6 Comments to
Mental Health Year in Review: 2008

The comments below begin with the oldest comments first. (If there's more than one page, click on the last comments page to jump to the most recent comments.) Jump to reply form.

  1. While money is involved of course figures will be manipulated in favour of anti-depressants!

  2. I agree- whenever there is money involved, you have to be somewhat skeptical. Where are they getting their information from and can we really trust it?

  3. I think it is actually a GOOD year for anti-depressant research when some critical thinking and analysis actually goes into it.

    We have known for a while now that SSRI’s simply aren’t all that effective and indeed THAT WAS NEVER THOUGHT TO BE AN ADVANTAGE OF THEM – the main advantage was that you didn’t need to go on an MAOI diet.

  4. You never needed to go on an MAOI diet with tricyclics either, the primary antidepressant used in the U.S. before SSRIs. SSRIs in this country were indeed hailed as being more effective with less side effects than either tricyclics or MAOIs when they were first introduced and for the first 10-15 years they were marketed here.

    If you’d like to provide some proof of support that this was a “good year for anti-depressant research,” I’m all ears.

  5. I consider good research to be quality research. So… The thought was that it seems like some quality research was done this year. About time ๐Ÿ˜‰

    Less side-effects. Could be wrong but I was fairly sure that that was thought to be the main virtue of SSRI’s. Anti-cyclics weren’t any more effective than MAOI’s – were they? I thought that less side effects rather than greater efficacy was basically the thing across the board for psych meds..

  6. Quality research is done everyday in psychology and mental health. This, however, was a story about the topics that we believe had the biggest impact in the field.

    Indeed, that is the marketing spin on SSRIs, as we have pointed out on this blog for years. However, “good research” shows that not to be the case after all.

  7. Much of the research that is done in medications in particular is sponsored in full or in party by pharma. They employ some very clever research, don’t get me wrong, but clever research isn’t necessarily quality research. We have known for a while now how results are misinterpreted, math is mangled, and so on and so forth when there is something personal at stake. I guess this kind of exposure has been going on for a while. Despite this, people still don’t seem to be listening.

    People seem to want depression to be just like diabetes and for it to be managed with a pill. Not sure why but people seem to think that is what is required in order for their distress to be legitimate. So… On for the search for the happy pill ( – sorry, not a pill that makes people ‘happy’ a pill that makes people ‘normal’).

    All the research… And we really don’t see to be any closer to finding the genetic basis or the neurological basis for mental disorders. Gee… One might start thinking they are social / cognitive after all ๐Ÿ˜‰

  8. I also recommend this list of leading research discoveries in 2008 by NARSAD researchers:




Join the Conversation!

We invite you to share your thoughts and tell us what you think in this public forum. Before posting, please read our blog moderation guidelines. A first name or pseudonym is required and will be displayed with your comment. Your email address is also required, but will be kept private. (Please note that we use gravatars here, which are tied to your email address.) A website/blog/twitter address is optional.

Post a Comment: