Tag Archives: Misrepresentation of sources

Processed food chemical definitely causes cancer, say researchers

Reblogged from Gareth Lewry’s blog, with permission.

Here is a hint, Doctor’s don’t tell you it because it’s crap!!

So I came across the “What Doctors Don’t Tell You” Facebook Page earlier today.  I have known for sometime that this is essentially aimed at people who want an alternative view to the mainstream medicine approach to curing your ails, and cant be bothered to educate themselves any further than this.

On the surface it looks OK, the articles are compelling and full of what they call  “science”. However that is the surface.  When you dig a bit deeper you see that most of the articles and information they are conveying to the public is disingenuous to say the least.

Here is an example of a post on FB:

FB post from 22/7/14

Now, this post is typical of what they are doing, they are sensationalising the story Massively, however there are some half truths in there that make it credible, and therefore lends to being a source of credible information.  However as they have given a source for their article I decided as a good sceptic, it would be irresponsible of me not to back up the information I’m reading by going back to the original source……and here it is: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/140701.htm

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/140701.htm
As you can see the FB post says that Acrylamide definitely causes cancer, but when I look at the actual press release, I’m buggered if I can find the phrase “definitely causes cancer” or anything near it.  Posting this sort of disingenuous misinformation is dangerous, because people who solely read this for their scientific information are already on the wrong path and will end up believing this nonsense.

So as my good deed for the day I thought I would help them out.  Here is my response to them:

response

I hope they understand I’m only trying to help…. by actively discrediting this nonsense before people buy to much into this. However as I am relatively new to this,   I implore you all to to be careful what you read especially about health and science.  I will always post references to articles so at least you will have the source of information, and if I get it wrong (as we all do from time to time) I welcome feedback, as it is a learning experience for me as well.

Doctors misdiagnose depression 86 per cent of the time

Doctors misdiagnose depression 86 per cent of the time
An accurate title for this story would have been: “86% of over-65s in the U.S. who say they recall a doctor or other medical professional saying they had “depression” in the past year don’t remember enough symptoms in the past year to meet the DSM criteria for MDE“.

Instead, WDDTY magazine went with the scaremongering headline: Doctors misdiagnose depression 86 per cent of the time

That’s a wildly inaccurate account of the research. But the magazine went a step further, and converted that claim into direct advice for its readers. Here’s the first paragraph of the WDDTY piece:

Has your doctor diagnosed you as clinically depressed and prescribed an antidepressant? If you’re a senior citizen, you should get a second opinion — because there’s a very good chance you’re not depressed at all.

That’s both an irresponsible, and an inaccurate, piece of journalism. The research is silent on the rates of 12-month, or current, antidepressant usage for this (or indeed any) sub-group of study participants, so WDDTY has absolutely no basis for its claim that if you are over 65 and have been prescribed antidepressants “there’s a very good chance you’re not depressed at all”. WDDTY gives direct advice to an already vulnerable population, on the basis of misreporting somewhat nebulous research.

Continue reading Doctors misdiagnose depression 86 per cent of the time

WDDTY on depression

depression
Until coffee was discovered, people committed suicide all the time. Sometimes twice a day.

WDDTY makes some predictably reckless claims about depression, a serious condition which, if neglected, can destroy (both metaphorically and literally) the life of the sufferer and those around him or her. Needless to say, they conflate “feeling a bit low” with clinical depression, because money. The NHS has information on the symptoms of clinical depression here, with a simple test anyone can do. There is advice on what to do and telephone numbers to call if the situation is urgent. Certainly modern medicine does not yet have a perfect answer to the problem of depression, which presents in a number of forms and may well have a number of causes; nevertheless, this imperfect response is infinitely preferable to the completely and dangerously wrong fuckwittery to be found on the WDDTY website.

For example:

The great depression deception (WDDTY, Vol 23.3, June 2012)
Chronic depression has been described as the disease of modern times. It afflicts 121 million people worldwide (1), which equates to around one in 10 adults, while one out of every 13 Europeans is currently (2) taking an SSRI (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor) antidepressant such as Prozac to counter it.

