Under the Radar: Unreported Stories You Need to Know About

Periodically, I will unveil news and insights that are typically obscured from the public. We exist in a world shrouded by the Pharma and industrial iron curtain, and I firmly believe that 95% (or more) of medical professionals and mental health clinicians remain unaware of the conflicts within research findings. Consequently, they continue to follow outdated guidelines and communicate harmful ideas .

For instance, how many prescribers were aware that Lexapro was approved for children and teens despite a staggering 6-fold increase in suicidality? The alarming fact is that children and adolescents exposed to escitalopram (Lexapro) were more likely to become suicidal than to experience an improvement in anxiety. Unfortunately, not many prescribers are informed about this critical information, which highlights the importance of educating ourselves on these matters.

So here we go…

Scientific Misconduct Reported on Largest and Longest Study Ever Conducted on Antidepressants

During my time in graduate school (around 2006) I vividly recall the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) reporting on the largest and longest study to date on "real-world" patients to evaluate depression treatment. The results of this study were, and still are, cited as the basis for the use of antidepressants.

In the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD), the acronym STAR*D (The Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression) stands out as the most convincing science guiding treatment decisions since 2006 when a series of publications reported the results from this massive, $35 million National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)–funded research study.

STAR*D assessed the comparative effectiveness of 13 antidepressant therapies for patients who did not experience significant improvement from their initial level 1 medication trial.

In contrast to typical clinical trials, where participants are volunteers and recruited for involvement, STAR*D patients were invited to participate after being diagnosed with depression during routine medical or psychiatric treatment.

Moreover, patients with various comorbidities, such as psychiatric, medical, and substance use disorders, were included in the study (with some exceptions). Unlike most clinical trials that typically employ a double-blind, placebo-controlled design, STAR*D did not include a placebo control group.

In 2006, they published three accounts of STAR*D results, and the NIMH, in its November press release, trumpeted the supposed good news. “Over the course of all four levels, almost 70 percent of those who didn’t withdraw from the study became symptom-free,” the NIMH informed the public.

Holy Shit! 70% became symptom free? That is quite convincing!

I recall a psychiatrist at one of my training clinics proclaiming “this puts any concern around the effectiveness of antidepressants to rest”.

STAR*D has informed a narrative that the best chance of achieving a treatment response or remission from a major depressive episode occurs with the first 2 antidepressant trials.

We began observing a massive increase in the prescribing of antidepressants to the American public.

In fact, psychiatrists continue to refer to this study on social media and in popular media to validate the effectiveness of antidepressant drugs. Furthermore, treatment guidelines from prominent medical organizations cite this supposed groundbreaking study as the PRIMARY basis for the use of antidepressant medication.

The New Yorker reported in 2010, there was a “sixty-seven-percent effectiveness rate for antidepressant medication, far better than the rate achieved by a placebo.” The mainstream media (funded by Pharma advertising dollars) became the mouthpiece for the industry. In fact, much of the western world were told that antidepressant drugs significantly outperformed placebo.

The STAR*D study deviated greatly from the conflicting research I was reading throughout my graduate and postgraduate training. It always has.

Surprise, surprise… there is a reason for this deviation.

Recently, a publication in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) reanalyzed the original raw data obtained from the NIMH and challenged the conclusions of the STAR*D publications.

The BMJ authors of the new review performed a rigorous analysis of the interpretation of the STAR*D data, which they concluded reveals significant violations of the original submitted research protocol.

The STAR*D investigators originally concluded that, “The overall cumulative remission rate [of all 4 steps] was 67%.”

The BMJ authors concluded that, “In contrast to the STAR*D-reported 67% cumulated remission rate after up to 4 antidepressant treatment trials, the rate was ONLY 35.0% when using the protocol-stipulated HRSD and inclusion in data analysis criteria.”

Hence, they concluded that, “STAR*D’s cumulative remission rate was approximately half of that reported.”

Uh Oh.

Which would be on par for what we would expect when administering a placebo.

Now the kicker, according to the re-analysis, only 3% remitted and were well at the end of 1 year!

Indeed, this situation can be seen as a case of scientific misconduct, where important information is disregarded or misrepresented to support a predetermined conclusion.

“The STAR*D results, if they had been accurately reported, would have derailed that societal belief. If the public had been told that in this NIMH study, which had been conducted in real-world patients, only 35% remitted, even after four treatment steps, and that only 3% remitted and were still well at the end of one year, then prescribing of these drugs—and societal demand for these drugs—surely would have plummeted.” - Rober Whittaker, Journalist

We have been scammed.

Read more:

The STAR*D Scandal: Scientific Misconduct on a Grand Scale (Mad in America) STAR*D Dethroned? (Psychiatric Times)

Psychotherapy Without Antidepressants Shows Best Results for Depression

As long as I have been in this field, mental health clinicians have been told that the most effective course of treatment for depression has been therapy plus an antidepressant. Which on face value makes no sense.

It’s but one of the reasons why the psychiatric and mental health industrial complex has become this dumbed down version of fast food style health care.

What SHOULD guide treatment is understanding WHY someone is depressed and target what is MAINTAINING depression.

However, in an era where the medical establishment attempted to push mental health problems as a “brain disorder” the addition of a drug targeting specific brain chemicals was sold to mental health professionals as “decreasing symptoms”. Of course, as you well know by this point, those conclusions were based on misrepresented data and corrupted science.

According to a new study, psychotherapy without antidepressants is the best treatment for depression. More accurately stated, psychotherapy without antidepressants is more effective than psychotherapy with antidepressants.

According to the researchers, psychotherapy alone beats antidepressants alone, but it also beats combination therapy (drugs plus therapy) for people with depression. Harvard researcher Nur Hani Zainal published this new analysis in Psychological Medicine.

“The present meta-analysis consistently found that psychotherapy monotherapy had stronger aggregate effects than combined treatment and Antidepressant-only in decreasing the probability of suicide attempt, psychiatric ED visit, psychiatric hospitalization, and/or suicide death for MDD patients”

-Nur Hani Zainal, PhD

The finding contradicts conventional wisdom, which claims that combining antidepressants (ADMs) with psychotherapy is the most effective treatment for people with depression (MDD).

What is most critical, is that removing the antidepressant decreases the probability of a suicide attempt, psychiatric ED visit, psychiatric hospitalization and/or completed suicide.

Are you awake yet?

We are providing drugs to emotionally vulnerable people that will increase the probability of a suicide.

Read More Here: Can Antidepressants Induce Suicide, Violence & Bizarre Behavior?

Scientific Publications are Silently Disappearing

I argue that the majority of the general public, along with many physicians, remain oblivious to the corporate interests steering, molding, and governing scientific narratives. A recent study spotlighted eight corporate sectors—alcohol, chemicals and manufacturing, extractive industries, food and beverages, fossil fuels, gambling, pharmaceuticals and medical technologies, and tobacco—as active players shaping science and its integration into policies and practices.

Dr. John Ioannidis, a Stanford professor and medical researcher, has made it his life's work to challenge his fellow peers by uncovering flawed scientific practices. He asserts as much as 90 percent of the published medical information that doctors rely on is flawed.

It’s time to be on red alert. Substandard medical publications were once used to push and promote narratives and squash other narratives. AND NOW those publications are being silently deleted.

Hundreds of medical journals are disappearing, and no one is talking about it!

The time has come to move beyond the simple "Google search" as a means of uncovering the best available evidence. It is vital to recognize that information can be manipulated to create a facade of scientific legitimacy. To combat this, we must actively search for alternative news sources, podcasts, and genuine experts who are not influenced by industry and uphold the ethical principles of their profession.

No one holds exclusive rights to science. Science is an ongoing journey toward truth, in which those committed to the scientific method critically analyze findings, attempt to replicate results, and are not biased by financial interests. It is evident that we must remain skeptical of our medical professionals' grasp of scientific facts and continue to search for experts who recognize the limitations of current evidence.

Medical freedom is a defining issue of our time.