“Anti-depressants study”

The recent furore over the widely reported study into anti-depressants link has created quite a response from members of Stand to Reason, some of whom are for and others against medication.

Much of the controvesy relates to the poor way in which the press reported the science behind the study. Articles from Ben Goldacre in Guardian link and on his website “Bad Science” are a useful source of information link

At Stand to Reason we promote our right to choose the services that best suit us in all the circumstances of our lives and in the light of the fairly reported evidence. We acknowledge that many people report experiencing great relief, particularly from moderate to severe symptoms of depression, using these medicines.

Let us know whether you agree and write to us with your experiences at info@standtoreason.org.uk

One particularly passionate and polemic letter written by a member of Stand to Reason is reprinted in full below.

As someone who has put years of time and effort into public awareness (for better recognition and understanding) of the crucial role of anti-depressants – in depression and anxiety disorders (to name a few) – I am very disturbed by the recent turn of events. I see that the Guardian today has fallen into the Anti-Prozac SSRI trap and has a large piece by (yes) “a psychoanalyst” as well as Sarah Bosely.

I remember the day when someone in NY who had been going to a psychoanalyst for many years and been advised her not to take “pills” – finally after more years in despair she took Prozac – three weeks later she felt fine – so she sued the psychoanalyst and won. What is this furore aimed at – unseating psychiatrists, and replacing their jobs with psychologists and psychotherapists…...WHY isnt there a robust response from psychiatrists et al?????- or from the Royal College, which is probably wondering what to do – or the researchers who have made their reputation in studying the effects of anti-depressants – (including any new evidence – such things as the possible role of neurogenesis etc.) Are all the peer reviewed studies on the efficacy of SSRi’s just a “con” as well? It is the integrity of all this work, and those who have undertaken it (or been party to the alleged “con”) that is being called into question.

I would write as per usual to the daily broadsheets – but it would be useless and would merely be seen as pro big pharma – we need detailed science and clinical evidence to put an end to this kind of dangerous hogwash. And the over liberal doling out by GPs who haven’t got the time to talk to their patients. However we also know that many people who would benefit from both medication and CBT still do not get it – the continuing stigma of taking pills for mental illness is still virulent. This also puts a the darker face, albeit unintended face on the efforts of the likes of Richard Layard – who is not a medical man and who as an economist finally cottoned on to what everyone had known for years – that untreated depression etc. was expensive to the economy, there was a lot of it about, and that CBT is a good thing. So on the basis of “saving money,” and helping treat depression caused by life situations, I understand there are pilot studies for using more CBT therapy. All well and good – but then we have these emotive words – “an army of therapists” – as if the freedom fighters were on the way to release us from the bondage of “fascists – big pharma – and their pawns – evil psychiatrists). Where is this army? – somewhere over the hill in wait – it will take years to train an army of psychotherapists. In the meantime the “fact” is – apparently – that SSRIs are addictive, life threatening, suicide provoking and the whole thing is a “con” and a case
of the emperors new clothes – and by implication a “con” that psychiatrists as well as researchers, scientists who have also advised and fooled GPs.

It is worth noting that none of these critics have anything to say about those patients in inpatient care for depression etc. Will they be “cured” only by cognitive therapy or even psychotherapy. Where recent studies have shown that when the prescribing of anti-depressants was curtailed the rates of suicide did no go down but rose considerably. I wonder if anyone responsible for this sort of disinformation will shed a tear or feel an ounce of responsibility when people who could have been helped by antidepressants but may not now – are found dead by their own hands – waiting for the freedom fighters (those who will drive psychs and big pharma back to where they belong) , apparently still lying in wait over the hill.

The Royal College should issue some sort of rebuff, as should psychiatrists who treat patients with anti-depressants, as should “independent” researchers (from the IoP and elsewhere) on what they know about the mechanisms of anti-depressants and why they are effective work in people with genuine clinical depression) – otherwise they are tarred by the same brush and look fools as well.

Either the science and clinical evidence is there to discredit these claims currently made in the press, or it is not. At present it is a one sided war of words disguised as facts,one that is turning back the clock by decades.

The only people who must be whooping for joy are The Church of Scientology – as all this apparently proves they were right all along

Best

Richard Hornsby