Antidepressants and Premature Death

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
October 5, 2022 | 25 Comments


  1. “Our finding of an increase in all-cause mortality at 10-year follow-up is supported by Almeida et al.Reference Almeida, Alfonso, Hankey and Flicker45 They described a risk that increases with the severity of depression. In their study, those who were currently well and taking antidepressants were at lower risk than those who were depressed, irrespective of whether they were taking antidepressants. This suggests that other factors related to depression (for example, suicidality) may be more important contributors to all-cause mortality than antidepressants. Our study design does not allow us to determine this.”

    Shame she seems to avoid withdrawl and totally off the drug – but caused by the drug – akathisia here and relate suicidality to depression. AKATHISIA induced suicidality is off the charts worse than most normal life depression states.

    • Chris

      You are missing the point of the post. If you want nothing to appear ever, everybody should just keep mentioning akathisia and withdrawal. For any chance to change this, people have to get clever. It is remarkable Narinder got this article into print.

      It would be a better idea to build on what she has managed to achieve rather than carp which risks giving the establishment a get out of jail free card


  2. By the Back Door :

    Two Times :

    “This suggests that other factors related to depression (for example, suicidality) may be more important contributors to all-cause mortality than antidepressants.

    Our study design does not allow us to determine this.”

    “The increase in all-cause mortality is also worrying, although, as we note above, other factors related to depression (for example suicidality) may be more important contributors to all-cause mortality than antidepressants.

    Some of our findings are less concerning.”

    ‘In fact, though, even in the short-term trials, more people died on treatment than on placebo.  Died from suicide.  And died from other causes also. Very few people know that.  So it was a good move on Narinder’s part to say well we couldn’t have really known what was likely to happen.’

    Even more suicide attempts in clinical trials with paroxetine randomised against placebo

    Last year we wrote a paper “Suicide attempts in clinical trials with paroxetine randomised against placebo” [1] that hit the front pages of newspapers worldwide [2,3]. Our publication demonstrated an increased intensity of suicide attempts per year when using paroxetine compared to placebo, and caused GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) to come up with a comment [4]. Since then GSK has provided additional data to the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA), as the agency required new documentation on paroxetine. This also resulted in a Briefing Document from GSK [5] in which they admit that there is an increased risk for suicide attempts associated with paroxetine.

    Paroxetine, SSRI Use and the Risk of Suicidal Behaviour

    Clinical trials of paroxetine have shown that the drug is well tolerated and has a favourable benefit-risk profile5 .

    Clinical depression is major public health problem that can lead someone to suicidal behaviour (i.e. ideation, attempts, and completed suicide). There is a considerable body of population research that has shown major depression increases the risk of suicidal behaviour compared to people without depression6-9 . Depressed patients have been found to have a 25-fold greater risk of suicide than those not depressed10. Research has shown that more than 90 percent of people who kill themselves have depression or another diagnosable mental or substance abuse disorder, often in combination with other disorders.11

    GSK – By the Front Door…

  3. Conclusions
    Our findings indicate an association between long-term antidepressant usage and elevated risks of CHD, CVD mortality and all-cause mortality. Further research is needed to assess whether the observed associations are causal, and elucidate the underlying mechanisms.

    NO further research is needed. They have already been warned that SSRIs were not meant to be prescribed long term yet that’s ignored. They cant be trusted with peoples’ lives but nobody is held responsible . Yet ‘more research needed’ is used to spin out their use Somebody working on their level for so long surely must know the truth – it s not a dirty secret any longer and should not be camouflaged leaving people as much at risk as before this paper was published. Why publish something they know is a weasel affair with loopholes to be used which undermine the safety of people who won’t be reading the overt or even covert message in the paper.. And the situation cant be equated with smoking or drinking where the hazards in many countries at least are well known after being hidden for so long and unlike SSRIs aren’t prescribed. A doctor would be struck off for suggesting smoking has no serious effects on cause of deaths They should be stuck off for prescribing SSRIs without evidence that a warning has been given of the ADs -at least as a run up giving people hooked on them time to try coming off them -to banning them altogether. It took centuries for that to happen regarding tobacco but it is still being pushed in Africa and elsewhere The truth about SSRIs is heading the same way with the ‘needing more research’ very useful conclusion .

  4. I agree with David: This is valuable research, even if the authors do not reach all the conclusions you want them to reach. In fact, it may be all the more useful because it doesn’t try to answer any and all questions about anti-depressants. It does, however, point out the questions that need to be asked. That’s great.

    First of all, this is a study of 200,000 people who were getting treatment. If as a group they are still plagued by all the problems of “seriously depressed people” (drinking and smoking, inactivity, high stress-hormone levels, suicidal thoughts etc.), then for most of them the treatment must not be working!

    Second, it’s worth asking: Exactly how “seriously depressed” is the average patient when they start? Most new scripts these days are written for anxiety, grief or other distress that are basically normal responses to a life situation. So how does this result in physical consequences that mimic a serious, chronic illness?

    Third, there are some intriguing clues here: People on non-SSRI treatments seem to be doing even worse than those on SSRI’s. What are those drugs (Anticonvulsants? SNRI’s? Antipsychotics?) and why are they leading to even worse physical health?

    So don’t be fooled into thinking this is “harmless” or “vanilla” stuff. So far the American press is not touching it with a ten-foot pole (the US links provided are from insignificant “click-bait” sites, not real media outlets). It’s worth asking why. Many of us may not think “further research is needed” – but the medical-industrial complex doesn’t want further research either. And they will fight tooth and nail to prevent it.

  5. I don’t agree it is a ‘great piece of research’. Or that we are being fooled if flagging up concerns about this research We need to toss up whether it has given the college more ammo by playing clever.
    I dont’ think watering it down to a point of being totally harmless was their purpose . But without repeating my previous comment would just add that it does show how much power the college still has when researchers are thinking it is better to be devious in order to get published.
    The college and prescribers been given the message they would want – and will use, Which isn’t the truth and the whole truth. Which isn’t harmless stuff.

    • We are rapidly getting into a world of medical fascism.
      The College has little or no power – they are a puppet. They are too scared to publish anything interesting. This is not power.

      This research does things that all sorts of other people complaining about the system don’t do. Complaining is cheap but useless for me as an expert witness supporting someone in court who has been injured.

      The complainers in chief don’t get involved as experts and if they use the usual complaints get thrown out of court. Its articles like this that give people the only chance they might have in court.

      The situation reminds of a quote from A Man for All Seasons, where More’s son-in-law Roper says he would cut down all the laws of England to get at the Devil

      William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”

      Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”

      William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!

      Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s!
      And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of the law, for my own safety’s sake!”


      • They are colluding with power and the facism already spread in so called civilised societies. That was made blatant by what happened to citizens’ during the pandemic with the the invaluable assistance of medical ‘experts’. And covert messages understood by those in the know including the coll of psychs are perpetuating the lies and cover ups so useful to pharma and co. What could happen to them if they did publish the truth? Who are they most afraid of? We don’t even see who the complainers are unless you mean the pointless critical psychiatry types. It’s not just the few who do get to court who need protecting but the majority who need to see citicicsm openly expressed to obtain some hope they too will be protected. The laws of any society around the globe will not protect them unless those with a voice speak the truth.

  6. ‘I agree with David: This is valuable research, even if the authors do not reach all the conclusions you want them to reach. In fact, it may be all the more useful because it doesn’t try to answer any and all questions about anti-depressants. It does, however, point out the questions that need to be asked. That’s great.’

    Australia calling…

    With just a few answers – for the uninitiated…

  7. Medical Fascism is highlighted again with thanks to Maryanne Demasi

    1 of 1
    New law seeks to ‘gag’ doctors contradicting consensus on covid-19

    Maryanne Demasi, PhD from Maryanne Demasi, reports
    1:43 AM (1 hour ago)
    to me
    This week, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 2098 into law, which allows the state’s medical board to punish doctors for disseminating “misinformation” or “disinformation” regarding covid-19.

    The new law states that doctors should not contradict “scientific consensus” on covid-19, or they could be charged with “unprofessional conduct,” and possibly have their medical license suspended or revoked.

    Criticism of the law has been swift and fierce. Doctors object to being told they need to “stick to the script”, saying it violates their right to speak freely and openly with their patients.

    Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford School of Medicine says the new law will have a “chilling” effect on free speech. He tweeted, “The attempt to regulate medical speech violates civil liberties, harms science, and will ultimately harm patients. California doctors now serve public health more than patients.”

    Aaron Kheriaty, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Centre said, “It’s a way to force scientific consensus where none exists by threatening physicians who challenge the government’s preferred COVID policies, threatening them with the most severe form of professional punishment that a doctor could receive, which is discipline against the doctor’s medical license.”

    What is misinformation?
    The California law states;

    “Misinformation” means false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care.

    Laura Powell, a civil rights attorney, and founder of Californians for Good Governance said, “No clear scientific consensus exists with respect to this novel virus, and even if it did, it may be proven incorrect later.”

