Once again here, Lenzer attempts to discredit a solid idea by launching a McCarthy-like attack implying that the source is somehow "tainted."

Here's what Stats wrote:

Lenzer, a former physician’s assistant turned freelance writer, appears to be of the “industry money corrupts” school of medical reporting. This has its place, but only if an accusation of vested interests can be shown in faulty research methodology and poor statistical methods, or that the drug is pointless or has a greater risk profile than similar drugs without any greater benefit. Otherwise, it’s a way of reporting whose bias is at least as bad as the bias it purports to expose precisely because it’s unscientific in method; it insinuates corruption without demonstrating it in the data.

This paragraph is at the heart of what's wrong with the Lenzer-Brownlee article. Yes, The Infinite Mind should have disclosed Peter Pitts' connections. They've apologized about that. But neither credible journalists nor credible researchers should be viewed de facto as checking their ethics at the door without some indication that the actual CONTENT has been affected by a direct pecuniary connection with a manufacturer. Simply pointing a finger and alleging a connection to witchcraft may have worked in 1692, or for McCarthy in
1952, but hopefully as a society, we are beyond that now.

There's an interesting indication in this last post about where Lenzer's own bias lies, when she starts to talk in broad terms about the "potential life-threatening harms of antidepressants." Yes, SSRIs' like most medications, can have side effects. But there are no credible researchers working in this area that would dispute the fact that the Prozac class of antidepressants have save untold thousands of lives, with a benefit far outweighing their risk. There is no real "controversy" about that. If Lenzer thinks so, that's a key to just how credible she is as a health reporter. Perhaps there's a closet Scientologist in Slate's house?