Use to discuss topics unrelated to recent posts. No vax/anti-vax.
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Use to discuss topics unrelated to recent posts. No vax/anti-vax.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén
Oakchair
A 10 year study published in 2022 found use of any “antidepressant” increased all cause mortality by 86%(1).
This study replicates a meta-analysis which found that when adjusting for pre-medicated levels of depression the drugs increased all cause mortality by 49% for SSRI, 75% for other, and 26% for TCA’s.(1). This meta-analysis contained corporate funded studies and was of shorter duration.
The 2022 study contained over 220,000 people.
It contained several pro-drug biases/flaws such as:
1- excluded participants on “antidepressant” polytherapy
2- In figure 1 they show they excluded people who took “antipsychotics” after being exposed to “antidepressants.” Same with anyone who used “antimanic” drugs.
3- The baseline the 10 year study used occurred after 5 years of antidepressant use (table 1).
The study results were adjusted for these confounders:
“depression, age; gender; body mass index (BMI); waist/hip ratio; smoking and alcohol intake status; physical activity; parental history of outcome; biochemical and haematological biomarkers (apolipoproteins A and B, vitamin D, triglycerides, haemoglobin A1c); socioeconomic status (accommodation status, number of vehicles per household, employment status, benefits status, urban/rural status, education, household income) and self-reported long-term illness, disability or infirmity”
Results:
“evidence of a dose–response effect (Table 4) for all-cause mortality, with higher doses associated with an increased risk”
Table 3 results:
Use of any “antidepressant” increased mortality by 86% when using the 5 year baseline adjustments
Use of any antidepressant increased mortality by 223% when just the age and gender are adjusted for.
For comparison smoking tobacco increases all cause mortality by around 79%(3), and smokers generally have 10+ year shorter lifespans.
Another study that occurred in those 65 years and older replicated this new study(3).
(1) https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bjpsych-open/article/antidepressant-use-and-risk-of-adverse-outcomes-populationbased-cohort-study/6AAA6943E55F8B08DD9E25155E72931F
(2) https://www.madinamerica.com/2017/10/antidepressants-increase-risk-death-study-finds/
(3) https://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d4551
(4) https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9150905/
Senator-Elect
These Oakchair pseudo-medical posts are tiresome. This one jumps from “association” to causation without explanation or justification. From the abstract of study 1: “Further research is needed to assess whether the observed associations are causal, and elucidate the underlying mechanisms.” In other words, this study does not, and indeed cannot, show causation.
Scientific papers can throw up all kinds of results, and it takes expertise to read them and tell the gold from the iron pyrite. I enjoyed this Eric Topol interview of Christopher Labos on nutrition studies: https://erictopol.substack.com/p/christopher-labos-debunking-myths?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
marku52
Correlation is frequently the first step in cause discovery. The correlation between smoking and lung cancer (very strong) lead to further work which, proved, yes smoking causes lung cancer.
Effects as strong as this should lead to further investigations to prove that the correlation is spurious (Umbrellas cause rain). This is a warning sign.
Funny that the drug Cos don’t do that investigation. It’s like they know what they’d find.
Oakchair
Which Bradford Hill criteria for antidepressants causing increased mortality do people believe isn’t met?
It would be great if instead of posting ad hominems people simply engaged in the topic.
“The suicide rate was higher in the antidepressant than in the placebo group (OR = 2.83”
That is the corporations own clinical trials
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333987755_Newer-Generation_Antidepressants_and_Suicide_Risk_in_Randomized_Controlled_Trials_A_Re-Analysis_of_the_FDA_Database
The increased suicide rates caused by antidepressants is if anything understated because “Only 56.8% of Serious Adverse events experienced by drug-treated partipcants were reported.”
Table 3 shows only 38% of deaths and half of suicide events were accurately reported.
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/4/7/e005535.long
Likewise the harms of psych drugs are severally understated in the clinical trials because the “placebo” group is actually a group put into cold turkey or rapid drug withdrawal.
Imagine If Budweiser did a study that took people addicted to alcohol and put one group into cold turkey withdrawal, kept the other on beer and claimed alcohol addiction saves lives. We’d all laugh. Yet for some reason when pharma does it people act like pointing it out is “tiresome” “pseudo-science”
https://www.madinamerica.com/2019/04/withdrawal-symptoms-routinely-confound-findings-psychiatric-drug-studies/
You can use sci-hub to get past most paywalls on scientific studies.
https://sci-hub.se/
mago
Last week I commented on the Naked Capitalism site cutting comments because of rancor and general churlishness among other things.
Ms Smith turned the spigot back on under the condition that people play nice, which I guess they’re doing, although I pretty much lost interest in the goings on over there.
I have no idea how long I’ve been plugged into Ian’s blog world, but it’s been a while. I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that there’s more intolerance in comments these days.
I always thought that many here consider me a flippant bore and just skip over my prattle. That’s what I’d do with any thing that doesn’t resonate. All right, I might make a jab here and there, but with some degree of respect I hope.
Lately though it seems there’s a dwindling number of commenters who are willing to let things slide.
I dunno. It’s like having a persistent runny nose and scratchy throat. You can’t shake it and feel compelled to pass it around.
Just one person’s opinion.
Thank you. Thank you. And for my next act . . .
different clue
If you have a one-in-a-million risk of something and then you add something else which raises you to a 1.49-in-a-million risk of that something, you could say your risk of that something went up by 49%. But your overall risk is still close to one-in-a-million, which is to say, not materially different. And if you benefit from that other something, then you take that tiny increase in overall risk.
I have been ” in depression” withOUT anti-depressant meds and I have been “in depression” WITH anti-depressant meds. And I have found that life WITH sertraline in particular is better enough than life without it that I will accept the risks that come from using it to avoid the certainties of living without it.
I would invite all those who suggest that life in depression withOUT sertaline is better than life in depression WITH sertraline to figure out how to get themselves a genuine case of genuine depression and then live the rest of their life in that depression withOUT sertraline and withOUT any OTHer anti-depressant med as well.
We can then observe them at leisure over the course of their lives to see ” how that’s working out for them” ( in the deathless words of Doctor Phil).
someofparts
Thinking about this development that Canada and Mexico now understand the US is not their friend, I wonder if we could hope for an end to NAFTA from this?
Catching up Judge Napolitano’s show. All of the episodes this week are sharp.