At this point, you might think Daniel Amen is one of the most highly regarded psychiatrists in the land.

 

Not so. Officials at major psychiatric and neuroscience associations and research centers say his SPECT claims are no more than myth and poppycock, buffaloing an unsuspecting public.

 

None of the nation’s most prestigious medical organizations in the field — including the APA, the National Institute of Mental Health, the American College of Radiology, the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging and the National Alliance on Mental Illness — validates his claims.

 

No major research institution takes his SPECT work seriously, none regards him as “the number one neuroscience guy,” and his revelations, which he presents to rapt audiences as dispatches from the front ranks of science, make the top tier of scientists roll their eyes or get very angry.

 

“In my opinion, what he’s doing is the modern equivalent of phrenology,” says Jeffrey Lieberman, APA president-elect, author of the textbook “Psychiatry” and chairman of Psychiatry at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons. (Phrenology was the pseudoscience, popular in the early 19th century, that said the mind was determined by the shape of the skull, particularly its bumps.) “The claims he makes are not supported by reliable science, and one has to be skeptical about his motivation.”

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/antidepressants-meta-analysis-1.4546709

 

Looking at the original article in this thread, there are quite a few warnings in there, despite the bombastic title. I'll bold the warnings in it.

 

"Antidepressants are routinely used worldwide, yet there remains considerable debate about their effectiveness and tolerability," said John Ioannidis of Stanford University in California, who worked on a team of researchers led by Andrea Cipriani of Britain's Oxford University.

 

"Antidepressants can be an effective tool to treat major depression, but this does not necessarily mean antidepressants should always be the first line of treatment," he told a briefing in London.

 

The scientists noted that their study could only look at average effects, so should not be interpreted as showing that antidepressants work in every patient. Only around 60 per cent of people prescribed depression medication improve, Cipriani said.

Terry,  I used to think well of Dr. Amen too,  used to watch him on PBS,  but I think what he claims to be able to do has been debunked.  He's also made a lot of money doing this, which does not sit well with me.

 

Washingon Post:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/daniel-amen-is-the-most-popular-psychiatrist-in-america-to-most-researchers-and-scientists-thats-a-very-bad-thing/2012/08/07/467ed52c-c540-11e1-8c16-5080b717c13e_story.html?utm_term=.4b7f8e43d146

 

At this point, you might think Daniel Amen is one of the most highly regarded psychiatrists in the land.

 

Not so. Officials at major psychiatric and neuroscience associations and research centers say his SPECT claims are no more than myth and poppycock, buffaloing an unsuspecting public.

 

None of the nation’s most prestigious medical organizations in the field — including the APA, the National Institute of Mental Health, the American College of Radiology, the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging and the National Alliance on Mental Illness — validates his claims.

 

No major research institution takes his SPECT work seriously, none regards him as “the number one neuroscience guy,” and his revelations, which he presents to rapt audiences as dispatches from the front ranks of science, make the top tier of scientists roll their eyes or get very angry.

 

“In my opinion, what he’s doing is the modern equivalent of phrenology,” says Jeffrey Lieberman, APA president-elect, author of the textbook “Psychiatry” and chairman of Psychiatry at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons. (Phrenology was the pseudoscience, popular in the early 19th century, that said the mind was determined by the shape of the skull, particularly its bumps.) “The claims he makes are not supported by reliable science, and one has to be skeptical about his motivation.”

 

Oh, dear...I didn't read that about him.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/antidepressants-meta-analysis-1.4546709

 

Looking at the original article in this thread, there are quite a few warnings in there, despite the bombastic title. I'll bold the warnings in it.

 

"Antidepressants are routinely used worldwide, yet there remains considerable debate about their effectiveness and tolerability," said John Ioannidis of Stanford University in California, who worked on a team of researchers led by Andrea Cipriani of Britain's Oxford University.

 

"Antidepressants can be an effective tool to treat major depression, but this does not necessarily mean antidepressants should always be the first line of treatment," he told a briefing in London.

 

The scientists noted that their study could only look at average effects, so should not be interpreted as showing that antidepressants work in every patient. Only around 60 per cent of people prescribed depression medication improve, Cipriani said.

 

This study has been reported far and wide it would seem .. it is scandalous .. anything to shore up the image of psychiatry.

I know Terry.    I learned more about him last year on here.

 

I sent an email to the CBC Vancouver and Toronto this morning, put together using excerpts from what was said on this thread by the very articulate Lapis and Fiona.  I included all the new press from the UK and the replies from CEPUK.  I really hope the CBC follows up with some critique and balance after yesterday and today's (radio program in Ontario) proclamation.  I am very disappointed with how they jumped on the bandwagon so enthusiastically.

I checked to see if I could get the audio clip from this morning's interview for all to listen to, but it wasn't available.

 

Good work, benzohno. Please let us know if you hear anything.

That's okay Lapis.  It's just as well... I don't think I want to hear it. 

 

Thank you.  I'll let you know if they write back, but they never have.  I just hope there is a follow-up, like in the UK.  I suppose we are 7-8 hours behind.  On the other hand,  maybe because we don't have the long history of everything like they do, this will just go unopposed.  The on-line piece wasn't even open for commenting.  Anything slightly controversial and they seem to shut down commentary.  I wanted to know what the people thought.

 

Not surprisingly, that AD review made US news sources too- Time, abc, Huffington Post...I didn't dig, but at first glance I haven't seen any opposing pieces today in the US either.

I'm thankful for the articles on CEPUK, including that of Dr. Peter Goetzsche. These people can challenge the findings using documentation and other studies, and that's exactly what's needed. I'm sure lots of people won't challenge what they read, heard or saw, though. Unless they've had experience with these meds, they might just swallow it all whole. Ignorance is NOT bliss.

According to this commercial, traditional antidepressants can stop working in some people. But, not to worry, there comes Rexulti to augment the antidepressant that no longer works.

 

 

Further research shows that Rexulti is not an antidepressant, but an actual 2nd generation antipsychotic, with the generic name of Brexpiprazole

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexpiprazole

The drug received FDA approval on July 13, 2015 for the treatment of schizophrenia, and as an adjunctive treatment for depression.[2] Although it failed Phase II clinical trials for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), it has been designed to provide improved efficacy and tolerability (e.g., less akathisia, restlessness and/or insomnia) over established adjunctive treatments for major depressive disorder (MDD).[3]

 

The drug was developed by Otsuka and Lundbeck, and is considered to be a successor[4] of Otsuka's top-selling atypical antipsychotic aripiprazole (Abilify). Otsuka's U.S. patent on aripiprazole expired on October 20, 2014;[5] and a generic was approved in April, 2015.[6]

 

Ok, now, why is something that received FDA approval for treatment for schizophrenia also gotten an approval as an adjunctive treatment for depression? And why is a schizophrenia drug being constantly being shown in a commercial as something that treats depression? And the commercial has been aired many times in the United States. Is this now going to be considered an "antidepressant" as well?