Reply #107: I say otherwise [View All]

and I must also add that your logic is faulty.

First of all, observational epidemiological studies rely not only on cases (anecdotes, if you will) where people taking the drug that have committed suicide- but also on controls. They're set up with 2 x 2 tables to compare relative risks among those taking the drug vs. people similarly situated (and sometimes matched for specific characteristics) who are not taking the drug.

If a case/control study finds what appears to be a higher incidence of suicide or suicidal behavior in the people taking the drug, then that's a pretty good evidence that there's a problem.

Next, scientific studies will do a double blind comparison between a group of depressed individuals taking the drug vs. those taking a placebo or an active comparator. The studies look both for efficacy and adverse events. If the subjects taking the drug show a significantly increased risk of suicide, then that's even better evidence that there's a problem.

As to the logic:

1. Depressed people ARE NOT THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO COMMIT SUICIDE.

That's a false premise. Most suicides in fact result from bipolar mixed states- not from clinical depression. Indeed, as some posters have suggested, what may be going on here is the movement out of depression- physiologically, without concommittant treatment for the dark thoughts and cognitive distortions.

2)Prozac is given to depressed people and can be clinically proven to cause less suicides.

That is what's at issue. The suppressed Lily documents and other work over the past 10 years seem to suggest otherwise, at least in the short term.

Finally, anecdotes (case studies) like Joseph Wesbecker's tragedy are necessary for any broadly effective presentation of the material. You have to put a face on the abstract concepts- and this holds true even among professionals.

Otherwise, particularly among lay persons- you just get "the look."