    “Without clear guidance regarding what would constitute “misinformation,” physicians can only guess if they risk losing their licenses for expressing their good-faith disagreements with positions of public health officials,” added Powell.

    The law also states that “physicians have a duty to provide their patients with accurate, science-based information,” and cites the US Centres of Disease Control (CDC) as one such reliable source.

    But as Tracey Beth Høeg, a California-based physician and public health expert, points out, “Ironically, the new law already contains misinformation. It says that unvaccinated individuals are at 11 times greater risk of dying from covid than fully vaccinated individuals, but this contradicts the CDC website, which says its only 5 times the risk.”

    The CDC website also states that “masks are recommended in indoor public transportation settings,” and that “children aged 2 years and older can wear masks or respirators to protect themselves and others from covid-19”.

    But wearing masks during the pandemic has been a hotly contested issue with wildly different interpretations of the evidence.

    “There’s certainly no clear scientific evidence for the use of cloth masks in community settings. If anything, the consensus of the research literature would suggest that masks outside of strictly controlled settings are not useful for respiratory viruses,” said Kheriaty.

    Dr Eric Widera, professor of Medicine, University of California San Francisco agreed, “When I tell my patient that cloth masks don’t work, who decides if that is misinformation or [the] current state of the science?”

    Kheriaty says trying to codify a particular scientific consensus into law makes no sense and is “totally incompatible” with science.

    “Anyone who attempts to do that does not really understand how science advances. It’s not through consensus, but through conjecture, and refutation, and debate and argumentation,” said Kheriaty.

    An ethical breach
    As an expert in ethics and public policy, Kheriaty says he struggles to think of a bill that would more radically undermine the trust between a patient and a doctor.

    “Patients who ask their physician a question about COVID, want to hear what their physician actually thinks, not some predetermined script prepared by public health bureaucrats,” said Kheriaty, “A physician with a gag order, is clearly not a physician that you can trust.”

    He said the politicisation of covid-19 presents some serious ethical dilemmas. “The medical board [assessing the cases] is ultimately appointed by the state governor so, it’s not very difficult for the governor or the executive to use the medical board as a long arm of enforcement for those preferred policies,” said Kheriaty.

    “They can strong arm physicians to fall into line with their policies – policies which may have been influenced by financial inducements by pharmaceutical corporations. Politicians are now making our health recommendations, not the physicians,” he added.

    A recent analysis of lobbying and campaign contribution data from OpenSecrets showed that the pharmaceutical industry spent at least US$142.6 million on lobbying Congress and federal agencies in the first half of 2022, more than any other industry.

    Kheriaty said, “Senator Richard Pan, who introduced and co-wrote this legislation has been in the back pocket of Big Pharma for his entire political career, as evidenced by his campaign contributions.”

    Senator Pan’s office was contacted for comment but did not respond by the deadline.

    Australia set to follow California’s footsteps
    Amendments to a bill (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009) have been put before the Queensland Parliament, due to be debated and voted into law on 11 Oct 2022.

    The proposed amendments, which appear to have broader implications beyond advice about covid-19, has angered medical groups like the Australian Medical Network (AMN), representing over 10,000 health professionals and private citizens.

    In a media release, the AMN stated:

    Doctors will no longer be able to express their opinion or use their experience, training, and education, if their opinion goes against what the health bureaucrats say is in the interests of “public confidence in safety”. Doctors will be bound to follow government policy, which means that government health bureaucrats will determine how doctors should approach treatment recommendations for their patients.

    If passed in Queensland, it will also apply to all the other States and Territories, (except for New South Wales and South Australia) because the health professions are regulated through a co-operative national scheme.

    Writing under a pseudonym for fear of reprisal, *Dr Frank Mercy* who is currently employed at an Australian university said, “Healthcare is nuanced, almost every day I ‘violate’ textbook recommendations because patients do not conform to idealised representations, each has unique features. Those deviations come down to experience, which is the patient’s and doctor’s most powerful asset.”

    Tony Nikolic, civil rights lawyer at AFL solicitors, says it’s critical that doctors have the capacity to question, and challenge matters relating to public health.

    “Doctors go through rigorous education and training and should be allowed to voice their medical and professional opinions freely. Disciplining doctors who use their skill, care and diligence to inform patients about matters relating to safety and efficacy is open to abuse and capture,” said Nikolic.

    “The doctor-patient relationship is sacred. It should remain confidential and independent of bureaucratic or political interference,” he added.

    If you would like to support independent journalists like myself, please consider becoming a paid subscriber and comment below…. Or you can support by contributing to my research HERE or HERE.

    • Susanne

      You and almost everyone who reads these posts complains about going to doctors and not being believed. So how is a bill that formalizes censorship going to make that any worse?

