Quote:
Originally Posted by BudFox
Also i often see people defending SSRIs or other drugs by linking to some published study online. But can a layperson just read some abstract or summary of a study and assume the published conclusion has any legitimacy?
Who ran the study, who really paid for it, what info was omitted, what was distorted, what biases corrupted the process?
I think we need people like Whitaker to dig deeper and make some sense out of the collective data. And if you say Whitaker is no good, then who do we trust?
|
They lay person probably knows nothing about it and maybe many in the mental health profession do not know much. I have had a lot of advice over the decades from Gp's telling me I need God in my life. I was also advised by GP's to take injections of magnesium and b vitamins at their clinic. When I asked about which published large scale long term rct's there were they did not know what I was talking about lol.
A journo can do some investigative work and publish some books if he wants. BUT he is not telling the top level mental health professionals anything at all that they do not know about. The people within the profession know all about this. They are discussing it, they need to improve things themselves, they do not need a journo to tell them anything. That is just funny.
Theses guys have written a fair bit on it. It would not be hard to find more, they even got hold of and published documents about what the drug companies and the academics were up to with ghost writing. Go find it if you like. There is plenty of examples. IMO they need to fix it within we do not need popular media.
Does post-publication peer review work? - Speaking of Medicine