Tragically, they are all being poorly served by medicine, which is working with an unproven, and flawed, theory of the causes of depression, and with drugs that are doing more harm than good (3).
Instead, a new theory is developing that suggests that depression is the byproduct of the body’s natural inflammatory response to infection (4). If true, an anti-inflammatory would be a better drug therapy than an SSRI (5), and this is supported by the evidence (6), which has found that the SSRI drugs are ineffective in around two-thirds of depressed people (7) (Am J Geriatr Psychiatry, 2011; 19: 839–50).(8)

  1. Wrong. The WHO says over 350 million and simple arithmetic says neither that nor WDDTY‘s figure equates to 10% of 7 billion.
  2. Untrue. The report WDDTY is presumably referring to says, according to Science Daily: “One in thirteen of adult European citizens — and 10% of middle-aged Europeans — took an antidepressant in the previous twelve months“.
  3. A blatant lie. The increase in antidepressant prescription over recent years correlates with a decrease in the suicide rate. While a direct link has not, as far as I know, been shown, it is certainly not evidence of the drugs “doing more harm than good”.
  4. Again, this is misleading. It suggests a single cause for depression. The study I found (dated 3 Sept, 2012, and published in Archives of General Psychiatry) looked at patients with moderately hard-to-treat depression who also suffered from chronic inflammatory diseases, because there is a known correlation between hard-to-treat depression and chronic inflammation.
  5. Again, this erroneously assumes a single cause for depression, and on the basis of a single study to boot. It’s like saying all cancers can be treated by the same drug, or that if we find a treatment for cystic fibrosis it will also work for other genetic disorders, such as dwarfism and Down’s.
  6. Which, you will note, is not forthcoming. Unsupported assertion.
  7. I can find no other instance of this assertion, which I can only conclude has been internally (i.e. rectally) sourced by the anonymous author. Or again, it may be based on a single study on a specific population, and WDDTY has once more massaged the language to make it apply to the general case.
  8. This is the best part of all. I looked up the article at Am J Geriatr Psychiatry, 2011; 19: 839–50. It is not the study the author is referring to. Or, if it is, he/she has been spectacularly dishonest in presenting it. The reference is, in full: The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry Volume 19, Issue 10 , Pages 839-850, October 2011 “Complementary Use of Tai Chi Chih Augments Escitalopram Treatment of Geriatric Depression: A Randomized Controlled Trial”

Geriatric depression. In people who have doubtless suffered chronic inflammation for a long time, on top of all the other problems of ageing, and who are taking an anti-depressant. All the abstract confirms is what we suspected all along: a little gentle exercise and socialising does you good, especially as you get older, frailer, and more likely to find yourself isolated.

There’s more to that WDDTY article, much more: all of it similarly debatable, disingenuous or downright dishonest. It all boils down to the usual “self-diagnosis and supplements” mantra you expect from the anti-health extremists. Here’s a second example from another piece, this time online:

Coffee helps ward of depression and suicidal thoughts (30 July 2013)

Caffeine in coffee acts as a mild antidepressant that could even be enough to stop someone committing suicide.
Drinking two or more cups of coffee day reduces the risk of suicide by around 45 per cent, say researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health. They think that caffeine boosts mood hormones in the brain, and stops us feeling depressed. But the benefits seem to stop at around three cups, or 400 mg of caffeine a day, they say.

The published research is here. Notice the title: “Coffee, caffeine, and risk of completed suicide” – completed suicide is not the same thing as suicidal thoughts, or even suicide attempts. It’s a pretty crude measure, really. Notice that WDDTY uses affirmative verbs – “helps”, “acts” – while the researchers themselves carefully employ the conditional – “may”, “appears” and so on. And a “lowered risk of depression” is not the same thing as “stops depression”, otherwise no coffee drinkers anywhere would ever be depressed.

