The New York Times Uncritically Repeats Discredited Antidepressant Claims

1
516

From CounterPunch/Bruce Levine, PhD: “For serious journalists and editors, it should be obvious that the institution of psychiatry was put into a difficult position by the widespread public attention of Moncrieff’s review that concluded no evidence for the serotonin imbalance theory of depression, and that the psychiatry establishment had a strong need for damage control to its credibility. And it should also be obvious that psychiatry, as an institution, has a powerful motive for declaring antidepressants to be very effective regardless of the lack of a neurobiological rationale of correcting a chemical imbalance—the rationale that has convinced so many people to use SSRI antidepressants.

Sadly, the New York Times, once again [as with their 2002 and 2003 reporting on supposed weapons of mass destruction in Iraq], evidenced no skepticism about declarations from sources with powerful motives to persuade the public to believe a self-serving narrative that is disputed by the evidence.”

Article→

***

Back to Around the Web

Support MIA

MIA relies on the support of its readers to exist. Please consider a donation to help us provide news, essays, podcasts and continuing education courses that explore alternatives to the current paradigm of psychiatric care. Your tax-deductible donation will help build a community devoted to creating such change.

$
Select Payment Method
Personal Info

Credit Card Info
This is a secure SSL encrypted payment.

Billing Details

Donation Total: $20 One Time

1 COMMENT

  1. I have read medical articles in the New York Times for many years. And for many years I’ve been struck by the poor quality of the newspaper’s medical reporting, not just in psychology but in other fields as well. It’s surprising that some of the reporters have degrees in fields that should make them conversant with critical thinking and statistics. But they’re often not.

    In the medical field, too many NYT articles simply regurgitate the conventional and often corrupt thinking of mainstream medicine. Sometimes smaller, less prestigious publications have far better articles on medical topics than the NYT.