The 2001 paper, published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (JAACAP), reported findings from a randomized trial known as “Study 329,” which concluded the antidepressant Paxil was safe and effective in kids ages 12 to 18.
This paper has been cited 451 times by those complicit money grabbing journals.
A huge outcry, an "Expression of concern", 20 year too late, after a recent lawsuit against AACAP and Elsevier.
Peter Doshi, a senior editor for The BMJ who has been critical of Study 329 for at least a decade, called the expression of concern “devoid of detail.
In a complaint filed September 8 in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, attorney George W. Murgatroyd III argued the journal is violating the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act by continuing to “publish, distribute, and sell a fraudulent scientific article that contains material facts” that mislead the public and endanger adolescent mental health and safety. AACAP and Elsevier are profiting from the article by charging readers $41.50 on the JAACAP website and $33.39 on Elsevier’s ScienceDirect website to buy access to the paper, according to the complaint.
reify•5h ago
My own experience working with suicidal teenagers with depression, presecribed the anti-depressant praxil rings loud and true here.
Paxil, that SSRI wonder drug, not so wonderful after all.
Remember when our teenagers were dying by suicide simply because they were depressed. 20 years too late we have an "expression of concern".
https://retractionwatch.com/2025/10/16/controversial-paxil-s...
The 2001 paper, published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (JAACAP), reported findings from a randomized trial known as “Study 329,” which concluded the antidepressant Paxil was safe and effective in kids ages 12 to 18.
This paper has been cited 451 times by those complicit money grabbing journals.
A huge outcry, an "Expression of concern", 20 year too late, after a recent lawsuit against AACAP and Elsevier.
Peter Doshi, a senior editor for The BMJ who has been critical of Study 329 for at least a decade, called the expression of concern “devoid of detail.
In a complaint filed September 8 in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, attorney George W. Murgatroyd III argued the journal is violating the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act by continuing to “publish, distribute, and sell a fraudulent scientific article that contains material facts” that mislead the public and endanger adolescent mental health and safety. AACAP and Elsevier are profiting from the article by charging readers $41.50 on the JAACAP website and $33.39 on Elsevier’s ScienceDirect website to buy access to the paper, according to the complaint.