• AgoraVox sur Twitter
  • RSS
  • Agoravox TV
  • Agoravox Mobile

En réponse à :

Maiwl 16 février 2012 18:17

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. 

Ajouter une réaction

Pour réagir, identifiez-vous avec votre login / mot de passe, en haut à droite de cette page

Si vous n'avez pas de login / mot de passe, vous devez vous inscrire ici.