There are other examples of WDDTY’s reckless, misleading and irresponsible reporting on depression, mostly involving the old warhorse of nutrition. Depression is due to bad diet, to lack of various B-vitamins, to hypothyroidism… Well, the last one isn’t entirely false: untreated hypothyroidism can result in depression, but the assertion that “diagnosing hypothyroidism isn’t easy” is a downright lie. It’s very easy; all you need is a blood test. The test is a bit of a pain, admittedly, but only for the patient who’s forgotten to bring music or a podcast to listen to. The biology side of it is pretty simple.

My third and final example of WDDTY’s deadly fuckwittery on the subject is this headline from their webshite. Just the headline, as it’s quite evil enough:

Alternatives to drugs for depression

I find ripping the balls out of WDDTY’s vicious, mercenary falsehoods a briefly stimulating alternative to getting roaring drunk and playing Pink Floyd’s The Wall at neighbour-baiting volume, but it hasn’t cured my depression. Nor will taking extra doses of vitamins that I already get a full daily dose of in my normal diet. Drinking more coffee not only doesn’t cheer me up, it proactively treats any incipient constipation for the next 48 hours, so stuff that. No, all things considered, I’ll keep taking the pills, thank you very much, and make sure I always have someone to get in touch with when things get on top of me.

Also posted at Plague of Mice

Heartburn drugs increase risk of nerve damage, anaemia

heartburn bollocksWhat WDDTY said:

Heartburn drugs increase risk of nerve damage, anaemia

What the source said:

Previous and current gastric acid inhibitor use was significantly associated with the presence of vitamin B12 deficiency. These findings should be considered when balancing the risks and benefits of using these medications.

The source additionally shows that:

  • 12% of people with Vitamin B12 deficiency are taking PPIs (i.e. most are not)
  • 7.3% of people without Vitamin B12 deficiency are taking PPIs
  • 4.2% of people with vitamin B12 deficiency are taking H2RAs
  • 3.2% of people without vitamin B12 deficiency are taking H2RAs

Here’s how WDDTY interpreted this:

Heartburn and acid reflux medications are causing B12 deficiency, which can lead to nerve damage, anaemia and dementia. The medications, known as PPIs (protein pump inhibitors), increase the risk of vitamin deficiency by 65 per cent in those who take them longer than two years, say researchers at the Kaiser Permanente research division. Similar risks have been seen in those who take higher-strength drugs but for shorter periods. PPIs are among the most common pharmaceuticals; in the US alone, around 157 million prescriptions for the drugs are written every year. The researchers discovered the B12 deficiency risk when they analysed the records of 25,956 people with the deficiency and compared them to 184,199 people with normal levels of B12. Twelve per cent of those with a deficiency had been taken a PPI for at least two years compared to 7 per cent in the healthy group. (Source: JAMA, 2013; 310: 2435-42)

Sadly space did not permit the following quotes from the investigators:

These findings do not recommend against acid suppression for persons with clear indications for treatment, but clinicians should exercise appropriate vigilance when prescribing these medications and use the lowest possible effective dose.

At a minimum, the use of these medications identifies a population at higher risk of B12 deficiency, independent of additional risk factors. (emphasis added)

Here are some of the problems with WDDTY’s slant:

  • The study only covers courses of 2 years or more. The absence of the words “long-term” from the WDDTY headline is scaremongering.
  • The study does not show a link between PPIs and H2RAs and dementia, anaemia or nerve damage. This is a potential secondary effect of Vitamin B12 deficiency. The implied direct link is scaremongering.
  • The study results clearly show that if all PPI and H2RA mediated B12 deficiency stopped overnight, the overall effect on B12 deficiency levels would be barely noticeable.
  • As an observational study, no causal link is established (though it is entirely plausible and quite likely to be at least contributory).

So, WDDTY’s hysterical anti-medicine agenda leads it to turn “long-term use of certain classes of drugs for acid reflux may increase your risk of vitamin B12 deficiency” to “HEARTBURN MEDICINE CAUSES DEMENTIA“.

Now put yourself in the position of someone who has short-term acid reflux, perhaps as a result of pregnancy. Would the difference between these two statements be significant to you? You can see how an Ob-Gyn news journal covers the story here.

Who’s most at risk of dementia? Perhaps the following might have been considered relevant, taken from Ob Gyn News:

The association between vitamin B12 deficiency and the use of acid inhibitors was strongest among patients younger than 30 years of age and diminished with increasing age.

And why don’t doctors tell you this? Oh wait, they did. One of the researchers was part-sponsored by “big pharma”, even though the findings are clearly not to big pharma’s advantage.

Enhanced by Zemanta

WDDTY invents advice from researchers on antidepressant use in pregnancy and Autism

Two major drug groups could cause autism
Autism is a fertile hunting ground for quacks and cranks. Pseudoscience is rampant. It’s hugely draining for parents, there is precious little anyone can do about it, and the causes are unknown. It’s notorious as the foundation of Andrew Wakefield’s fraudulent MMR studies, and quack treatments such as chelation therapy and bleach drinking cross the line into child abuse. Parents are driven to horrific and desperate lengths, often by the very cranks who claim to support them.

The SCAM community (naturally) tries to pin the blame on the bogeyman du jour: vaccines, of course, antibiotics, mercury, fluoride in the water, electrosensitivity – and here, antidepressants.

There are three truly evil aspects of this story. First, it screams about a threefold increase in risk, when actually it goes from 0.6% to 1.3% . Second, it screams cause when the study referenced explicitly repudiates this, as well it should – a case control study has no way of telling if, for example, there is a genetic cause which is a cofactor in both maternal depression and autism. Third, and worst by far, it lays a burden of guilt at the feet of the mothers, without any good evidence to back this.

There’s no doubt that the less medication a pregnant mother uses, the better. On the other hand the dramatic effects of depression are well documented. There is always  a balance of risk and benefit in any effective treatment (whatever the peddlers of natural woo tell you to the contrary).  WDDTY cynically exploit and exaggerate the risks, and ignore the benefits, in order to serve their own agenda – a case this eloquent blog post makes very clearly.

 

Reblogged from NurtureMyBaby with permission

“What Doctors Don’t Tell You” is a magazine that apparently, for the princely sum of £3.95 “aims to meet the demand of those seeking information about alternatives to conventional medicine.”

In my opinion this should actually read misinformation. And as GP, Margaret McCartney, put it “The only ethical way I can see of selling it is if it is kept behind the counter in a plastic bag, with a label saying the contents are dangerous.”

Yet supermarkets continue to stock it (apart from Waitrose), despite many people making them aware of issues with its content.

If you’ve not heard of this magazine before there are many, many blog posts about the misinformation presented in this magazine. On cancer and chemotherapy. HIV/AIDSHomeopathyThe HPV vaccineMMR.

There’s a master list of posts over on Josephine Jones’s blog too, as well as a whole blog dedicated solely to highlighting the issues with this magazine.

autism-antidepressantsIn this post I want to talk specifically about the article titled “Two major drug groups could cause autism” found on page 17 of the November edition that states:

“Women who take certain prescription drugs while pregnant are increasing the chances of Autism in their child”

The drugs that the magazine “reports” on are antidepressants and Epilim. I wanted to take a closer look at the claims made about antidepressants. I tend to get my knickers in a twist about flippant pill shaming so any hint of that and my interest is piqued.

I checked the reference that the magazine points you to and I don’t think it backs up what is written.

The magazine tells you:

“All antidepressants, including the newer generation of SSRIs, triple the chances of the unborn child developing autism”

There’s a few issues with this statement in my eyes.

Absolute risk versus relative risk

“Triples the chances” Crikey. Sounds dramatic doesn’t it. Well first off the “triples” figure is not backed up by the results in the paper. We can look at that in a bit more detail later.

