1

A couple of weeks ago, this article was published on Nature

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-022-01661-0

I am just a layman when it comes to this subject and it is therefore difficult for me to evaluate or value this paper, but as far as I understand it, if it is (reasonably) correct, it is quite revolutionizing, which of course one should be sceptically about. Besides, I found it through an Facebook ad by an organization related to the Scientologists.

Is this article credible? Is it "good science" methodwise etc? Are the people behind it well-reputed or known "quacks"? Are the results robust?

d-b
  • 1,575
  • 2
  • 11
  • 13
  • 1
    This seems a bit beyond skeptics.SE and gets into scientific debate. Nature is without a doubt a reputable publication. Personally, I think they use serotonin concentration as a bit of a straw man target, as plenty of people who still think serotonin is very important in depression do not think anything as simplistic as low serotonin concentration = depression. Location, timing, and concentration are all important for neurotransmitters. But... I could write a great SE answer with references to say all that, and it doesn't have the clout of a Nature paper. – Bryan Krause Aug 20 '22 at 20:36
  • 1
    I haven't followed the latest research (the paper you link to is just a review), but this was more or less asked here before. https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/40309/is-depression-caused-by-chemical-imbalances Also the journal that published that 2022 review is *Molecular Psychiatry*, which is generally more on the chemical side of explanations for mental illnesses, IIRC. – Fizz Aug 20 '22 at 21:15
  • 2
    Does this answer your question? [Is depression caused by chemical imbalances?](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/40309/is-depression-caused-by-chemical-imbalances) – Arnon Weinberg Aug 21 '22 at 04:55
  • 2
    Most comments deleted. No more pseudo-answers in the comments. No more poor justifications of pseudo-answers by claiming that other people have done it. (If you think a comment is inappropriate, flag it.) – Oddthinking Aug 22 '22 at 03:16
  • 3
    This question might be more appropriate for the [Medical Sciences SE](https://medicalsciences.stackexchange.com/), since it's asking about current research, which I believe Skeptics is ill equipped to handle. I do not know that site though, so I'm not entirely sure. – jaskij Aug 22 '22 at 10:54
  • It is important to note that the question of whether depression drugs *work* is very different to the question of whether a particular *theory* about *how* they work is true. The *theory* question might be too fast moving to answer here as the new research is very recent. – matt_black Aug 25 '22 at 11:04
  • @mat_black No, the 'theory is bonkers' as well as 'SSRIs _cannot_ work as advertised' is rather old news by now, as evidenced by the linked 4 year old Q, as well as _this_ 'new' paper being a review of _past evidence._ Claims require evidence, a saying goes, and drugs like SSRIs have shown indeed repeatedly the opposite of 'they work', only demonstrating pharmacological corruption & bad science, matching the bonkers theory very nicely. – LangLаngС Aug 30 '22 at 15:32

0 Answers0