Comment on ‘Antidepressant withdrawal: reviewing the paper behind the headlines’

Now accepted:

The two psychiatrist authors state that this new research showing antidepressant withdrawal has been underestimated ‘was heavily featured in the media’ where it received ’emotive and damning’ coverage.

So will they now ask their NIHR & IoPPN colleague Dr Carmine Pariante MRCPsych to publicly retract his ‘finally puts to bed’ media hyping of the February 2018 Cipriani et al antidepressant meta-analysis? After my complaints he has not repeated such statements, but they remain widely on record worldwide in BBC and other mainstream media outputs:

Dr Hayes and Dr Jauhar put ‘ideological or intellectual conflicts of interest are not discussed’ in bold, without citing any authority or evidence as to how such conflicts are to be discussed.

Dr Jauhar has used ‘ideology’ as a crude smear before:

I suggest that if neither Dr Hayes nor Dr Jauhar are prepared to say what they mean about ‘ideology’ and an ‘intellectual conflict of interest’ then they reduce their own credibility.

It would be quite in order to say that both James Davies and John Read are non-psychiatrists and academics who arguably have a range of vested interests in undermining both physical treatments and psychiatric diagnosis itself.

John Read has recently made a false statement in relation to Dr David Baldwin, the author of one of the papers that the current authors say should have been included in the Davies and Read review:

Dr Hayes and Dr Jauhar should have stuck to their reasonable points 1. Surveys have some validity, but it is difficult to precisely extend their findings to estimates of prevalence across whole populations 2. Psychiatry should have done this kind of survey research long ago, and not left it to non-psychiatrists

%d bloggers like this: