Science, Kansas and Pancakes

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
November 7, 2022 | 10 Comments


  1. Reviewer 1. (6).

    “I sincerely request the authors to understand what mental illness is, what psychiatric pharmacology is and what it claims to be”.

    I too have a sincere request:

    I sincerely request that those ‘academic’ psychiatrists responsible for training and accrediting newly qualifying psychiatrists ensure that their trainees are competent in differential diagnosis, and are capable of differentiating life threatening psychotropic drug induced adverse reactions (akathisia, emotional blunting, disinhibition and resultant suicidality) from serious mental illness.
    I have seen this repeated diagnostic incompetence result in serial incarceration of a completely healthy and enchanting young woman. Her life and health then destroyed in a cascade of iatrogenesis. Ignorance and/or denial of the injuries and morbidity caused by drugs such as fluoxetine was palpable. This was one of the first two drugs that have left life-long injuries. The other was olanzapine. There were to be so many more psychotropic drugs, all causing additional injuries. The initial contra-indicated, enforced drugging resulted in more intense akathisia and a catalogue of additional ‘diagnoses’. The nature of the abuse, mocking, taunting and cruelty inflicted upon her whilst imprisoned has been featured in recent UK documentaries such as Panorama.

    My family have been comforted during more than a decade of iatrogenic sorrow and grief by the integrity and scientific expertise of those gifted, truly scientific doctors who have the expertise, courage, determination and ethical commitment
    to ensure that ghost written, biased, data-manipulated ‘clinical trials are exposed as Marketing Masquerading as Medicine.

    Thank you.

  2. Children of the Cure

    Prescription for Sorrow


    It makes clear how evidence-based medicine has been corrupted by corporate interests, failed regulation and the commercialization of academia.

    I can’t imagine how difficult it is to set yourselves up in opposition to people in some of the most profitable businesses on earth who seem to have an endless supply of money to invest in marketing, legal protection and in influencing and all the rest of it. I think it’s an incredibly brave thing to do, so thank you for your work, Jon.

    Reviewer’s opinion: Reject Reviewer #1

    “The authors have used their skills and judgements to restore and review the trial data, and focus their wrath towards fluoxetine. Their narrative in this manuscript would not have changed if “fluoxetine” was replaced by an evil character from history or fiction. Fluoxetine is the villain, hiding many deaths. The authors have both misplaced and displaced their dissent.”

    “Looking back, I am glad that the authors were not the reviewers of these trials, because that would have resulted in humongous tragedy to depression and maybe a miniscule achievement in “how to find fault”.

    “I hope the authors find trials that show that antidepressants work. I hope they find peace. Maybe they need to understand they have not “restored” much, other than mistrust in those who read their publications.”

    “Is their work benefiting others, or only themselves?”

    Reviewer #2: See Above

    “In some cases, the use of emotive language can appear biased/ accusatory- e.g. Emslie downplaying suicide attempts.“

    “As a scientific paper, use of terms like ‘public health emergency’ are extreme. The use of such language suggests a certain level of bias from authors/ readers may lose confidence in the quality of their findings.”

    Reviewer #3: The View

    One reviewer said Black Robe shocks twice over. You are ambushed by the action. And you get jolted when you realize it is us here and now who are being portrayed, rather than events 300 years ago. –

    The possessors of physical and religious technologies want to enlighten the savages –

