Big Pharma Scores Big Win as medicinal Herbs Will Disappear in EU

Run_to_da_hills

"It's almost a done deal. We are about to see herbal preparations disappear, and the ability of herbalists to prescribe them will also be lost.
"



The Big Pharma, the same crowd that tried to scare us all about Swine Flu and then flog us all their products to prevent this "disease" will soon have the monopoly over what we can take to cure our illnesses. Herbs have been used for thousands of years to successfully treat illnesses such as Aloe vera could soon be regarded as illegal drugs and go down the same route as Cannabis if you are caught in the possession of them.



http://gaia-health.com/articles301/000301-big-pharma-scores-big-win-medicinal-herbs-disappear-eu.shtml

pablo_escobar

I see where you're coming from RTDH but the directive you're referring to doesn't appear to ban all herbal medicines.

It's worrying that certain herbal remedies could disappear for no valid reason.
Check out this guide here

Torakx

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

"It's almost a done deal. We are about to see herbal preparations disappear, and the ability of herbalists to prescribe them will also be lost.
"



The Big Pharma, the same crowd that tried to scare us all about Swine Flu and then flog us all their products to prevent this "disease" will soon have the monopoly over what we can take to cure our illnesses. Herbs have been used for thousands of years to successfully treat illnesses such as Aloe vera could soon be regarded as illegal drugs and go down the same route as Cannabis if you are caught in the possession of them.



http://gaia-health.com/articles301/000301-big-pharma-scores-big-win-medicinal-herbs-disappear-eu.shtml

Can you imagine them banning Aloe Vera haha
That would be ridiculous for sure.Dont know if that would wake people up though.
I would be very sad to see aloe vera go.My granny used tons of this while recovering from bowl cancer and she recovered swiftly.
If they banned that i know for sure there is an agenda going on that could be killing people.Be it on purpose or for money i will say an eye for an eye and a life for a life at the end of the day sounds fair to me
What evil b4st4rd withholds a persons medicine for ransom.

gizmo

Bravo, fantastic twisting of words!

This directive requires that all herbal preparations must be put through the same kind of procedure as pharmaceuticals. It makes no difference whether a herb has been in common use for thousands of years.

That does not equate to banning, at all. This just means that when compounds are sold which claim they treat a specific illness, they must be tested the same as normal drugs to ensure they're safe. It does not target individual herbs and even if they did, it would only need to be tested once if one is to believe the hilariously sensationalist words of that article.

Brown Bomber

gizmo wrote: »

Bravo, fantastic twisting of words!

That does not equate to banning, at all. This just means that when compounds are sold which claim they treat a specific illness, they must be tested the same as normal drugs to ensure they're safe. It does not target individual herbs and even if they did, it would only need to be tested once if one is to believe the hilariously sensationalist words of that article.

Who does the testing? And what reasons are there to trust them?

gizmo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Who does the testing? And what reasons are there to trust them?

The same organizations who test the drugs of pharmaceutical companies now. Also the same organization which routinely bans and blocks the sale of the products of those same pharmaceutical companies. One need only look at the fortunes of Elan in our own country to see the effect of this testing.

Pixel8

The pharmaceutical industry are the ones who pay for these so called clinical trials and tests on substances and they get the results they paid for!

They don't do tests on things that other independent researchers, doctors and nutritional experts are telling us work better such as colloidal silver, blood electrification, THC, high vitamin doses etc. because they would lose billions each year if people found out the truth about all of this. It's slowly but surely happening though...

It's time for everyone to start putting these alternatives to the test and finding out for themselves that we've all been lied to by these criminals for so many years...

www.electrobiotics.com has some excellent information about all of this type of stuff.

gizmo

Pixel8 wrote: »

The pharmaceutical industry are the ones who pay for these so called clinical trials and tests on substances and they get the results they paid for!

So when something like this happens, you're saying what, Elan didn't pay enough for the study? :rolleyes:

Pixel8 wrote: »

They don't do tests on things that other independent researchers, doctors and nutritional experts are telling us work better such as colloidal silver, blood electrification, THC, high vitamin doses etc. because they would lose billions each year if people found out the truth about all of this. It's slowly but surely happening though...

