rvallee
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Large responses to antidepressants or methodological artifacts? A secondary analysis of STAR∗D, a single-arm, open-label, nonindustry antidepressant trial
Large responses to antidepressants or methodological artifacts? A secondary analysis of STAR∗D..., 2025, Plöderl et al
- Thread starter rvallee
- Start date
-
- Tags
- depression reanalysis ssris
rvallee
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
If I understand this correctly, and I know that some of the academics here are controversial, this is about data on the effectiveness of SSRIs being very patchy, and the preferred interpretation being that the small effects in pooled data comes out of a small number of high responders, with most having little to no response, making this a large effect within subgroups, which just need to be identified (sounds familiar? 
) that is simply lost because of all the non-responders, turning a large effect into a small one by being pooled with a large majority of non-responders (thus the idea of handing them out to everyone like harmless candies).
And the claim out of this study is that the distribution of data does not support this preferred interpretation, rather the effectiveness is very small, barely noticeable when compared to no effect (which they choose to frame as 'placebo', ideology gonna ideology), and that blips of data, either way, can be accounted for by various statistical and methodological artifacts, from fluctuating courses and natural recoveries, down to the obvious blatant bias towards finding effectiveness in the medical profession, regardless of actual effectiveness, working towards affecting thoughts and behavior instead.
All of which is pretty much identical to all the claims made about us. In fact this claim is central to the whole: it's worth putting everyone through psychosomatic GET/CBT rehabilitation because it 1) cannot do harm (by ignoring and dismissing all reports of harm), and 2) is very effective on some, subgroups which simply need to be identified.
The last few decades in psychosomatic 'research' have pretty much been spent on doing exactly that, or pretending to anyway. On finding the various personality traits and other elements of our behavior, or the perfect combination of exercises or activities, that allow for what they know for sure, an unshakable conviction, 'works' (accomplished by redefining what 'works' even means), and they just have to figure out how to trigger it for everyone, or at least for the majority.
But of course this is all completely false. Past data was already very sketchy, Long Covid has made it clear that natural rates of slow recovery, and full remissions, completely overshoot any and all claims made by the biased studies they keep copy-pasting in loops, pretending to search for those subgroups.
A lot of the original sins of modern psychosomatic ideology clearly came from 'depression' studies. Their flaws are still being carried out, despite clearly diminishing returns as more studies get done. And similarly we see the same push for some vague mumbo-jumbo about multidisplinary this and that, combining all sorts of treatment modalities in a blended smoothie of ineffective nonsense. The 'bio' part is handled by the introduction of ineffective medication, while the rest of the work, mindfulness, 'stress reduction', activation therapies, and so on got most of the attention in recent decades.
What's beyond clear is that medicine is so excessively biased towards finding anything that works that they routinely engage in the promotion of completely ineffective treatment models, which after some time become locked in place simply because they have been used for long enough to become enshrined in tradition.
And the overall behavior of the profession in recent decades has been to amplify those biases even more, lower all standards and make belief central to the vague concept of wellness, blending perfectly with the alternative medicine smoothie of ineffective nonsense.
) that is simply lost because of all the non-responders, turning a large effect into a small one by being pooled with a large majority of non-responders (thus the idea of handing them out to everyone like harmless candies).And the claim out of this study is that the distribution of data does not support this preferred interpretation, rather the effectiveness is very small, barely noticeable when compared to no effect (which they choose to frame as 'placebo', ideology gonna ideology), and that blips of data, either way, can be accounted for by various statistical and methodological artifacts, from fluctuating courses and natural recoveries, down to the obvious blatant bias towards finding effectiveness in the medical profession, regardless of actual effectiveness, working towards affecting thoughts and behavior instead.
All of which is pretty much identical to all the claims made about us. In fact this claim is central to the whole: it's worth putting everyone through psychosomatic GET/CBT rehabilitation because it 1) cannot do harm (by ignoring and dismissing all reports of harm), and 2) is very effective on some, subgroups which simply need to be identified.
The last few decades in psychosomatic 'research' have pretty much been spent on doing exactly that, or pretending to anyway. On finding the various personality traits and other elements of our behavior, or the perfect combination of exercises or activities, that allow for what they know for sure, an unshakable conviction, 'works' (accomplished by redefining what 'works' even means), and they just have to figure out how to trigger it for everyone, or at least for the majority.
But of course this is all completely false. Past data was already very sketchy, Long Covid has made it clear that natural rates of slow recovery, and full remissions, completely overshoot any and all claims made by the biased studies they keep copy-pasting in loops, pretending to search for those subgroups.
A lot of the original sins of modern psychosomatic ideology clearly came from 'depression' studies. Their flaws are still being carried out, despite clearly diminishing returns as more studies get done. And similarly we see the same push for some vague mumbo-jumbo about multidisplinary this and that, combining all sorts of treatment modalities in a blended smoothie of ineffective nonsense. The 'bio' part is handled by the introduction of ineffective medication, while the rest of the work, mindfulness, 'stress reduction', activation therapies, and so on got most of the attention in recent decades.
What's beyond clear is that medicine is so excessively biased towards finding anything that works that they routinely engage in the promotion of completely ineffective treatment models, which after some time become locked in place simply because they have been used for long enough to become enshrined in tradition.
And the overall behavior of the profession in recent decades has been to amplify those biases even more, lower all standards and make belief central to the vague concept of wellness, blending perfectly with the alternative medicine smoothie of ineffective nonsense.