Edited Dec 9th
Low and moderate use of anti-psychotics associated with lower mortality than no use at all: http://t.co/O0dexsFp7J (HT @AllenFrancesMD)
— Huw (@Huwtube) December 5, 2014
Thanks 2 @Huwtube for link shows NOT antipsychotics lead to higher mortality in psychosis: shot the fox of anti meds http://t.co/4R62jdr10XHow did "low and moderate use" become "NOT antipsychotics lead to higher mortality in psychosis"? This interchange reminds me of the story by Hans Christian Andersen about how a feather became five hens:
— Samei Huda (@SameiHuda) December 6, 2014
“There Is No Doubt About It!”
I didn't get beyond the paywall, but here is a quote from the abstract that I am setting up as a list:
High exposure (HR = 8.5, 7.3–9.8) and
no exposure (HR = 7.6, 5.8–9.9) were associated with higher cardiovascular mortality than either
low exposure (HR = 4.7, 3.7–6.0) or
moderate exposure (HR = 5.6, 4.8–6.6).
And I have some questions:
Did dr Huda shoot the fox by ignoring "high exposure"?
Who is "the fox of anti meds"?
In "Models of drug action", Joanna Moncrieff makes sense:
The drug-centred model focuses our attention on the impact that drugs have on the body and the brain, and on all the possible consequences that drug-induced alterations can have on how people think, feel and behave. It is a necessary starting point for the sensible, cautious and safe use of drugs in mental health services.YEAYYYY for "sensible, cautious and safe use of drugs"!
How did the people in the study who had no exposure to antipsychotics live?
Were they left to neglect themselves to death? Did they receive constructive treatment without drugs?
And ... what does the fox say?
The British Medical Association is not a fox nor a wooly-headed coven of deluded antiscientists, and here is something that it says, via The council for evidence-based psychiatry: