article thumbnail

The New York Times Is Now Engulfed in the STAR*D Scandal

Mad in America

That is the bottom-line outcome that the STAR*D investigators promoted to the public in November 2006, when it published a summary of the study outcomes in the American Journal of Psychiatry. Then, in November 2006, they published a summary report of outcomes. the STAR*D investigators wrote.

article thumbnail

Summing up the STAR*D Scandal: The Public was Betrayed, Millions were Harmed, and the Mainstream Media Failed Us All

Mad in America

In 2006, the American Journal of Psychiatry (AJP) published four reports on STAR*D outcomes. Without these imaginary remissions, the reported remission rate in the November 2006 paper would have been around 50%. Nearly 70% of real-world patients could expect to become symptom free with this use of antidepressants.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

“Dad, Something’s Not Right. I Need Help”: Richard Fee on the Dangers of Adderall

Mad in America

Siem: Around 2005 or 2006? He started college in 2004, so this would have been 2005 or 2006. At the time, I didnt know much about it, but I knew it wasnt good. We were coming off the popularity of Ritalin, and now it was Adderall. I told Richard, Look, this stuff isnt good for you. Its an amphetamine.

Insurance 127
article thumbnail

The American Journal of Psychiatry’s Answer to MIA: A Silence that Speaks Volumes

Mad in America

O n September 9, Mad in America set up a petition on change.org urging the American Journal of Psychiatry to retract its 2006 article that told of a 67% remission rate in the STAR*D trial. At that time, we put up a petition on change.org urging that the Am J of Psychiatry retract the 2006 article. Mad in America, a U.S.

article thumbnail

Investigators Who Blew the Whistle On STAR*D Fraud Call for Retraction of Five AJP Articles

Mad in America

Miller lauded the scientific rigor of our RIAT reanalysis and stated: “For us in psychiatry, if the BMJ authors are correct, this is a huge setback, as ALL of the publications and policy decisions based on the STAR*D findings that became clinical dogma since 2006 will need to be reviewed, revisited, and possibly retracted.” ” 17, p.7

143
143
article thumbnail

After MIA Calls for Retraction of STAR*D Article, Study Authors Double Down on the Fraud

Mad in America

In concert with our September 9 report, we set up a petition on change.org urging the American Journal of Psychiatry to retract the October 2006 article. In essence, in this letter they doubled-down on the fraud they committed in their 2006 summary report of STAR*D outcomes.

145
145
article thumbnail

Scientific Misconduct and Fraud: The Final Nail in Psychiatry’s Antidepressant Coffin

Mad in America

The problem with this ‘nearly 70%’ story is that the research that has been used to justify it, a 2006 report on the results of the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) , has long been disputed by researchers.

143
143