Jump to content

They're crappy and they know it...clap your hands!

Recommended Posts


The findings are quite shocking:

A total of 37 studies viewed by the FDA as having positive results were published; 1 study viewed as positive was not published.

Studies viewed by the FDA as having negative or questionable results were, with 3 exceptions, either not published (22 studies) or published in a way that, in our opinion, conveyed a positive outcome (11 studies).

According to the published literature, it appeared that 94% of the trials conducted were positive. By contrast, the FDA analysis showed that 51% were positive.

In other words, when all the studies are examined, there's only about 50-50 chance that a scientific study of an antidepressant drug will find it more effective than placebo in treating depression.

I keep telling yer, we need a better Placebo and Fast!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[link=http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2008/01/effect_of_antidepres.html" target="_blank]http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2008/01/effe...antidepres.html[/link]

I keep telling yer, we need a better Placebo and Fast!

Nope, just more understanding of when a data review has been slanted.

The original authors found records of "scientific studies" with disappointing results that the companies didn't feel like paying to have published, considering the impact the titles would have on investors who wouldn't be able to understand the abstract, let alone the results. Big fucking deal.

No one noticed that the results weren't broken down beyond: favorable/unfavorable and published/unpublished. So the reader isn't being told whether the reviewed literature addressed the meds' effectiveness for their approved uses (ex. AD for depression), or off-label common uses (ex. AD for quitting smoking), or "let's give it a try at something new while we still have a patent" uses (ex. AD for treating psychosis).

The journalists concluded that the effectiveness for <random use> was 50% likely to be less than placebo. The "shocking findings" didn't even use that word. It's a more sensational "news" item, but not valid conclusion to base on a quick and dirty analysis of that included studies that didn't find <investigational drug not on market> to be more effective than <some other drug> for <some use>. Many studies don't compare against placebo, they compare against another well-studied drug - like Elavil or Prozac for ADs.

The drug companies want to take the winners further into expensive clinical trials, and cut their losses on the rest. It's just that simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...