Thursday, April 2, 2020

Comments by Jeffrey Lacasse, PhD

Showing 4 of 4 comments.

  • Thanks for your comments and of course I don’t take it as a personal cut, I’m always open to critique, that’s part of the gig. I appreciate the thoughtful comments.

    One nuance: When it comes to the problems with the peer-reviewed literature, I don’t think psychiatrists or psychiatric prescribers are any less informed than cardiologists or general practitioners, who also base their practice of evidence-based medicine on selectively reported data largely shaped by the pharmaceutical industry. It’s a broad problem. Clearly we’re most concerned with psychiatry here at Mad in America- and psychiatry definitely has its own specific problems which are well-articulated in the comments section here and elsewhere…but all I’m saying is that, in general, prescribers trust the peer-reviewed literature and are unaware of how untrustworthy most of the information published in academic journals actually is.

    By stating this, I’m not intentionally giving anyone any slack – ultimately it’s their job to know such things – but I’m just under the impression that they aren’t aware of the problems, in psychiatry or elsewhere in medical practice.

  • Thanks for the comments. My take on this is many clinicians simply aren’t well-informed. I happened to meet a child psychiatrist in my social circle a few years ago – he had never heard of ghostwriting, Study 329, or many of the issues that readers of Mad in America are very familiar with. I do not think he was atypical. Perhaps I am naive, but I continue to think that many prescribers simply are not aware of the problems with the peer-reviewed literature.

    Jack, great to hear from you! I am well – but not in Florida yet, getting on the road at the end of the month. I’ll be in touch this week.