Sunday, October 13, 2019

Comments by D.Goncz

Showing 1 of 1 comments.

  • In regards to:

    “consultant then told Abbott that while the study “does not support combination use (as defined strictly the combination being superior to each [neuroleptic] alone), we could still argue for [the study’s] applicability to add on” therapy. ”

    I’d translate it to this, and this is from experience reading grant applications:

    “Depakote’s not good for combination use. I’ll admit that. But we can bookmark this study. It has value, even though all it proves is that Depakote’s not good for combination use. The study has value in considering what to add on to an antipsychotic regimen by excluding Depakote. That’s what this study is still good for.”

    If you don’t read it that way, I’d be interested in your read.

    Now the *motive*. The motive is political in intent. It’s one writer’s last attempt to wring some positive light out of the reader’s confusion onto the star product by masking “rule out” with “applicable to add on therapy”. It’s deceptive.


    Peer Specialist (Community Health Worker)
    Replikon Research
    Alexandria, VA