It was pointed out in another thread that THC does not cure cancer, can you please provide evidence to the contrary?

Pixel8 wrote: »

It's time for everyone to start putting these alternatives to the test and finding out for themselves that we've all been lied to by these criminals for so many years...

Yes, lets all become guinea pigs and test these things on ourselves, to hell with the pharmaceutical industry! :eek:

You know, having an interesting debate about conspiracy theories is one thing but advising people to try this stuff out for themselves is simply dangerous.

Brown Bomber

gizmo wrote: »

So when something like this happens, you're saying what, Elan didn't pay enough for the study? :rolleyes:


It was pointed out in another thread that THC does not cure cancer, can you please provide evidence to the contrary?


Yes, lets all become guinea pigs and test these things on ourselves, to hell with the pharmaceutical industry! :eek:

You know, having an interesting debate about conspiracy theories is one thing but advising people to try this stuff out for themselves is simply dangerous.

More dangerous than advising the whole world to take a rushed, untested vaccine for a non-existent, fabricated pandemic?

At least he is adovocating for people to make their own mind up and not blindly accept the word of corrupt institutions.

gizmo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

More dangerous than advising the whole world to take a rushed, untested vaccine for a non-existent, fabricated pandemic?

The swine flu pandemic? You mean the vaccination that none of us here received either through choice or via government intervention?

And on a side note, sure the scale of the pandemic was blown completely out of proportion but at the same time to rubbish it completely is disrespectful of the people who actually died. Having a certain stockpile of the vaccination is clearly the safest way to go, the problem is if the companies refuse to include a break clause in the contract which allow the government to cancel excess orders once the danger as subsided. It is ridiculous that they can simply refuse this request leading to governments being forced to pay for millions of doses it no longer needs.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

At least he is adovocating for people to make their own mind up and not blindly accept the word of corrupt institutions.

Yes but people aren't qualified to make those kinds of decisions, that's why people in the medical profession go through years of training before they're allowed to practice medicine.

Pixel8

gizmo wrote: »

It was pointed out in another thread that THC does not cure cancer, can you please provide evidence to the contrary?

Harvard have done a study on THC and it came out positive for helping to cure cancer: http://www.nowpublic.com/thc_marijuana_helps_cure_cancer_says_harvard_study

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSXhwP5QjUQ

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/59872/title/Not_just_a_high

68 Peer Reviewed Studies on Marijuana:
http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000884

Ever seen the short docu drama called "Cannabis: The Evil Weed". In that it shows that the Brits are studying the medical effects of THC for the last few years and they are growing a lot of it legally! Their results are eye opening.

You obviously haven't even googled medical marijuana once.

Yes, lets all become guinea pigs and test these things on ourselves, to hell with the pharmaceutical industry! :eek:

You know, having an interesting debate about conspiracy theories is one thing but advising people to try this stuff out for themselves is simply dangerous.

Seems like the only way you're going to believe that it works! I and many others across the net have tried colloidal silver and blood electrification and i've had very positive effects from them both! But don't believe me, believe a big pharma liar who has a lot to lose by telling the truth about it, the naivity of some people...

What's dangerous is doing what your told your whole life without ever asking questions.

gizmo

Believe it or not, a Harvard study released on April 17, 2007 shows that the active ingredient in marijuana, THC, cuts tumor growth in common lung cancer in half and significantly reduces the ability of the cancer to spread!

That does not equate to curing cancer.

Pixel8 wrote: »

Seems like the only way you're going to believe that it works! I and many others across the net have tried colloidal silver and blood electrification and i've had very positive effects from them both! But don't believe me, believe a big pharma liar who has a lot to lose by telling the truth about it, the naivity of some people...

No, I'll believe someone who has actual medical training, not some random person on the internet who claims a certain treatment worked for them. If I was to do that my penis would be about another 10inches longer at this stage. :pac:

Pixel8 wrote: »

What's dangerous is doing what your told your whole life without ever asking questions.

I ask plenty of questions, the difference is I don't make **** up when I don't like or understand the answers I get.

desertcircus

There's no truth in the statement that you've enjoyed medical benefits from colloidal silver and blood electrification; you may certainly believe so, but there's no evidence that either works in treatment. Whatever benefit you perceive is most likely confirmation bias, regression to the mean, or simply the placebo effect.

