Over millennia, philosophers, alive and dead, have agreed that science, a priori, must be based on a position of neutrality. This quest is one that we all support! Whilst it may be an ‘almost’ impossible ambition – we should never stop trying!
I am a retired doctor. I worked as an NHS psychiatrist for over 25 years. I am not *neutral*.
In the last month several published studies on antidepressant prescribing have been widely reported in the media. Invariably, this published research has shared, first and foremost, the positives. The media has dutifully reported. Not impartial headlines have resulted.
Less mentioned:
- 1 in 6 adults in the UK are taking antidepressants as prescribed [in Scotland this is 1 in 4]
- National Guidelines fail to provide robust evidence for antidepressant treatment beyond the duration of 2 years
- Before SSRI antidepressants were marketed, the prevalence of ‘clinical depression’ was considered, by expert consensus, to be 1 in 20.
- A key message of 1990s Defeat Depression Campaign to both doctors and the public was that there *is* NO difficulty in stopping SSRI antidepressants
The ANTLER study and REDUCE trial are welcome, but this research has taken three decades. Several of the lead researchers careers overlap with the ‘Defeat Depression Campaign’, therefore neutrality cannot be guaranteed.
All studies have methodological issues. In relation to ANTLER and REDUCE: how sensitive are these studies in distinguishing “relapse” from potential withdrawal symptoms?
What is clear: ANTLER + REDUCE have established that somewhere in the region of 60% of those taking antidepressants are unable to discontinue them, even with support. Those living with ongoing harm related to medicines taken as prescribed deserve, at the very least, to be recognised.