But a big issue I have with this is that WDDTY have done that thing, where, in order to make a story sound a bit more exciting, a bit more headline grabbing, they have reported solely on the relative risk.

This seems to happen quite a lot in the media in general, it’s certainly not unique to WDDTY. It’s frequent enough that Cancer Research UK have gone to the trouble of writing a pretty good explanation of the meanings of relative and absolute risks here.

The relative risk tells us:

“how much more, or less, likely the disease is in one group, compared to another.”

When it is reported that the risk is tripled, this could mean that the risk is 20% in one group and 60% in another. Or it could mean the risk is 0.1% in one group and 0.3% in another. The figures I’ve given in these examples are known as “absolute risks”

As there is a big difference between a 60% risk and a 0.3% risk, you can see that to solely report on the relative risk with no mention of the actual figures involved ie. the underlying absolute risks does not give the full picture. From looking at the WDDTY article we have no idea what the absolute risks are, nor is the writer clear about the two groups being compared.

I’m no expert, but looking at the actual paper, I tried to work out where this “triple the chances” came from. I’m not entirely sure.

In very (and probably, over-) simple terms, the research took a load of people with autism (cases) and then took a load of people who matched the autism group in terms of sex and age, but did not suffer from autism. This second group is known as the control group. Then they looked at information on the parents of the people in both groups and looked at how many suffered from depression and how many mothers took antidepressants during the pregnancy, including the type of antidepressant.

Then they did lots of clever number crunching. It’s impossible within the scope of this blog post to go into the details of the statistical analysis that was performed. But a key conclusion that they reached is that:

“Any antidepressant use during pregnancy in mothers of cases was 1.3% compared with 0.6% of controls equating to an almost twofold increase in risk of autism spectrum disorder”

So it seems that the figures for the absolute risks in these two groups are rather low and ultimately, when they did all their odds ratio calculations, it showed almost double the risk, not triple. I think reporting on the figures shown above, alongside the relative risk, would have given WDDTY’s article a bit of a different feel.

(It is all a bit tricky, and my understanding of the numbers and the way the study was done means that the above percentages do not relate directly to risks in women that do take antidepressants versus those that don’t – so it is a bit unfair to simply say that they should have quoted these numbers as absolute risks – but I think some context is needed other than just saying “triples” – this all goes to show the really big problems with just taking numbers out of context in the manner that WDDTY have done. I’m sorry if my attempt to clarify the numbers has made matters worse. Perhaps I should delete all of this section and just say – “I think you’ll find it’s a bit more complicated than that”)

That’s not to say that relative risks are unimportant, indeed they are of great importance in decision-making – comparing risk/benefit of one exposure/treatment vs another, but the absolute risks do put them in context, and I feel that context is important.

Sadly, context is frequently missing in WDDTY. (Another example of missing context can be seen in an article on UTIs and antibiotics, where in failing to tell us the actual purpose of the research they cite, WDDTY try and take a figure from the paper and extrapolate it to the general population, thus having us believe that 70% of women can get better from uncomplicated UTIs without antibiotics, when the figure is actually estimated to be 25 – 50%)

To be fair to WDDTY, (I don’t know why I keep bothering to do that) I think I can see where they got the “triples” figure from. I think (from looking at table 4 in the paper) it is from looking at a link between depressed women taking antidepressants and autism in offspring, rather than a link between taking antidepressants and autism in offspring. (Antidepressants can be prescribed for things other than depression, such as neuropathic pain.)

I think this serves to highlight the importance of my earlier question of what two groups are we comparing when we talk about a tripled risk, and it also highlights the general importance of context.

Causality

The paper this article is based on is very cautious about saying that antidepressant use directly causes autism. It says:

“it is not possible to conclude whether the association between antidepressant use and autism spectrum disorder reflects severe depression during pregnancy or is a direct effect of the drug.”

