Bias, Corruption & Accountability

Medically-induced harm—affecting tens of millions of people worldwide—has taken the field decades to take seriously.

If academic psychiatry is evidence-based, why did it take two decades to recognize SSRI withdrawal as widespread and chronic among patients?

Stanford researcher writes that readers should check the effect size of results instead of looking at the p-value.

Researcher criticizes the many ways opposing viewpoints and dissenting voices are squashed in the field of medicine.

The results of five large-scale clinical trials of antidepressants have never been made accessible to the public, a data set compiled by an international team of researchers shows. Their discovery highlights the incompleteness of available data on the safety and efficacy of antidepressant drugs.

Researchers suggest that the pharmaceutical industry had a vested interest in using the term “discontinuation” in order to hide the severity of physical dependence and withdrawal reactions many people experience from antidepressants.

Jay Amsterdam, who first blew the whistle on corrupt research practices in a study conducted by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) eight years ago, has now submitted...

A new analysis, published in Lancet Neurology, demonstrates how Biogen is spinning results from two failed trials for a new Alzheimer's drug.

An issue of Lancet Psychiatry is devoted to clarifying the lack of efficacy for Zoloft (sertraline).

Ghostwriting, which is prominent in the psychiatry literature, is a scam in which pharmaceutical companies use an academic sleight of hand to stump the naïve reader. It is time for editors of the major medical journals to use the same standards of authorship found in the humanities and social sciences.

New meta-scientific review questions the evidence for the gold standard psychotherapies and empirically supported treatments.

Experts across the globe point to the harms of drug companies’ influence on research, practice, and education in healthcare noting that it compromises patient care.

Current standards for clinical trials rely on statistical methods that allow for ineffective treatments to gain approval.

A new special issue brings together articles exploring the harmful effects of simultaneous multiple medication use.

A closer look at a new study reporting that the supplement D-cycloserine improved anxiety when used with exposure therapy.

A new study reports that the supplement EPA improved ADHD symptoms but a closer look calls these results into question.

When it comes to ADHD, some researchers suggest that medical textbooks provide inaccurate and misleading information.

A new update to the NICE guideline for depression suggests providers discuss long-term, severe antidepressant withdrawal symptoms.

A new article documents the “flimsy evidence” behind the recent FDA approval of the party drug esketamine for the treatment of depression.

A new review, published in BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, concludes that antidepressants should not be used as the risks outweigh evidence for benefits.

Despite their finding, the researchers suggest that SSRIs be given to people who do not meet criteria for depression or anxiety.

Researchers critique the German S3 guidelines for depression promoting antidepressants.

: A new review finds evidence of spin and the misrepresentation of clinical trials with non-significant results.

The approval of the digital antipsychotic may open the door for more pharmaceutical company profits without evidence of benefits to patients.

An analysis of last year’s positive finding in The Lancet about antidepressant efficacy shows errors, obfuscations, and misrepresentations.