Peter Simons is certainly not to blame. This publication was sold with a convincing story, both through the audio interview on the JAMA website (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/article-abstract/2780290) and subsequently in the media. The message was one that many people, including me, would like to hear: that preventive cognitive therapy or mindfulness-based cognitive therapy can prevent against relapse after long term use of antidepressants. As very many others I consider it important that different forms of psychotherapy as well as many other forms of help or therapy that can all be helpful should be available, and this should not be limited to preventive cognitive therapy or mindfulness-based cognitive therapy. The problem is that this ‘meta-analysis’ does not prove (or disprove) that these particular two forms of psychotherapy prevent against relapse. Therefore, in my opinion, JAMA Psychiatry should not have published it. I really wonder why this happened and how it is possible that the reviewers of this study did not see its flaws. What this again shows is that so-called ‘prominent’ and high impact journals do not automatically publish the best and most relevant science. Therefore we must always be critical, also or perhaps even more so when a conclusion of a study is to our liking.