Studies on psychiatric drugs


ADHD drugs
The following study is sometimes cited as evidence in favor of methylphenidate treatment

However, the earlier advantage of having had continuous intake of medication for14 months was no longer apparent at the 36-monthfollow-up.
Other long term studies also show stimulants dont work in the case of ADHD

Stimulants can still give a percieved benefit to people using them including individuals not diagnosed with ADHD

The following study did find that the group who took their medication as prescribed were less likely to abuse other substances but this was not a randomized controlled trial and can thus be discarded

The study only looked at the first 2 years since starting on stimulant medication which is too short to draw any long term conclusion.

The Cochrane review found:

The quality of the evidence and hence the certainty or reliability of the evidence for the comparative studies is very low. The reliability of the evidence for the non-comparative studies is low due to weaknesses in study design. Accordingly, it is not possible to accurately estimate the risks of adverse events in children and adolescents prescribed methylphenidate.

Methyphenidiate might be associated with a number of serious adverse events. Methylphenidate produces a large number of other non-serious harmful effects in children and adolescents with ADHD. We suggest that clinicians and parents are alert to the importance of monitoring adverse events in a systematic, meticulous manner. If methylphenidate is to continue to have a place in ADHD treatment in the future, we need to identify subgroups of patients in whom the benefits of methylphenidate outweigh the harms. Just as we need to be able to identify who is likely to benefit from treatment, we also need to be able to identify those who are most at risk of experiencing adverse events. In order to do this, we need to undertake large-scale, high-quality RCTs along with other studies aimed at identifying those who respond and those who do not respond to treatment.


SSRI studies
SSRIs have an effect on sexual function, almost entirely negative: Decreased libido, increasing latency and amount of stimulation needed to reach orgasm, in some cases decreased genital sensitivity, anorgasmia. Some of these effects can persist after orgasm in a phenomenon known as post-SSRI sexual dysfunction (PSSD). Bala et al. (2018) reviewed the literature on PSSD. Haberfellner, Rittmannsberger (2004) reported spontaneous improvement in delay of orgasm caused by SSRIs after 6 months including complete remission of that effect in 31 % of users.

Moore et al. (2010) found that the SSRIs fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline, escitalpram, citalopram and duloxetine have a disproportionate number of case reports of being suspected of causing violent behavior. Note that this is a purely observational study and therefore it is subject to many confounders.


Extrapolating these results
There is no shortage of combinations of diagnosis and treatment, thus believers in the psychiatry cult can always tell themsleves "sure it doesn't work for these cases but i still got helped" (as if personal anecdotes would be evidence for anything). The negative long term results we have does however have bad implications for psychiatric drugs in general.

If the probability of a bad outcome of a psychiatric treatment is X than the probability for 2 of 2 trials being bad is X²

But the long term studies we have looked at here are in cases where short term results seemed to be positive, in many cases (such as with SSRIs) psychiatric drug struggle to beat placebo even in the short term.



This shows Antidepressants effects vs placebo. It is a meta-analysis of meta-analysis so you cannot blindly trust the results (you can cherry-pick, etc) I looked through the methodologies of several blind to results before finding this methodology satisfactory, so I am not cherry picking based on outcome.

"This suggests that 89% of depressed patients are not receiving a clinically significant benefit from the antidepressants that are prescribed for them.

Yet this 11% figure may overestimate the number of people who benefit from antidepressants."

That's a pretty damming success rate, essentially an 8 in 9 chance being no better than sugar pills. But hey, that's better than nothing right? Well....

". Among the side effects of antidepressants are sexual dysfunction (which affects 70–80% of patients on SSRIs), long-term weight gain, insomnia, nausea, and diarrhea. Approximately 20% of people attempted to quit taking antidepressants show withdrawal symptoms. Antidepressants have been linked to increases in suicidal ideation among children and young adults. Older adults have increased risks of stroke and death from all causes. Pregnant women using antidepressants are at increased risk of miscarriage, and if they don’t miscarry, their offspring are more likely to be born with autism, birth malformations, persistent pulmonary hypertension, and newborn behavioral syndrome."

Now all of sudden we are looking at a 197 BILLION dollar industry that rarely has positive outcomes, but often has negative ones.

Compare to psychology (unfortunately the full study is behind a paywall but this is the abstract)

This shows much better outcomes, with a postive correlation accross 16k subjects. Also:

"Overall, we also found evidence of long-term effects of the interventions."


How trials are rigged
There are many ways in which psychiatric drugs trials are rigged in order to make the these drugs look less bad than they are.

0. People in the trial have often already started on the drug making them dependent on it, then the drug is abruptly withdrawn in the placebo group resulting in the placebo group getting severe withdrawal symptoms.
1. The time duration of the trial is set to be short (hiding long term negative outcomes).
2. Instead of measuring things that matters like quality of life subjective rating scales are used.
3. Drug trials are very rarily properly blinded. you can easily figure out if someone is on a placebo due to the severe side effects from the drugs.

Despite trying 0, 2 and 3 not a single long term Randomized controlled trial has demonstrated good outcome from a psychiatric drug for any mental disorder, they also need to limit the duration of the trials to successfully rig them. Often these trials are paid for by drug companies and they are not interested in paying for a trial that show their drug not to be effective.


Another fraudulent meta-analysis
Of course they hide this behind a paywall


A randomized discontinuation study included children with ASD and irritability that were responders to aripiprazole on irritability outcomes. In this study, a decrease in ABC hyper-activity over 6–9 months was found in children who were randomized to ongoing aripiprazole treatmentcompared to a switch to placebo (MD=5.20, 95%CI10.20,.20,I2=N/A; Findling et al., 2014).

No meaningful outcome was measured in any of the studies, they didn't ask the child in any of the studies, only authority figures and all studies were short term.


would you classify soy as a psychiatric drug ?
No absolutely not, with psychiatric drug i refer to drugs that target neurotransmitters (adderal, zyprexa, etc).

Hormones will also affect behaviour and this might actually be an effective way to affect human behaviour.