We like to evaluate the science behind tobacco control, smoking cessation and smoking related diseases here at Unbiased. Every once in a while we come across an article that just makes us say, "Really?"
This was our response to the recent article found in Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology. It sounds like a great scientific journal doesn't it? But then you read something like this article and it makes you scratch your head.
So the title is "Smoking Cessation After Brain Damage Does Not Lead to Increased Depression: Implications for Understanding the Psychiatric Complications of Varenicline". Very long and full of promise that some wonderful revelation is forthcoming.
Here's what they said. The process of quitting smoking in patients with brain lesions, didn't lead to higher levels of depression. Okay, that's not so bad. I suppose that is good information to have. Somebody bumps their head and decides to quit smoking; depression isn't that big of a player. But then they continue with a tremendous leap of faith. They go on to "suggest" that because of this lack of increased depression, that psychiatric complications linked with the use of varenicline (Chantix) are not related to the process of smoking cessation, but are solely brought on by the drug iteself.
Wow, what a conclusion; especially given the fact that 1) varenicline was not a component of the study and 2) only 70 patients were studied, all with brain lesions.
So even though they did not study the use of varenicline in the study, they were able to conclude that all the psychiatric side effects (primarily depression) reported with a drug are related to the drug. They conclude this because the 32 quitters in the study group, had the same same depressive profile as those who did not quit. If you ask me, it sounds like brain lesions may keep depression at bay when trying to quit smoking.
I know, that is just as ridiculous of a conclusion as they came to. But it just goes to show, that not all science is good science. Not all conclusions are fair and just conclusions. The study group is too small and the variables are not set in a way to make any conclusive or suggestive statements about varenicline.
Until next time, remember to read these articles with a critical eye.
