Psychiatry has always been under attack from outside sources for its anti-diagnostic and anti-treatment aspects. Recently, however, one physician, Professor Peter Gøtzsche, has 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 debate. 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 Professor Gøtzsche 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 in 2030. Antidepressants are effective in treating acute cases of depression, with a number needed to treat (NNT) of approximately 6. For example, the Cochrane review was recently updated with a study of amitriptyline, which included 18 studies and 1,987 subjects. The results showed that amitriptyline was much more effective than placebo in achieving acute remission (odds ratio [OR] 2.67, 95% CI 2.21C3.23); amitriptyline was also significantly less effective than the placebo group in dropping out of studies due to treatment failure. Where do these results show that antidepressants “do more harm than good”? The number of study dropouts due to side effects was much lower, and the pattern of results was the same whether the study was sponsored by a drug company or an independent foundation. In fact, overall, the therapeutic effect sizes of psychiatric medications 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 more than 70% were not taking antidepressants at the time of their suicide. The lobbying team’s overwhelming condemnation of antidepressants could lead to a further increase in the size of this group, while countries where antidepressants are used properly have seen significant declines 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 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 after 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 defensible 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 can only 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 the doctors themselves 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 (thought) deficiency with medication may seem unworkable, irrational, and not what we want right off the bat. Third, there is a conspiracy theory that has gained momentum in recent years that drug companies and psychiatrists are in cahoots, working 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 correlation between anti-psychosis and its extreme or unorthodox political views. Whatever the reasons, the extreme views presented by Professor Gøtzsche are an insult to the discipline of psychiatry and, to a certain extent, embody and reinforce the stigma of mental disorders and their patients. Medical practitioners should exercise autonomous judgment and vigorously challenge such negative views that are not carefully considered.