And

“Caution is required before making causal assumptions or clinical decisions based on observational studies”

I don’t think this is reflected in what we see in WDDTY. I think the two statements I’ve already quoted from the magazine infer that autism is caused by the drugs. Here they are again:

“Women who take certain prescription drugs while pregnant are increasing the chances of Autism in their child”

“All antidepressants, including the newer generation of SSRIs, triple the chances of the unborn child developing autism”

Notice that in that first sentence, it’s not even the drugs that WDDTY wants to blame, it’s the women themselves that are increasing the chances by taking the drugs.

No consideration at all that it might be the severity of the depression that could result in an increased risk of Autism and that perhaps treatment might reduce the risk (the researchers even explicitly say this later, as we’ll see, so I’m not sure what WDDTY’s excuse is for failing to mention this.)

Certainly no consideration for the fact that it is not the individual fault of any women that she might end up in a position where taking antidepressants is necessary. Just a straight up blame game, yep, take these drugs and YOU, pregnant lady, are increasing the risk of damaging your unborn child. I can’t put into words how much I’m annoyed by the way WDDTY frames this sentence.

I’m not the only one who sees a problem with how happy WDDTY seem to be to blame pregnant women.SouthwarkBelle has also written about the way WDDTY misrepresent this research.

Perspective

Further reading of the paper offers further perspective on the figures:

“From a public health perspective, if antidepressant use had a causal relation with autism spectrum disorders, it would explain less than 1% of cases”

The actual figure, given elsewhere in the paper is 0.6%. So looking at it this way, not only is “triples” inaccurate, it also appears to be a little alarmist. What would you do if you were a responsible health journalist, would you report on an invented tripled risk or would you report on the 0.6% of cases that would result if antidepressant use did cause autism?

(I think ideally, you might write more than 3 paragraphs, so that you can go into a little more depth and provide context)

Also of relevance is this:

“All associations were higher in cases of autism without intellectual disability, there being no evidence of an increased risk of autism with intellectual disability.”

Once again if WDDTY looked closely at the study and were careful to point out this detail….well it paints the research in a different light doesn’t it? An association between anti-depressants and autism was found but only with autism without an intellectual disability. Less alarmist, for sure, not really WDDTY’s style.

“Seek out non-drug therapies, say researchers”

Now we move onto what I find to be the worst part of the article. Here is the full sentence I’m talking about:

“So women who suffer from depression during pregnancy should seek out non-drug therapies, say researchers from the University of Bristol”

Gosh. If I was pregnant and had decided to take or stay on antidepressants, I think I’d already be quite concerned by the article so far. But that is quite a recommendation from the researchers isn’t it? Quite firm advice. The researchers must be certain about the clinical implications of their research.

Apart from of course, they are not, as we’ve already seen from the quote about clinical decisions requiring caution.

Here’s what else they say:

“….the results of the present study as well as the US study present a major dilemma in relation to clinical advice to pregnant women with depression. If antidepressants increase the risk of autism spectrum disorder, it would be reasonable to warn women about this possibility. However, if the association actually reflects the risk of autism spectrum disorder related to the non-genetic effects of severe depression during pregnancy, treatment may reduce the risk. Informed decisions would also need to consider weighing the wider risks of untreated depression with the other adverse outcomes related to antidepressant use. With the current evidence, if the potential risk of autism were a consideration in the decision-making process, it may be reasonable to think about, wherever appropriate, non-drug approaches such as psychological treatments. However, their timely availability to pregnant women will need to be enhanced.”

It’s just not the same as what was written in this magazine is it? I have to wonder how the folk at WDDTY translate “a major dilemma in relation to clinical advice to pregnant women” into what I read as a quite firm statement telling pregnant women suffering from depression to “seek out non drug therapies” I recognise that there is mention of non-drug approaches by the research, but saying “it may be reasonable to think about, wherever appropriate” is very different from saying “should” I really think that once again WDDTY has taken a study and misrepresented it. Either that or the researchers spoke to WDDTY and made additional comments on the research aside from what is published.

Only that is not the case either.