The testing process isn't particularly obtuse or opaque: you simply run a double-blind test and measure relevant indicators. If you get a statistically significant result, well done: you've got evidence that a treatment works. If you don't get a statistically significant result, well done too: you've got evidence that it doesn't. This isn't a corruption thing: how to run a trial is publicly known, so that people can see if your results were a once-off. If your results aren't reproducible, then we can't trust the conclusions.

I wish people would stop assuming that drug trials were some weird conspiracy. Take a week off and read Ben Goldacre's Bad Science, then get your hands on enough test subjects to get a statistically significant result. Randomly split the group into two; one gets the drug being tested, one gets a placebo, and you make sure nobody administering the treatments know which is which. Then test your groups for what you're treating, and see what percentages report success. Measure A - the percentage of the placebo group that recovered - against B - the percentage of the people on the substance being tested that recovered, and see if there's a difference. THAT'S IT. Barring bits and pieces about ensuring that bias doesn't sneak in, you have a simple and foolproof guide to running a test; the only way of knowing for sure if the treatment itself works.

Pixel8

desertcircus wrote: »

There's no truth in the statement that you've enjoyed medical benefits from colloidal silver and blood electrification; you may certainly believe so, but there's no evidence that either works in treatment. Whatever benefit you perceive is most likely confirmation bias, regression to the mean, or simply the placebo effect.

There's plenty of evidence actually, you just seem to dismiss it all because it's not government or FDA approved or whatever without realising their agenda.








Chemotherapy or high dose Vitamins and Minerals or Colloidal Silver? Mmmm, tough choice... What do doctors even know about Vitamins and Minerals? Less than 6% of medical doctors get any training in Nutrition, nuff said.

I think this has all been discussed already in another thread.

WakeUp

Big Pharma companies, imo , can not be trusted. At the end of the day they need to make a profit and that's what they do best.

Here is an example:

A major U.S. drug company, Forest Pharmaceuticals, has agreed to plead guilty to three charges related to selling an unapproved drug, promoting an antidepressant to children and obstructing federal agents. -(link)

Tiddlypeeps

Pixel8 wrote: »

There's plenty of evidence actually, you just seem to dismiss it all because it's not government or FDA approved or whatever without realising their agenda.








Chemotherapy or high dose Vitamins and Minerals or Colloidal Silver? Mmmm, tough choice... What do doctors even know about Vitamins and Minerals? Less than 6% of medical doctors get any training in Nutrition, nuff said.

I think this has all been discussed already in another thread.

Your first quote, from the man who made millions selling people a very dangerous diet plan. Truly a respectable source :P

I don't understand where the paranoia comes from, if Vitamins and Minerals did the same job as Chemotherapy then the pharmaceutical companies would sell them to us in whatever form they felt it would be best administered and they would continue to be a billion dollar industry.

RoboClam

I can explain the mechanism by which chemotherapy kills cancer cells. However I have no idea what the suggested mechanism is for any of the alternate treatments in this thread. Can anyone explain or link me to an explanation of how "vitamins and minerals", Colloidal Silver or blood electrification kill cancer cells?

My name is URL

The guys claiming that the stuff they sell 'cures' diseases is what's damaging the herbalist industry, not the scientific community. If the people out to make a buck from selling lies didn't do so, then there'd be no need to put these complementary medicinal substances through the same rigorous testing and trials as other medicines which are sold as actual treatments.. more and more people are beginning to buy into these things as stand-alone treatment options for various ailments. I don't see why they shouldn't be subject to the same scrutiny as other medicines in that case.. of course if the people selling this stuff did so with no pretense of being a viable alternative to more well documented and proven therapies, then the problem wouldn't exist to the same extent

El_Dangeroso

I'm all for regulation of herbal medicine, you can really f*ck yourself up with things you can buy in a healthfood shop if you don't know what you're doing.

However, it costs over a billion euro and around 12 years of research to get a novel drug to market, who in their right mind would pay that for something they couldn't patent?

