From the article:
"Most of the studies were supported by funds from pharmaceutical companies and were of short duration."
In other words, what they are saying is that the published research papers show efficacy for SSRIs, which is completely different from saying that the research shows that SSRIs are effective.
Isn't that true of MOST drugs?
Given that, I have a very hard time trusting any drug that does not show amazingly stellar clinical trial results. If you have the options of cherry picking what you publish, and your drug only "helps" 50% of the participants, I see that as random noise.
Ben Goldacre[1] is trying to shine a spotlight on this, and is doing a pretty good job. His Ted Talk[2] is well worth watching.
2. http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_battling_bad_science
We've recently discovered genetic differences in medication efficiency - at some point in the future you'd have a genetic test that would tell you that meds A, B, and C probably aren't going to work for you. (Except by then we'll probably have better meds and better access to better talking therapies.) These genetic differences were not known at the time of the drug trials.
I totally agree with you about the problems of drug research and drug companies cherry picking which data to release. Goldacre's books are good.
Basically they give you a report of your genetic variations and how those relate to different medications or treatments.
First of all, not all these studies are funded by the producers themselves. And even when they are, it is still hard or next to impossible to outright cheat. There are standards in place, and thousands of people are involved, of which hundreds would need to collude.
Has this happened? Yes, it has. And when it came out it had a devastating effect.
But ruling all scientific studies were these stakeholders foot some of the bill invalid is just unfair and dangerous!