the evidence library
most mental-health content asks you to trust it. this asks you to check it. every claim on this site traces to a source with a date on it, every source carries a score with a stated method, and the two things we counted ourselves ship as downloadable data so you can recount them and tell us we were wrong.
if you are a reporter, a researcher, or just someone who got handed a prescription and wants to know what it rests on, this is the map. it goes from the raw records upward.
two things we counted ourselves
these are the only pages here that are not a summary of somebody else's work. both are counts over the same fixed set of study records, both publish every row, and both download as CSV under CC BY 4.0 — reuse the numbers anywhere, including commercially, as long as you say where they came from.
what each approval was actually based on
25 medications have an approval-history page: the indication the FDA actually approved, the year, the trials the approval rested on, how long those ran, and the label text quoted rather than paraphrased. this is public information that is technically available and practically unreadable. these pages are the readable version.
six questions, answered study by study
each of these takes one question people actually type at 2am and walks the evidence for it — including the trials whose conclusions are weaker than their reputations, and the places two good studies flatly contradict each other.
why the room is arranged this way
the pages above are about whether a treatment works. these are about the machinery around it — how clinicians get paid, what an FDA approval does and does not certify, where a diagnosis comes from, and who funds the organisations that speak for patients. aggressive about the subject, conservative about every claim: each figure traces to a government record, a tax filing, or a peer-reviewed count, and the counter-evidence is on the page next to it.