There are potentially useful herbal compounds or nutritional supplements that can be used in the treatment of disease, often just as effective as their pharmaceutical counterparts with less side effects but the money just is not there for the research. It is so much easier to get money from pharma companies than it is from government research councils.

Asking a company producing herbal medication to carry out the same level of research to assert their claims is tantamount to banning what they sell.

studiorat

A very clever sleight of hand that the snake oil salesmen who punt out ancient or herbal remedies such as collidal silver use is to say that it may help/cure you/ : http://www.bodykind.ie/AdvancedSearch.aspx?advanced=false&keywords=Colloidal%20Silver&Referr=Google_ie_%20colloidal%20silver&gclid=CI724vDUlqQCFYlg4wodiTaRHw Read carefully.


Another little trick they use is to say things like " Colloidal Silver is used for treatment against Cancer!"

I doesn't say that it works. just says that its uses as treatment. You could use bananas for cancer treatment ffs...

Below is an example of con-men selling herbal remedies for all sorts of illnesses. Have a look at the three treatments available, then what they are meant to cure. Then have a look at the ingredients. Sad thing is people buy them because they are either desperate or blindly buy into any old rubbish because it's labeled "Alternative"
http://trematab.com/

http://angitab.com/

http://ridmotab.com/

espinolman

The thing to do with herbs is to grow them in your garden .
Grow medicinal herbs in your garden .
And if they make it illegal , then just grow them in places like the edges of forests , or anywhere out in the countryside , you will know where they are planted , they won't .

Tiddlypeeps

espinolman wrote: »

The thing to do with herbs is to grow them in your garden .
Grow medicinal herbs in your garden .
And if they make it illegal , then just grow them in places like the edges of forests , or anywhere out in the countryside , you will know where they are planted , they won't .

The problem is shops claiming herbs have certain medicinal properties and selling them to people without proper testing. Legislation that states these herbs must be tested properly won't effect people growing herbs in their back garden, as long as they don't sell them to anybody.

espinolman

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

people growing herbs in their back garden, as long as they don't sell them to anybody.

There you go , problem solved , just find out what herbs are good for you and grow them in your garden , like people used to do years ago .

RoboClam

espinolman wrote: »

There you go , problem solved , just find out what herbs are good for you and grow them in your garden , like people used to do years ago .

A good way of finding out what herbs are good for you might be to subject them to the same double blinded placebo controlled clinical trials which all pharmaceuticals must go through.

espinolman

RoboClam wrote: »

A good way of finding out what herbs are good for you might be to subject them to the same double blinded placebo controlled clinical trials which all pharmaceuticals must go through.

The way i test them out is to get cancer and then see which herbs work best to cure the cancer .

RoboClam

espinolman wrote: »

The way i test them out is to get cancer and then see which herbs work best to cure the cancer .

Sounds like a flawed methodology to me

espinolman

RoboClam wrote: »

Sounds like a flawed methodology to me

Its always worked for me , where conventional medicine has not worked for me with regard to cancer .

So which is the flawed methodology , to look for a cure or to look for something to sell !

Tiddlypeeps

espinolman wrote: »

Its always worked for me , where conventional medicine has not worked for me with regard to cancer .

So which is the flawed methodology , to look for a cure or to look for something to sell !

There is a lot more motivation to find a cure for something when you can make money from it. At the end of the day a cure is a cure, regardless of who makes money from it.

enno99

WakeUp wrote: »

Big Pharma companies, imo , can not be trusted. At the end of the day they need to make a profit and that's what they do best.

Here is an example:

A major U.S. drug company, Forest Pharmaceuticals, has agreed to plead guilty to three charges related to selling an unapproved drug, promoting an antidepressant to children and obstructing federal agents. -(link)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61af_zV6WEg

another example what else are the prepared to do to ?

WakeUp

enno99 wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61af_zV6WEg

another example what else are the prepared to do to ?

Nice find:). It certainly makes you wonder how many times this has happened before and the public knew no better of it, if they have done it once what's to say they haven't done it in the past. That was very sly on their behalf.

sligopark

Next stop enforced public vaccination and medication

political industrial co-operation

espinolman

sligopark wrote: »

Next stop enforced public vaccination and medication

political industrial co-operation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYI-dC9G0us

gizmo

sligopark wrote: »

Next stop enforced public vaccination and medication

political industrial co-operation

Never going to happen.

