I started writing about this and was starting research on possible conflict of interests with drug companies. I googled Luby and AstraZeneca, etc.

What brought my attn to Luby was the 3 yr old depression article, and consequently found her other papers.

Luby's work to dx these children uses a dog puppet and a 16 question paper that parents fill out. It sounded like complete bunk and smelled of a drug company funded researcher if I ever read one.

I had other things come up before I could keep persuing my thoughts...which have evolved in print here...kudos to you and Jim Edwards, all I can say is this is SO typical, even I, the mom who isn't a journalist knew something was up with Luby.

Predictable corruption, sure isn't what we want in our medication based psychiatric paradigm called "psychiatric care".

Great work, keep it going.

Thank you Philip for this article and also to Stephany for the additional information. Learning that our doctors are teaching our 3-year-olds that they need anti-depressant medication disturbs me. It reminds me of a recent session I had (I am a therapist). A client shared that a former therapist had advised her to identify the name of the character within him who was depressed. She named him "Ted" and was then told by the therapist to ask "Ted" to go away. That seemed unbelievably trite to me. Depth and richness in life is discovered through having time and space to understand what our depressions are trying to tell us. Experience, reflection and understanding take time to unfold. It is interesting to see how the world's stage and cast of characters is getting smaller and smaller. Soon we will only have room for two characters, Good and Bad. Is this what we want to teach our children? That certain feelings and unfolding of experience are unacceptable? We seem to have less and less room for complexity.

@JJ...Soon we will only have room for two characters, Good and Bad...

Don't be so archaic. You mean the two characters, Health and Unhealth. Surely, you also don't believe in *gasp* the Soul? Any sane person knows that we are but the sum total of our brain's electro-chemical impulses.

/snark

...and have nothing to learn from the wisdom of old, eh snark?

@JJ Psychiatry seems to be one profession that can never learn from its prior experience. I guess a clear conscience really is a sign of a faulty memory.

"Psychiatry seems to be one profession that can never learn from its prior experience. I guess a clear conscience really is a sign of a faulty memory."

Who wrote that? I totally agree, especially after talking to an inpatient psychiatrist (actually after being talked down to by one)today.

Things will never change if people on the inside don't!

Regarding Luby's comment that "The use of antidepressant medications is not recommended as a first- or second-line treatment at this time":

I'm glad she wrote that, and I'm glad you point it out. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that statement (if it's even noticed) is probably lost on most psychiatrists. Their thinking is probably more along the lines of, "well, the parents bought Junior a toy [first-line treatment] and that didn't work, then they invited other kids over to play with Junior [second-line treatment], and he still seems sad, so it must be time to start the meds!"

Good to see depression is making a comeback again. The past few years depression had been absorbed under the classification of bipolar II/cyclothymia. I suppose the patents on abilify and seroquel are running out, and a new crop of branded ADs lies on the horizon. That is the only possible explanation for this increasing talk of "depression" which for the past 4 or 5 years seemed to have vanished.

I missed thinking of myself as depressed. I don't really like the whole "bipolar II" thing, it sorta pathologizes productivity and happiness which is at least annoying.

This article seems to be trying to attribute some ulterior motive to research which, if one reads it, describes discoveries about early warning signs of a disease. How does that segue to the suggestion that the principal author or any of her associates are shills for some drug vendor?



You even recognize that the article, though focused on detection rather than treatment, happens to advise against the use of pharmaceuticals. So even if their research had led them to different conclusions, I'm puzzled as to why you would attempt to victimize what their resumes represent as honorable professionals. I would hope that pharma companies listen closely to Drs of various specialties but, unless they obtained their degrees from a matchbook, I seriously doubt their lifetime of learning can be subjugated for their nominal speaking fees.



I get skeptical too when I read the publications about the health benefits of red wine that are sponsored by vintners, and everyone can agree that direct funding, sponsorship or participation of vendors in research must be cited. But it is a needless and cynical imposition to suggest that every vendor who has ever hired a Dr belongs in a permanent section of their bibliography.



The saddest part of this attempt at character assassination is in some of the ensuing comments, where that faulty premise propagates into even more grotesque distortions, ("smelled of a drug company funded researcher if I ever read one", "our doctors are teaching our 3-year-olds that they need anti-depressant medication", ""her assertion elsewhere that antipsychotics are an awesome treatment for kids"), of the actual content. I personally find discussion and debate of research findings far healthier than reckless attacks on the integrity or motives of its authors.

Philip Dawdy responds: no character assassination here. note that i queried the person in question and she chose not to respond. also, what's at issue is whether she's in violation of the disclosure policy of the journals in question.