It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I specifically wanted to get the document containing the correct percentage of antidepressants for those 'who committed suicide and who had previously been treated at a psychiatric clinic for depression' (the earlier mentioned group of 1077 persons).
The answer from Karolinska Institutet: This is confidential information, no data can be released.
It took a five month legal process to get access to the correct data. During this whole process Karolinska Institutet claimed that all the data in this research project were confidential. In a final statement to the court, after having to answer specific questions, Karolinska Institutet stated that the correct figures did not exist at the time of the FOI-request – remember that they were said to be confidential at the time – but that the correct figures now had been produced.
Karolinska Institutet stated to the court: 'that information has now been produced … The result shows that ‘the correct percentage’ is 56, meaning that of the persons who had been treated for depression in psychiatric care in the last five years before suicide, 56% had antidepressants in their blood when they committed suicide.' So finally we got to know that the 15.2% in actual fact was 56% – an increase of 268% (from 164 persons to 603). We had a seven pages long scientific article, with great impact in media, where doctors and the public got the message that antidepressants protect against suicide – an article built on Isacsson’s faulty finding that only 15.2% in the group had antidepressants in their blood when they committed suicide. And so the correct data, which completely defeated Isacsson’s speculations and conclusions in the original article, 'published' in a short statement to the court in Stockholm, where no doctor, no patient and no other researcher could find it." So, Dr. Isacsson et al's original finding of 15.2% was a very large error indeed. As I mentioned earlier, the logic underlying the study is tenuous, but Table 1 from the study will provide some insight into the authors' thinking.
The controls (34,165) are people who did not commit suicide. These are individuals who died from accidental and natural deaths. Antidepressants were detected in 6.5% of these individuals post-mortem.
The suicides (18,922) represent all Swedish suicides from 1992 to 2003. Antidepressants were detected in 22.4% of these people post-mortem.
Then the authors broke the numbers down further. They note that 11,226 of the suicides had no psychiatric hospitalization in the 5 years prior to their deaths. Of these individuals, 14.8% had antidepressants detected post-mortem. The remaining 7,696 suicides, who had been in a psychiatric hospital in the preceding 5 years, had an antidepressant detection rate of 33.6%. And this is where it gets complicated. The researchers broke the hospitalized numbers down further, into:
Those hospitalized for depression only
15.2% Those hospitalized for other problems
37.3% Those hospitalized for depression plus other problems
33.2% Their argument was that the first group (depression only) would be expected to have about the same, or an even higher, level of detected antidepressants as the other groups. But, contrary to expectations, they found that they had the lowest level – about the same, in fact, as the group who had not been hospitalized in the previous five years. So, they reason that large numbers of the hospitalized-for-depression-only group, most of whom presumably had antidepressants in their blood stream, had "been saved from committing suicide by antidepressant treatment."
But as mentioned earlier, there was an error in the data, and the correct number was 56%.
Dr. Isacsson issued the above statement on March 19, 2012. At that time, neither he nor Karolinska Institutet had released the 56% figure (on the patently spurious grounds of confidentiality). It took several more months of legal process before the 56% figure was produced. So at the time that Dr. Isacsson wrote "… not less than expected …", he probably did not anticipate that the true figure would ever be released.
But the plot thickens even further: "This means that no conclusion can be drawn from the study regarding antidepressants’ effects on suicide risk in any direction." [Emphasis added] If a particularly low number (15%) warrants the conclusion in the article's title ("Antidepressants Medication Prevents Suicide in Depression"), wouldn't it be reasonable to infer that a particularly high number (56%) might warrant the opposite conclusion? This is particularly so in that the increase from 15% to 56% can only have come at the expense of one or other of the remaining categories, which would make the discrepancy even larger.
I'm perfectly willing to accept that the original analysis was a genuine error. But at the time of the retraction and the letter to Retraction Watch, Dr. Isacsson must have known that the true figure was 56%, and the question needs to be asked: Why did he not release the 56% figure voluntarily at the time of discovery? In addition, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that his letter to Ivan Oransky was deliberately deceptive. Mickey Nardo puts the matter well:
"It would be easy to drift into a debate about the relationship between suicide and antidepressants and miss the point here, which is that medical opinion should follow science, not the other way around. It’s clear that Göran Isacsson is of the opinion that antidepressants should be given to decrease the incidence of suicide – he has an absolute right to express that opinion. But when Isacsson offers as proof of his opinion a published study of the Swedish public records, and it turns out that his data either is wrong, not to be found, or never existed in the first place...
originally posted by: GetHyped
I'm not exactly seeing the causal link here. Suicidal people are depressed. Depressed people in psychiatric care are treated with antidepressants. Therefore, the conclusion is that antidepressants cause suicide? This does not logically hold up.
Many of the recent spree killers were in fact heavily dosed on such medication. Perhapse our medicated society should be more cautious of Big pharma.
Big pharma is medicating the population so that violent outbursts are the common norm.
originally posted by: Mianeye
Many of the recent spree killers were in fact heavily dosed on such medication. Perhapse our medicated society should be more cautious of Big pharma.
Big pharma is medicating the population so that violent outbursts are the common norm.
Completely BS.
Antidepressants are used all over the world in some countrys more than in the US, and we don't see violent spree's all over the place like in the US.
originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: GetHyped
56 % is enough to call potential causation. Would you use it with those stats ? would you give it to a family member ?
Every god damn teenager today is depressed. And the industry loves it. Just keep selling those magic pills. They make everything ok.
originally posted by: AnuTyr
a reply to: Mianeye
No. I just means if they are high on anti-depressants and they reallly really want to murder themselves plus anyone else who gets in their way they are 56% more likely to do so lol.
originally posted by: AnuTyr
a reply to: SpongeBeard
Journalist Source link for Article
Here you go.