This is a great piece and genuinely informative. Sharp articulation of the tension between good data and how it’ll probably be used in practice.
I suspect the pharma monopoly won’t be thrilled about anything that hints people might reduce consumption instead of stay on forever. That alone guarantees the study won’t go far in the press.
Appreciated your take. Cheese bagel aside, well worth the read.
That's a phenomenal write-up, thank you. Sane, thoughtful, and decipherable (I could probably send it to a patient and they'd understand your points). Fascinating about brain zaps and the DASS scoring, I didn't realise that.
If this study focused solely on SSRI withdrawal, Venlafaxine won't have been included because it is an SNRI, not an SSRI (slightly different mechanism of action). 💜
It's good news for people taking SSRI's for 3 months... Like anyone???
Plus it counts number of symptoms, not severity, and decided that an average increase in 1 symptom didn't mean anything... I have discontinued several meds because of one intolerably severe symptom, and on their methodology, they would say for absolutely no reason, because I only got one symptom more on the med which they count as negligible...
Have you seriously tried to critique this study? You sound like a pharma shill who's abrogated their critical analytical faculties... but you're a psychologist, critically analysing medical research is outside your scope on the evidence above, yet you're ignorant of your ignorance
No. I haven't tried to critique the study in detail because I haven't read it first-hand in full. I have tried to be clear on this, as well as where the limits of my expertise end. What I have attempted to do is reflect on, and respond to, the challenge laid down in the linked post in the first paragraph: that the study is obviously "good news" and anybody who is cautious or demonstrates concern is simply "anti-science" or "anti-psychiatry". I am neither, nor am I a "pharma shill".
I am truly sorry for your experiences with medication, not least because what I am trying to say is that individual human beings are complex and poorly served by the kind of mass assumptions encouraged by the discourse around this study. If you are going to be rude to me, please at least criticise me for what I have actually written.
Skye—
This is a great piece and genuinely informative. Sharp articulation of the tension between good data and how it’ll probably be used in practice.
I suspect the pharma monopoly won’t be thrilled about anything that hints people might reduce consumption instead of stay on forever. That alone guarantees the study won’t go far in the press.
Appreciated your take. Cheese bagel aside, well worth the read.
Thank you so much Mark. That's the one thing I was really hoping to do, so I'm very glad you think I have managed it.
My commentary on the study with a focus on methodological issues involved:
Playing Whack-a-Mole With the Uncertainties of Antidepressant Withdrawal
https://www.psychiatrymargins.com/p/playing-whack-a-mole-with-the-uncertainties
OH excellent! Can't wait to have a read, thank you.
That's a phenomenal write-up, thank you. Sane, thoughtful, and decipherable (I could probably send it to a patient and they'd understand your points). Fascinating about brain zaps and the DASS scoring, I didn't realise that.
We are in broad agreement, though, so that’s good 🙃
Interesting, thank you.
If this study focused solely on SSRI withdrawal, Venlafaxine won't have been included because it is an SNRI, not an SSRI (slightly different mechanism of action). 💜
Oh, duh. Of course! Thank you, I saw it included as a critique and repeated it without fully engaging my brain.
It's good news for people taking SSRI's for 3 months... Like anyone???
Plus it counts number of symptoms, not severity, and decided that an average increase in 1 symptom didn't mean anything... I have discontinued several meds because of one intolerably severe symptom, and on their methodology, they would say for absolutely no reason, because I only got one symptom more on the med which they count as negligible...
Have you seriously tried to critique this study? You sound like a pharma shill who's abrogated their critical analytical faculties... but you're a psychologist, critically analysing medical research is outside your scope on the evidence above, yet you're ignorant of your ignorance
No. I haven't tried to critique the study in detail because I haven't read it first-hand in full. I have tried to be clear on this, as well as where the limits of my expertise end. What I have attempted to do is reflect on, and respond to, the challenge laid down in the linked post in the first paragraph: that the study is obviously "good news" and anybody who is cautious or demonstrates concern is simply "anti-science" or "anti-psychiatry". I am neither, nor am I a "pharma shill".
I am truly sorry for your experiences with medication, not least because what I am trying to say is that individual human beings are complex and poorly served by the kind of mass assumptions encouraged by the discourse around this study. If you are going to be rude to me, please at least criticise me for what I have actually written.