    Black Robe, White Coat…

  3. The Covid pandemic has done some good in exposing to more of uninitiated ‘ public’ that far from being ‘sacred’ so called ‘science’ (or scientists) , is manipulated and corrupted, It helps to have the detail spelt out as to how specific publications are scewed by reviewers and editors as when mistrust is so high we need evidence of what is going on behind the scenes .
    This bit is astonishing , we could all pick out bits I guess…’I have absolutely no doubt that the authors will find missing data and statistical fault in these studies too, but I will have only regret if they do so’ Surely this is what the reviewer should have been doing her/himself
    The type of comments are surprising because some of the reviewers own biases are so clear and in some part ridiculously inappropriate as though they are marking a student submission eg correcting grammar and layout.
    I Still have reservations though about not knowing how much was altered from the original before being accepted for publication. How much of a compromise which sacrificed some of what the authors really wanted to publish ?. In which case there are still reservations about publishing something which pacifies those who control academic ideology and freedom of scientific thought just enough by leaving loopholes which can be taken advantage of to the detriment of not just uninitiated medics who follow them but individuals on the receiving end of ‘treatments’ Unless those who do challenge from a position of insider knowledge do speak out publicly , as the authors have allowed, the level of protection from the sharks will be limited . In fact there would be yet another layer of those in the know paradoxically protecting the sharks by keeping information amongst themselves

    The college of psychiatrists is recruiting new peer reviewers (advert in their journal) to be mentored by current reviewers.
    ?How about publishing their reviews as the authors of above have allowed? And include names , expertise , qualifications

  4. Bribery and corruption.
    Royal College of Psychiatrists – Logo
    HomeImproving careCollege Centre for Quality Improvement (CCQI)Quality Networks and AccreditationBecome a peer reviewer
    Become a peer reviewer
    Have you thought about becoming a peer reviewer? There are many reasons why you might want to do so.

    Being a peer reviewer gives you the chance to visit and assess other services similar to your own, and to become part of a dynamic network where you can share ideas, examples of best practice, new innovative work and resources.
    It also gives you the opportunity to see how other services work as part of your professional and personal development.
    The peer review allows you to reflect on your own service and take learning back, which facilitates improvement for everyone involved.
    You can share good practice from your own service, learn from other peer reviewers, and find out how the service being reviewed meets certain standards you may be struggling with.
    Peer reviews foster a culture of openness and learning in services leading to improvements in all aspects of delivery and workforce development.
    It helps professionals to forge links with colleagues, leading to joint working locally, across regions and nationally. It also Improves collaborative working among multi-disciplinary professionals, enabling reviewers to recognise and respect each other’s different perspectives as part of the process.
    Attending reviews is also a good way to learn more about the network and the quality standards used to review and accredit services. And many of our professional reviewers really value this experience in preparation for their own peer reviews.
    Participation in peer review can be used as evidence of quality improvement activity as part of revalidation. This includes participation as a peer reviewer at the review of other services.
    If you participate in a peer review you can claim 1 CPD point per hour of activity, subject to peer group approval.

  5. Prof. Peter C Gøtzsche
    Horrible YouTube censorship related to COVID-19. I was interviewed for an hour about organised crime in psychiatry and the drug industry and spoke about COVID-19 for 5 minutes. YouTube instantly eliminated the whole interview. See what they removed:

    I couldn’t copy the reference on P G’s twitter today
    maybe someone else could .

  6. Youtube has removed the ref re above This probably says much the same – in interview last month #Depression #Psychology #Psychiatry
    1.4K views 12 days ago
    enGrama Ψ
    13.8K subscribers
    Institute for Scientific Freedom
    Main Menu
    Horrible YouTube censorship – again related to COVID-19
    By Peter C Gøtzsche

    On 30 September, I was interviewed by enGrama in Spain for an hour about organised crime in psychiatry and the drug industry. I spoke about COVID-19 for 5 minutes, which made YouTube instantly eliminate the whole interview. This was utterly ridiculous. What I said was true, but YouTube even refused to allow the interviewers to download their own video. Later, they succeeded to reproduce it via the YouTube Studio and it is now up again, but without the forbidden 5 minutes. I have seen these 5 minutes and describe verbatim what they were about and also give an overview of the interview: enGram

  7. Slightly off topic, but I just wanted to mention that I have unfortunately recently heard that there has been another suicide because of PSSD.

    A man from the UK called Ben Collyer, took his life in May 2022 because of PSSD.

    I only recently found out.

    I chatted to Ben a handful of times, and he would often talk of suicide.

    What makes it even sadder, is he left behind a baby daughter.

    Another PSSD suffer from the Facebook group, is planning on making enquiries about if he can get euthanased, as he can no longer bear living with PSSD.

