Hi To embellish a bit on Rick's comments. It is not just correlational data. It is correlational data over time. The classic example of spurious correlation is just such a relationship (i.e., the high r between number of storks and number of babies born in Copenhagen).
So, has anything much changed since 1988, when the SSRIs were introduced? Here are a few candidates that I found searching around a bit (although arguments might be made about the exact time of onset of the decline). unemployment rate teen pregnancy rate school dropout rates use of alcohol by high school seniors I was also curious about the raw data for the study (but have not actually looked at the study, so reader beware!). I found overall suicide statistics at: http://krusekronicle.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/07aas.gif It is not completely obvious (to the very imperfect eyeball) whether the decline started around 1988 or a decade earlier. Suicide rates through the 1970s were consistently 1% higher than during the 1980s, after which the decline continued (accelerated?). Browsing around some of the other sites that popped up in google further complicated the story. Essentially, the time series data looks different as a function of such factors as: different age ranges and means of suicide (decline after 1988 clearest for death by motor vehicle exhaust ... perhaps SSRIs have a highly specific effect?). Certainly lots of room for improvement of the study, although interesting data nonetheless. Be interesting, for example, to see comparable data from countries where newer SSRIs were introduced later or earlier, or perhaps not at all. Take care Jim James M. Clark Professor of Psychology 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12-Dec-06 2:50:27 PM >>> While I appreciate the dangers of using correlations to demonstrate a causal relationship I think that we should consider these data carefully. If you are suggesting that it is only a spurious relationship then what would you propose as a logical "third variable" to account for the apparent connection? -Don. Paul Brandon wrote: > At 8:02 AM -0500 12/12/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Last weeks issue of Time Magazine, with cover date 14/4/06, has an >> article The year in medicine A to Z. One of the entries is >> >> DEPRESSION >> >> Researchers still don't understand why severely depressed teenagers >> are more likely than adults to commit suicide while taking >> antidepressant drugs like Paxil, but a major study out of UCLA >> concluded that the drugs do more good than harm. Starting in the >> early 1960s, the annual U.S. suicide rate held fairly steady at 12 to >> 14 instances per 100,000--until 1988, when the first of a new >> generation of antidepressants, the selective serotonin reuptake >> inhibitors, was introduced. The suicide rate has been falling ever >> since, to around 10 per 100,000. The investigators estimate that >> nearly 34,000 lives have been saved. >> >> Since much of the discussion has been focused on the fact that >> antidepressants don't work, how would you explain this result? > > > Facetiously: > Since the time period in question coincides with the birth of the > InterNet, one could just as easily say that an increase of virtual > suicide by internet addiction is responsible. > In other words -- a correlation is still a weak argument. > Were the authors receiving drug company support by any chance? -- Don Allen Department of Psychology Langara College Vancouver, B.C., Canada V5Y 2Z6 604-323-5871 --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
