Psychiatry has always been under attack from outside sources for its anti-diagnostic and anti-treatment aspects. However, one physician, Professor Peter Gtzsche, has recently joined a new group called the Committee on Evidence-Based Psychiatry, and with it comes sensationalist arguments such as “Studies show that antidepressants do more harm than good ” or “psychiatric drugs are more toxic than curative. These made headlines in the Times and Guardian, sparking another wave of irrational controversy. What is particularly worrying is that this doctor is also a co-founder of the Nordic Cochrane Collaboration, which aims to provide clinical practitioners with the highest quality evidence-based evidence. What is the truth about the efficacy and side effects of antidepressants? Why did Prof. Getzsche put his old job aside to shout about such a controversy? Depression is a serious relapsing disorder. It is currently the leading cause of disability in Europe and is expected to be the leading cause of death in high-income countries by 2030. Antidepressants are effective in treating acute cases of depression, with a number needed to treat (NNT) of approximately 6. For example, Cochranereview recently updated a study of amitriptyline, a review that included 18 studies and 1,987 subjects. The results showed that amitriptyline was far more effective than placebo in achieving acute remission, and amitriptyline also had significantly fewer study dropouts due to treatment failure than the placebo group. Where do these results show that antidepressants “do more harm than good”? Fewer people dropped out of the study because of side effects, and the pattern of results was the same whether the study was sponsored by a drug company or an independent foundation. In fact, in general, the therapeutic effect sizes of psychiatric drugs are not dissimilar to those of drugs for physical illnesses. In addition, antidepressants are effective in preventing relapse, with an NNT of only 3, making this class of drugs one of the most efficacious of all. Approximately 6,000 British people die by suicide each year. Most of them have depressive conditions, and the lobby team’s lopsided condemnation of antidepressants may lead to a further increase in the size of this group, while those countries where antidepressants are used properly have all seen significant decreases in suicide rates. There is no denying that there are three types of drugs, but even in the case of overdose, serious or fatal side effects are still rarely seen with the newer antidepressants. In fact, newer antidepressants, especially SSRIs, are among the safest classes of drugs we have ever made. In combination with our experience, the vast majority of patients choose to stay on their medications because they do improve their state of mind and make them feel better, not because they can’t handle the withdrawal symptoms that come with stopping them. Cases of extreme side effects caused by antidepressant ingredients are on the one hand extremely rare, and on the other hand may be so bizarre as to be simply unexplained. Attributing these extremely unusual or severe conditions to a largely harmless drug in a double-blind clinical trial is tantamount to mixing folklore anecdotes into proper history. Sometimes, the truth may also be twisted for the sake of litigation. Anti-psychiatric groups often claim that depressed patients should be treated for their illness through exercise and psychotherapy rather than medication. However, there is little evidence from controlled studies supporting psychotherapy as an alternative to antidepressant treatment for patients with major depression. In fact, if psychotherapy were tested by the same criteria used to test drugs, it is not even clear that the latter would be approved for the treatment of depression. Some people believe that, unlike medication, psychotherapy has few side effects. This view is highly misleading. Suicidal intent and even successful suicide are side effects of psychotherapy, and sexual troubles between therapist and patient have raised concerns. In addition, a recent Cochrane review concluded that, compared to controls, exercise therapy “has moderate efficacy in reducing depressive symptoms; however, when only those studies that are methodologically sound are analyzed, the efficacy is somewhat poorer.” Moreover, patients were not more receptive to exercise therapy than to psychotherapy and medication. What is it that makes physicians committed to evidence-based medicine create a series of false arguments about antidepressants? We’ll just have to guess. First, general practitioners (GPs) encounter many patients with mild somatic or psychiatric problems every day. In our communication with GP colleagues, we learned that GPs are actually less willing in their hearts to treat this category of patients. Therefore, it may make doctors feel more comfortable to think that treatment is not too important. Second, today’s society thinks in the sky and believes in dualism, and the idea of treating a certain substance (thinking) deficiency with medication may seem unworkable, irrational, and not what we want at first. Third, in recent years there has been a growing conspiracy theory that drug companies and psychiatrists are in cahoots to create new diseases while making a bunch of drugs that are no better than placebos. The anti-psychiatry movement, already old, is now being revitalized by this “spring breeze. The anti-capital implications of this belief also resonate with the relevance of anti-psychosis and its extreme or unorthodox political views. Regardless of the reasons, these extreme views presented by Professor Getzsche are insulting to the discipline of psychiatry and, to some extent, embody and reinforce the stigma of mental disorders and their patients. Medical practitioners should exercise their own judgment and vigorously challenge such negative views that are not carefully considered.