    Let’s hope the new year, and the testing for small fibre neuropathy, brings some fresh hope for people with PSSD.

  8. Prof. Peter C Gøtzsche

    Horrible YouTube censorship related to COVID-19. I was interviewed for an hour about organised crime in psychiatry and the drug industry and spoke about COVID-19 for 5 minutes. YouTube instantly eliminated the whole interview. See what they removed:

    Prof. Peter C Gøtzsche

    We restored the two pivotal fluoxetine trials in children with depression, which led to approval of this drug. Fluoxetine is unsafe and ineffective. Depression pills should not be used for children. They do not work and double the risk of suicide.

    By Peter C Gøtzsche

    Psychiatrist David Healy and I have restored the two pivotal fluoxetine trials in children and adolescents with depression, which led to approval of this drug for minors. This drug, or any other depression pill, should never have been approved for children, as they do not work and double the risk of suicide. Here is our full report and the abstract is below. I also provide the peer review comments and our replies, as they tell a story about the first peer reviewer being so blind that he or she WILL NOT SEE. This denial, which is very common in psychiatry, has tragic consequences for our children.

    BACKGROUND: Fluoxetine was approved for depression in children and adolescents based on two placebo-controlled trials, X065 and HCJE, with 96 and 219 participants, respectively.

    OBJECTIVE: To review these trials, which appear to have been misreported.

    METHODS: Systematic review of the clinical study reports and publications. The primary outcomes were the efficacy variables in the trial protocols, suicidal events, and precursors to suicidality or violence.

    RESULTS: Essential information was missing and there were unexplained numerical inconsistencies. The efficacy outcomes were biased in favour of fluoxetine by differential dropouts and missing data. The efficacy on the Children’s Depression Rating Scale-Revised was 4% of the baseline score, which is not clinically relevant. Patient ratings did not find fluoxetine effective. Suicidal events were missing in the publications and the study reports. Precursors to suicidality or violence occurred more often on fluoxetine than on placebo. For trial HCJE, the number needed to harm was 6 for nervous system events, 7 for moderate or severe harm, and 10 for severe harm. Fluoxetine reduced height and weight over 19 weeks by 1.0 cm and 1.1 kg, respectively, and prolonged the QT interval.

    CONCLUSIONS: Our reanalysis of the two pivotal trials showed that fluoxetine is unsafe and ineffective.

  9. Have found this article both a fascinating and a further enlightening insight to the uncertain world of scientific publishing. It is a good example of what Richard Smith (a former editor of the BMJ) had to say about peer review back in 2006:

    ”The editorial peer review process has been strongly biased against `negative studies’, i.e. studies that find an intervention does not work. It is also clear that authors often do not even bother to write up such studies. This matters because it biases the information base of medicine. It is easy to see why journals would be biased against negative studies. Journalistic values come into play. Who wants to read that a new treatment does not work? That’s boring.” [1]

    He also came up with several suggestion in this 2006 article that would improve the whole process. Then in 2021 — as opinion piece in the BMJ — he suggests:

    “The time has come for peer reviewers to rebel, but what is it we want? My preference would be that we refuse to review unless the review is of a paper that is already posted for all to see and that our reviews are also immediately posted for all to see.” [2]

    Maybe the way to bring about improvements is for authors and reviewers to get together and make available more examples of the realities of getting a work published as is being laid bare in “Science, Kansas and Pancakes.’ So I applaud DH and PG for taking the risk and the lead.

    [1] Smith R. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med. 2006 Apr;99(4):178-82. doi: 10.1177/014107680609900414. PMID: 16574968; PMCID: PMC1420798.
    [2] Richard Smith: Peer reviewers—time for mass rebellion? (February 1, 2021)

    Here is another article that I thought I’d include which outline some of what science can tell us about the problems in psychological publishing and how to best address those problems.
    Buttliere BT (2014) Using science and psychology to improve the dissemination and evaluation of scientific work. Front. Comput. Neurosci. 8:82. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2014.00082

Leave a Reply