Abstract

This paper conducts a critical examination of the "usual psychopharmacology standards" for clinical research. Four main areas are inspected: What is "it" that is being treated in a clinical drug study? How much is really known concerning the psychological alterations brought about by psychiatric drug treatment? To what extent are sources of bias actually controlled for in "controlled" drug treatment studies? How does the usual "dropout pattern" influence the alleged "clinical findings" of controlled drug treatment studies? The overall conclusion reached is that the "usual standards" cannot produce a realistic picture of either safety or efficacy. Conceptual and methodological reforms are suggested