I had email correspondence with Dr Dheeraj Rai, the lead author of the BMJ paper who said,

“It would be unwise to suggest that clinical decisions be based solely on our one study. As we mention in our paper, it is not yet clear whether the associations that were observed between antidepressant use during pregnancy and offspring autism were causal, or related to the risk associated with the underlying depression. Although future research will help answer this question, it is understandable that the possibility of potential harm creates concern. However, decisions regarding treatment require a large number of considerations including type and severity of symptoms, risks to mother and baby, and potential benefits. Doctors or other relevant healthcare practitioners can discuss these with concerned women in relation to their personal circumstances and help them to make informed decisions.”

I know it can’t be easy to simplify such a study into a small accessible, informative snippet, (and I wonder how wise it is to attempt it at all) but I’m just not impressed with the job done here. I hate to think that a pregnant woman struggling to make decisions around antidepressants in pregnancy might read this at take it at face value. And I also hate to think of the Mum who has a child with Autism and took antidepressants during pregnancy, who reads this and ends up feeling to blame.

I also think, that in ignoring the complexities surrounding making decisions around antidepressant use in pregnancy, WDDTY trivialise depression. Their flippant suggestion of seeking out non drug therapies shows no understanding of the condition and the effect it can have on a person. By making such a suggestion, I would argue that WDDTY contribute to the stigma surrounding mental health and potentially their writing could affect more than just the person that chooses to read it. Elsewhere they have done a similar thing with TB patients, ie contribute to stigma, by promoting fear of and discrimination towards people that they would have you believe are suffering from a disease that is incurable (Note: TB is curable).

For responsible advice on anti – depressants and pregnancy read here.

What can be done?

This magazine is damaging. If people trust this magazine with its impressive sounding references without realising the extent to which it misleads, then they will make decisions about health based on wrong information and possibly form attitudes towards patient groups that result in discrimination.

The way they write about cancer and quack cures does nothing but sell false hope. (Read that blog post if you get a chance – it sums up my views on this magazine very well)

Having it available in Smiths and supermarkets with its glossy cover gives it a certain air of respectability it does not deserve. The thought of anyone I care about being seriously ill and picking up this magazine for advice scares me. I wouldn’t want them to use it to educate themselves about depression either, being that it’s something that I personally suffer from.

Myself and many others, would love to raise awareness of the bad reporting in this magazine and get this magazine out of high street stores, and have been making their views known to the relevant companies.

Waitrose have already listened to peoples’ views and have decided to stop stocking it. But the likes of WH Smiths, Tesco, Asda and Sainsbury’s are less responsive. (Sainsbury’s did say they were going to stop selling it, however they appear to have backtracked)

Putting more pressure on these big chains could make a huge difference.

If Tesco and Asda can withdraw their mental health patient costumes because they recognise that selling them reinforces stigma and causes damage to those living with mental illness, then when the damage that this magazine could cause is brought to their attention they ought to act accordingly. If you agree, and fancy letting your views known then here are some email addresses:

[email protected]

[email protected]

Sainsbury’s can be emailed here

[email protected]

The more people who are aware of the misleading information in this magazine the better. So if you agree that this magazine is problematic please spread the word in whatever ways you can. Twitter it(#wddty), Facebook it, blog it, tell your neighbour, if you find a copy speak to the manager of the store or have a word with the pharmacist. Whatever small things you can do. Whatever you think is appropriate.

As always, please let me know if anything is unclear or you feel I have made any mistakes.

See also

Use of Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors during Pregnancy and Risk of Autism, Anders Hviid, Dr.Med.Sci., Mads Melbye, M.D., Dr.Med.Sci., and Björn Pasternak, M.D., Ph.D. N Engl J Med 2013; 369:2406-2415:

CONCLUSIONS: We did not detect a significant association between maternal use of SSRIs during pregnancy and autism spectrum disorder in the offspring. On the basis of the upper boundary of the confidence interval, our study could not rule out a relative risk up to 1.61, and therefore the association warrants further study. (Funded by the Danish Health and Medicines Authority.)