Scaling the Potential of Vertical Farming Going into 2025 and Beyond

Pills and Perception: Data Manipulation in Psychiatric Studies
By Ryan Monaghan

Introduction
    For decades, psychiatric research has shaped how we understand and treat mental illness, influencing everything from medical guidelines to public policy. While this may be true, hidden under all that scientific progress exists a troubling history: one riddled with scandals, suppressed or inflated data, and corporate influence. These controversies have not only cast doubt on the integrity of psychiatric research but have also fueled public skepticism about the very medications and treatments designed to help those in need. From the suppression of unfavorable clinical trial results to the financial ties between pharmaceutical companies and researchers, the line between science and profit has often been blurred. As a result, some journalists now question whether psychiatric advancements are driven by patient well-being or corporate gain. How did we get here, and what will it take to restore trust in the science of mental health?

An Example of Controversy
    There have been no shortages of controversy in this industry, many of which involve data suppression or outright manipulation. The most recent significant controversy, covered by Robert Whitaker and other Mad In America journalists, is called STAR*D. This study was very important because it would be conducted on real-world patients, and it promised to “guide clinical care”. This study, which was conducted by the NIMH, took on $35 million in funding. Given the scope of this study, they wanted to publish their findings as quickly as possible, touting the positive results--a near 70% remission rate--in a press release. The real remission rate after a year was 3%, so the number they initially reported was heavily inflated. This was done by adding ineligible patients, using the QIDS (Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology) despite the HAM-D (Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression) protocol saying that it would not use this data, and adding dropouts to the count of those who had remitted. The inflation of this score and the mistreatment of this data made the public believe that antidepressants do work, and they work well. This, however, is obviously not the case. This does raise a question, how many times has something like what occurred with the STAR*D trial happened in other areas in the industry?

Unnecessary Drugs
    With studies like these being published, what can be said about the effectiveness of other drugs? Robert Whitaker, in his book Anatomy of an Epidemic, positioned himself against psychiatric medicine, stating that medications designed to help could be doing more harm than good. Studies like STAR*D, which reinforces the effectiveness of drugs when the reality is much different, tends to tell a positive story to the public which leads to a push for trying multiple different kinds of drugs until one works. This leads to an over-reliance on drugs when a much simpler approach could be taken to help relieve the patient of their illness (or at least the symptoms). Additionally, the mass media only reported on the initial number found by the STAR*D study, and no effort was made to report on the legitimate effectivity of the drug. When you draw attention to the effectiveness of drugs, you may see an increase in diagnoses. “U.S. sales of antidepressants and antipsychotics multiplied almost fifty-fold, to $24.2 billion” between 1995 and 2008. This is does not significantly intersect when the STAR*D trial was occuring, but it does go to show that diagnoses of illnesses are increasing, which leads to an increase in spending for these drugs. In a very roundabout way, this leads me to my point that there is a significant amount of funding poured into research for drugs even if there is not a significant amount of gain, seen with the 3% remission rate in STAR*D.

Tying It Together
    Public trust with not only medication, but research as well, needs to be restored. When studies like STAR*D manipulate findings to inflate drug effectiveness, it creates a false sense of security for both patients and doctors, reinforcing the belief that psychiatric drugs are the only way that they can get treatment. Additionally, the pharmaceutical industry's deep financial ties to psychiatric research raise concerns about bias, making it difficult for the public to tell what science they can trust. To restore credibility, research transparency must become a top priority. Robert Whitaker suggests that studies should be independently funded and designed with rigorous oversight to prevent conflicts of interest, as well as publicizing the results of studies even if they are proprietary, and an increase in the restrictions in the FDA for drug approval. Until these changes are made, skepticism toward psychiatric research will only continue to grow, leaving many to wonder: Is modern psychiatry truly committed to healing, or is it just another arm of the pharmaceutical industry?

https://www.madinamerica.com/2025/01/stard-scandal-betrayed/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/cross-check/are-psychiatric-medications-making-us-sicker/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/cross-check/psychiatrists-must-face-possibility-that-medications-hurt-more-than-they-help/