      It is not as though any doctors at the moment are listening. For them to claim we should be free to listen to our patients and decide independently is for the most part a bad joke.

      Back when I was young and travelling behind the Iron Curtain and the West regarded the East as evil and totalitarian and censoring, the attitude among the Poles and Czechs I knew was that hey at least we can see who the enemy is – you in the West are even more thoroughly fooled – you think the Government is on your side.

      These censorship laws are a real threat but may not actually make things worse. They might wake some of us up – so we don’t go along with what the doctor says thinking that s/he is giving a view based on an independent assessment of what is in our interests. We may be more likely to see her/him as a puppet


      • The point is to share information. Not everybody is clued up on the fact that doctors are not sharing information openly or ready to believe doctors can behave so badly In fact we agree on this .
        You also complain about the fact people are not believed by the way.. It is not just insulting but scews knowledge doctors use to ‘treat’ people. I am not just ‘complaining’ but activating along with others to challenge this. The more who know it’s a thing the better. I profoundly disagree that censorship will not make things much worse – it will embed it even more. But hopefully, as ever, when it becomes more widely known people will realise they can’t automatically take what’s said by a medic for granted. At least the doctors who do speak out are not behaving like puppets. We are well into becoming a fascist state in too may ways – the more it’s challenged the better – we can only hope things will not get worse ,But with a new wave of vaccinations underway it’s not predictable how ‘authorities ‘will behave towards us.

        • The trouble is its not the authorities on one side and the good guys on the other. As I see it its the middle ground that is shrinking. I have had far more help in getting the truth out from people working in pharma than I have from any clinical colleagues or the folk on Mad in America for instance. It is as difficult now to have a conversation with anti-vaxxers as it is with the vax advocates.

          That’s why this article is so good. Its solid and in an establishment journal so they have to acknowledge it. You don’t know how much trouble the authors had to get this and follow-up work published. I’d prefer them to keep pushing at this door than to do a Mad in America on it.


          • OK thanks for clarification – I am not a fan of M in A or most so called ‘user led’ groups as I have said before. Anti vaxxers have had a rough time so they possibly need to be cautious about consequences if they speak openly. I must end by saying though that the problem I have is not that the research ‘doesn’t give the conclusion you would want’ – that is not the purpose of real research And maybe the middle ground must speak up in public more often. It would be useful to know sometime what the problems in getting it published were and whether the college had a say in what was actually published We just dont know how much research and submissions are censored and altered or rejected. I have asked medical journals several times if they could give some idea of this but no interest obviously.

          • Most of it just doesn’t get submitted to establishment journals. There is a lot of outright rejection by them – no review no nothing. There is bullying as outlined in Children of the Cure – the struggles to get Restoring Study 329 publishes in BMJ.

            There then are papers which fly beneath the radar and editors ask for a statement such as don’t stop without consulting a doctor. But this is universal – even Medicating Normal feel they legally have to say this.

            In due course it will be possible to tell you more


        • “I am not just ‘complaining’ but activating along with others to challenge this.”

          Mark Sexton Closes Down Vaccine Centre, University of West Of England, Bristol – Here’s the full interaction with the police, resulting in the closure of the vaccine centre – This can be replicated around the World

          • Chris,

            You have just posted an Inspector of Police, fair, non-judgemental, inquiring, interested, professional, listening – the enquiry may die as it goes up the rungs, but all credit to the calm –

            Thanks for an hour and a half of mediation in action…

          • Staggering amount of information presented so expertly Chris – thanks very much. . How come it didn’t get cancelled? M W
            was very impressive – jarring bit though was the guy in army uniform with things strung around his belt – it could have be misconstrued and lost that opportunity to engage as well with the inspector. Wonder if they will get stopped from doing it again at other centres?

  8. You people make it sound like it is not shown that antidepressants are associated with worse outcomes in and of themselves, but i’ve found a few studies that have controlled for incidence of depression, like for instance:

    If we assume drugs cause this then it seems to me that it gives more plausibility to whitakers thesis that the meds worsen welfare dependency, scroll down to the last few graphs in this link

    Hopefully this will be investigated further because welfare depandancy is a burden and the costs will be incentive to do something about it by governments in countries with public healthcare.

  9. Oh dear. I seem to only be able to see the ink and not the message this morning, leaving me confused so do please forgive me. As I try to analyis this article:

    Narinder did not succeed in getting her paper published in the British Journal of Psychiatry (impact factor of just over 9) but the editorially independant online only journal ’BJPsych Open’ (impact factor of just over 3. Established about 2015, although both owned by the same College) They charge a fee for publishing. Similar model to the original PLOS journal (impact factor of just over 3. Established about 2006). The BMJ (impact factor of over 90) gets its revenue from advertising and are thus editorially neutered. Was this one of the points?

    Also the value of high profile journals (with high impact factors) to filter out the noise and publish just the crème de la crème has turned upside down as it is now possible to search electronically and instantly. The wide reporting of this paper testifies to that fact.

    PLOS and open journals in general was conceived by Richard Smith and Ian Roberts because RS became frustrated by all the things that were wrong with traditional journals whilst he was editor in chief at the BMJ. Has the low hurdle that these open journals provide these fee paying authors been raised or just this one?

    • Dear Pogo

      Thanks for the comments. Most BMJ research these days is published in BMJ Open. The BMJ has become a medical magazine written by journalists rather than a place where anyone publishes research. Becoming a magazine is likely what gives it this crazy impact factor. The NEJM gets a comparable impact factor from publishing the vaccine trials – sacred literature.

      In the case of BMJ Open – they turn down my research without review on pretty flimsy grounds. So even though they get paid anything from $1K to $3K in order to publish, they are still too scared for the most part to take anything remotely critical of drugs. The censorship bills going through American and Australian legislatures at the moment only formalize this situation. See Special Medical Operation Hits Fog on DH on Monday

      I’m biased by having met Narinder and knowing what she is up to now – but I think the paper is great. Maybe an editor or someone in the apparatus has also met her and quietly behind the scenes is helping her. Who knows. The processes are far from transparent.


  10. I think the reiewer process is interesting although not exactly transparent as to how they are appointed. The J of Medical Ethics gives names of reviewers but I cant spot those for BMJ Open

    Bmj Open allows anyone to make a response to publications these are are subject to editorial judgement and
    no reason for acceptance or rejection is given . They were in the very early days.It would be a mammoth task to do that by now when more readers are accessing the journals. Mine has just been rejected.
    As I recall When Richard Smith introduced rr’s in Thebmj the different perspectives and references were valued by some, looked down on some but it all became to0 unwieldy anyway and could get a bit bonkers ,eventually they decided to weed out rr’s more rigorously It’s a shame more readers don’t submit responses though. So far there aren’t any to this publication .I’m not sure where else a lot of readers would access such as the stuff P Doshi and colleagues publish

    Authors,Data%20SharingWhy publish in BMJ Open? (It’s free access)
    Copyright and authors’ rights
    Rapid responses
    Journal Policy
    Editorial policy
    Peer review process
    Reporting patient and public involvement in research
    Data Sharing
    Instructions for Reviewers
    BMJ Open aims to provide a service to authors and the research community ….
    In recognition of reviewers’ support, any reviewer that returns a full review, on time, can receive a 25% discount on article publishing charges for a paper for which they are the corresponding author, if submitted within 12 months of completing the review. We can also provide Cleveland Clinic CME points to our best reviewers. ‘

    (What makes a ‘best reviewer though ‘ Can acceptance of a publication be subject to a bit of a chance as to who reviews it – and their biases or reservations about being names as the ones to accept anything too controversial )

  11. When I was looking around the Editorial Board, the only names I recognised were :

    Professor Allan H. Young MBChB, MPhil, PhD, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London, UK

    Professor Stephen Lawrie, MB ChB, MPhil, MD, FRCPsych, Professor of Psychiatry and Neuroimaging, University of Edinburgh, UK

    Professor Allan H Young

    Antidepressants do work after all

    Head To Head

    Maudsley Debate

    Does long term use of psychiatric drugs cause more harm than good?
    We could stop almost all psychotropic drug use without deleterious effect, says Peter C Gøtzsche, questioning trial designs that underplay harms and overplay benefits. Allan H Young and John Crace disagree, arguing that evidence supports long term use

    The age of psychedelics

    ‘Although, it has now been recognised that antidepressants ‘do work after all’

    Professor Stephen Lawrie

    Cabaret of Dangerous Ideas: antidepressants are not overprescribed

    In defence of antidepressants

    A Compendium of Curiosities in RCPsych

    Allan H Young
    Stephen Lawrie

    “It is remarkable Narinder got this article into print.”

    Get the Drift…

  12. it’s 20 years later after the first sufferers told their stories. Everything is still the same, Pharma is pushing, people having to kill themselves because of excruciating side effects etc. Too bad.

    I probably have to kill myself soon, killed bij 9 months of SSRI use for workstress.
    Killed 90% i have to do the last 10% myself.

    It’s a shame.

Leave a Reply