Réponse (en anglais, version française suit)
« Robert », I presume you are Dr. Robert Howand.
First I thank you for pointing at the shortcomings
of this article.
It is true that I do not have extended access to publications
and mainly rely on abstracts. However, many people will only read abstracts, if
not even only titles. If they do not reflect the author’s opinion, abstracts
are misleading if anything.
I take note that Forest did provide citalopram for
the two studies, which is usual procedure in such cases, and that, by the way,
for STAR*D, all antidepresants were provided by their respective company.
However, you write that :
« No other financial
support from Forest was provided for these two studies. »
Well, this could be untrue according to a recent
whistleblower suit filed by Dr. Edmond Pigott, accusing Forest of tricking the
Star*D trial in favor of Celexa, by corrupting principal investigator John Rush
and his colleagues. I think you mean honestly what you wrote, but your
involvement in STAR*D on one hand, and your positiveness on
citalopram/escitalopram on the other hand are casting even more doubts on your
independence. I’m sorry if you truly tried to be honest and discover it could
backfire.
I supposed you also read about Lundbeck tricking
the so-called independent phase III study on escitalopram. Tricked studies were
used in meta-analyses, slowly building and conforting the opinion that products
are safe and effective. If the accusations about STAR*D are found to be
grounded, it would have dramatic consequences. I think it is high time to send
all we though we knew about those drugs efficacy to the garbage to start
gathering knowledge all aknew.