Originally Posted by
The Atheist
Sorry mate, but I must repeat the following:
A lie by a "quote" of my post. That post was
Stegenga did not do that in his essay. He lists well-known issues with clinical trials comparing drugs to placebos.
There is no defense of anything in that post. It is a statement of basic facts about drug/placebo trials and meta-analysis and a note that Stegenga is expressing some personal opinions. It ends with citing a scientific paper that Stegenga cited.
Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 21 antidepressant drugs for the acute treatment of adults with major depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis is a recent (2018) meta-analysis.
It is a part of the scientific literature that shows that the evidence for the efficacy of antidepressants is mixed. It is that mixed evidence which turns the conclusion of Stegenga's essay into personal opinion.
I am not defending the efficacy of antidepressants because that is done by the scientific evidence. I agree with most of Stegenga's essay. The evidence is mixed. The trials have the flaws that Stegenga lists (small sample size, short term, many run by of pharmaceutical companies).
What The Atheist irrelevantly repeats is
Fallacy of argument from (almost false) authority from The Atheist.
Stegenga's credentials do not automatically make him right. What makes Stegenga mostly right is the evidence he presents in his essay. What makes him wrong in a few places and specifically his conclusion is the lack of analysis of cited data in the essay.