Article The drug-based approach to mental illness has failed. What are alternatives?

[Syne]

As with so many things, you're completely ignorant of the limitations of randomized control trials:

Background: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are commonly viewed as the best research method to inform public health and social policy. Usually they are thought of as providing the most rigorous evidence of a treatment’s effectiveness without strong assumptions, biases and limitations.
...
Results: This study shows that these world-leading RCTs that have influenced policy produce biased results by illustrating that participants’ background traits that affect outcomes are often poorly distributed between trial groups, that the trials often neglect alternative factors contributing to their main reported outcome and, among many other issues, that the trials are often only partially blinded or unblinded. The study here also identifies a number of novel and important assumptions, biases and limitations not yet thoroughly discussed in existing studies that arise when designing, implementing and analysing trials.
- https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10....3#abstract

And citing The Guardian is a joke.

It's always telling when you completely fail to address anything in the previous post and just block quote... as if ignorantly posting appeals to authority are valid arguments, in and of themselves. But then, that largely seems to be all you're capable of, considering you don't even comprehend half your own citations.

[Magical Realist]

It's always telling when you completely fail to address anything in the previous post and just block quote... as if ignorantly posting appeals to authority are valid arguments, in and of themselves.

LOL He whines as he himself block quotes studies about the topic. So deal with it. I'm providing objective scientific evidence against your contrived and ideologically motivated arguments based on cherry-picked quotes of my articles out of context. I don't give a crap if that bothers you. If you have nothing to counter them, it means you've lost the argument. As it is clear you have. The studies I've provided more than confirm the efficacy of antidepressants and other psychiatric medications over the decades refuting all your lies about it. At this point it's just a matter of repeatedly exposing you as the dishonest word-twisting anti-medication idealogue you are. And having nothing whatsoever to do today and hundreds of studies at my fingertips, I'm happy to continue doing that.

[Syne]

The difference, oh so moronic one, is that yours are often ONLY QUOTES, with no personal comment at all, especially when you're dodging the points in the previous post.
And now you're just playing it up in a continued attempt to distract.

It's so transparent.

[Magical Realist]

The difference, oh so moronic one, is that yours are often ONLY QUOTES, with no personal comment at all,

I have no reason to comment when the study or article says it all. I'm not here to dignify all your strawmen and non sequiturs and ad homs with responses. The data is clearly speaking for itself, as your own disgruntled inability to reply to it makes more and more evident.

[Syne]

As repeatedly pointed out, you often don't even understand what your own citations mean.
So this is just a cop-out for your usual ignorance.