It is anti science because its false. For mild to moderate Depression SSRIs don't really outperform placebo, but for more servere cases that absolutely outperform placebo, but not for everyone. And not "knowing" how they work is not equal to having no clue whatsover. Its more on the lines of "we have a number of competing therories and can't really verify them"
The massive publication bias really muddies the waters.
Antidepressant papers published over two decades of approved drugs were looked at.
12500 patients in 74 trials, with 38 trials showing positive resluts for new drugs.
37 out of 38 positive trials were published
3 out of 34 not positive were published.
11 of the negative trials were in the literature, but were written as if the drug was a success!
So reality is 38+ and 37-, while the literature showed 48+ and 3- trials. Absurd doesn’t even begin to describe this situation.
There’s the famous IQWIG findings as well, where they forced companies to give the unpublished trials as well or withhold paying for the products.
For example, in the treatment of depression other researchers have already shown that the effect of several agents has always been exaggerated in the published literature - up to 70% (on average about 30%). In the case of some agents, it is even doubtful whether a benefit is detectable at all, if all trials are considered.
https://www.iqwig.de/en/press/press-releases/press-releases/pfizer-conceals-study-data.2376.html
I don't even see how SSRIs can not outperform placebo, I took them once and didn't like them but I could definitely tell I took something, I don't see how you could ever confuse one and a placebo
3
u/Xodem Mar 29 '21
It is anti science because its false. For mild to moderate Depression SSRIs don't really outperform placebo, but for more servere cases that absolutely outperform placebo, but not for everyone. And not "knowing" how they work is not equal to having no clue whatsover. Its more on the lines of "we have a number of competing therories and can't really verify them"