3 ms·
This is a lot of bluster and citing academic sources like The Daily Mail. But the underlying criticism of Star*D may be valid, and you can read a much better cr
by spcebar 3y ago
This is a lot of bluster and citing academic sources like The Daily Mail. But the underlying criticism of Star*D may be valid, and you can read a much better criticism of it here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4314062/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4314062/
- hackerlight 3y agoThere is a very little bluster, this is a thorough summary of the main studies that should cause you to be skeptical of the efficacy of anti-depressants. He cites a Daily Mail article by Dr. Irving Kirsch himself, but he could have just as easily cited Irving Kirsch's actual studies which is what the article is about, but it shouldn't matter that much since it's the same author. There are many other citations to legitimate journals, it's odd that you would focus on this as your main criticism.