Do remember that the WHO-based Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunisation, on which many of the heads of the pharmaceutical companies sit, recommended that the H1N1 be made mandatory yet it did not happen.

My name is URL

gizmo wrote: »

Never going to happen.

Do remember that the WHO-based Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunisation, on which many of the heads of the pharmaceutical companies sit, recommended that the H1N1 be made mandatory yet it did not happen.

The fact that they recommended it is troubling enough afaic.

It's ludicrous that conflicts of interest are allowed to exist within the highest echelons of organisations like the WHO

enno99

gizmo wrote: »

Never going to happen.

Do remember that the WHO-based Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunisation, on which many of the heads of the pharmaceutical companies sit, recommended that the H1N1 be made mandatory yet it did not happen.

Maybe they will use some other method

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/978888/Swine-flu-vaccine-to-be-secretly-given-with-regular-flu-jab.html

Tiddlypeeps

enno99 wrote: »

Maybe they will use some other method

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/978888/Swine-flu-vaccine-to-be-secretly-given-with-regular-flu-jab.html

Nobody is being forced to take the flu jab. Why would someone choose to get a flu jab to prevent the flu, but not want to be protected against swine flu? News of the World as usual sensationalising everything.

gizmo

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

Nobody is being forced to take the flu jab. Why would someone choose to get a flu jab to prevent the flu, but not want to be protected against swine flu? News of the World as usual sensationalising everything.

And of course they skip the relevant stat while "reporting"...

"By March this year, that particular H1N1 vaccine had been given out 5.5million times and there have been no reported cases of narcolepsy in Britain."

As for the recommendation URL, my main objection would be that the vaccination wasn't as thoroughly tested as others and as such shouldn't be forced on people. If there is a serious outbreak and people chose not to take it then they should at least have to sign a waiver saying they can't sue the government if they become infected. Unfortunately nothing would surprise me more than a bunch of people doing so claiming they hadn't been given enough information.

As for the conflict of interest, well that's true but at the same time these people have risen up in the industry to get to those positions so they're still experts in the field. As long as they don't have anything close to a majority on a body which sets policy then I think it's alright.

enno99

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

Nobody is being forced to take the flu jab. Why would someone choose to get a flu jab to prevent the flu, but not want to be protected against swine flu? News of the World as usual sensationalising everything.

sensationalist alright but not so far fetched

Reuters) - This year's seasonal flu vaccine in the northern hemisphere should include protection against three strains, including the pandemic H1N1 virus, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended on Thursday

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSWLB737620100218

Tiddlypeeps

enno99 wrote: »

sensationalist alright but not so far fetched

Reuters) - This year's seasonal flu vaccine in the northern hemisphere should include protection against three strains, including the pandemic H1N1 virus, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended on Thursday

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSWLB737620100218

I never said there wasn't any truth to the original article, just that it makes it out to be a bad thing, and as if it is forced on OAPs. The flu jab is changed every year to fight off whatever strain of the flu that happens to be knocking about at that point in time. As over hyped as the swine flu was it doesn't change the fact that it is a bad flu and is quite dangerous, like most flu's, for OAP's and pregnant woman to contract. So it makes sense to include it in this years flu jab.

Torakx

Doesnt the flu mutate anyway? The vaccines are probably not up to date by the time they reach the customer.

My name is URL

gizmo wrote: »

And of course they skip the relevant stat while "reporting"...



As for the recommendation URL, my main objection would be that the vaccination wasn't as thoroughly tested as others and as such shouldn't be forced on people. If there is a serious outbreak and people chose not to take it then they should at least have to sign a waiver saying they can't sue the government if they become infected. Unfortunately nothing would surprise me more than a bunch of people doing so claiming they hadn't been given enough information.

As for the conflict of interest, well that's true but at the same time these people have risen up in the industry to get to those positions so they're still experts in the field. As long as they don't have anything close to a majority on a body which sets policy then I think it's alright.

Funnily enough, the vaccine makers demanded & obtained legal immunity for the eventuality that there be problems with the vaccine. There are so many ties between parties recieving kickbacks and furthering their own agendas.. if this was happening in the motor industry people would be on trial because of it.

Compartmentalisation of specialties is supposed to be a good thing, and yet when people are guilty of breaching the trust required to ensure it stays that way; the public are all too happy to say 'sure what can you do, they're the experts'. So much for science and reason if the unreasonable is allowed to pervail.

And so much for the idea of Occrams Razor.. no longer is do vast amounts of people need to be involved for a conspiracy to happen.. not when the few who are involved are protected in a bubble of bullshit

gizmo

Hey, I used Occams Razor in a different thread, no fair!

As for the issue regarding legal immunity, well that wasn't specific to the N1H1 vaccine, that's a broadly applied principle designed to encourage R&D despite the possible side effects of certain vaccinations on certain patients. Just as was discussed in another thread, if families wish to pursue legal action should one of their loved ones develop these side effects, they can do so through the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

desertcircus

There's evidence that I haven't seen because it's not government- or FDA-approved? Do tell me where I might find such evidence. I see links to heated claims about conspiracies, but zero actual evidence.

And as for the idea that requiring testing is tantamount to banning a substance: that's like saying that requiring a driving licence is tantamount to banning monkeys from driving. You can't sell a medical treatment for a condition without clear evidence that it works in treating that condition; if you can't afford the testing for your novel new treatment idea, then you don't get to sell it. That's not unfair; it's simply a requirement that anything sold as a treatment has to bloody well work.

El_Dangeroso

desertcircus wrote: »

There's evidence that I haven't seen because it's not government- or FDA-approved? Do tell me where I might find such evidence. I see links to heated claims about conspiracies, but zero actual evidence.

And as for the idea that requiring testing is tantamount to banning a substance: that's like saying that requiring a driving licence is tantamount to banning monkeys from driving. You can't sell a medical treatment for a condition without clear evidence that it works in treating that condition; if you can't afford the testing for your novel new treatment idea, then you don't get to sell it. That's not unfair; it's simply a requirement that anything sold as a treatment has to bloody well work.

No its not the same as banning monkeys from driving, what an absurd analogy!

As I said I'm all for regulation, I just bemoan the fact that cheaper possible treatments don't get the research dollars thrown at them and they don't have pharmaceutical reps promoting them to doctors because there is no money in it.

A classic example is St. John's Wort. A moderately effective treatment for depression that was made prescription only. Most doctor's will never prescribe it over Prozac et. al, despite many anti-depressants showing little more effectiveness than placebo in many instances.

gizmo

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

A classic example is St. John's Wort. A moderately effective treatment for depression that was made prescription only. Most doctor's will never prescribe it over Prozac et. al, despite many anti-depressants showing little more effectiveness than placebo in many instances.

Personally I'm glad to see any medicine used in the treatment of depression being made prescription only. As for doctors not prescribing it, well it remains to be seen just how effective it is.

National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) and other NIH-affiliated organizations hold that St John's wort has minimal or no effects beyond placebo in the treatment of major depression

Link

Yitzhak Rabin

Here is a decent video, that takes an objective and informative look at Herbal medicine vs Evidence based medicine. I agree with his conclusions for the most part. He also discusses St. John's Wort.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3yzXXPeLo0

Here is a biased, but also much funnier take on the issue

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMvMb90hem8

El_Dangeroso

gizmo wrote: »

Personally I'm glad to see any medicine used in the treatment of depression being made prescription only. As for doctors not prescribing it, well it remains to be seen just how effective it is.



Link

I see your point, as I said, I'm all for regulation. However, st. john's wart has demonstrated neurological effects and has been shown in some studies to improve mild depression, problem being that compared to the research that has been done on SSRI's, it is a drop in the ocean.

Here is a great review in the BMJ of the evidence surrounding the efficacy of conventional SSRI's:

Summary points

Recent meta-analyses show selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors have no clinically meaningful advantage over placebo

Claims that antidepressants are more effective in more severe conditions have little evidence to support them

Methodological artefacts may account for the small degree of superiority shown over placebo

Antidepressants have not been convincingly shown to affect the long term outcome of depression or suicide rates

Given doubt about their benefits and concern about their risks, current recommendations for prescribing antidepressants should be reconsidered