the likelihood there’s anything in that article that actually advances our understanding of depression is highly unlikely
Understanding grows when scientific knowledge is shared.
Yet in 2025 some journals still gatekeep important research.
Like this review of links between depression & inflammation.
$35 if you aren't at an institution with a subscription.
Imagine if a library that charged $35 to read a book?
That's enough friction to keep the knowledge from most of the globe.
Every time I encounter knowledge gatekeeping in a health related journal I wince.
I wonder if the American Journal of Psychiatry has considered the costs to the field, and our global mental health, of staying closed?
The thing is, I can personally read these articles thanks to my institutional affiliation.
But the momentary friction as I cross through the paywall reminds me that most people can't.
The article: https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.20250289
Discussion
Disagree with the sentiment. The inflammation-depression axis is incredibly interesting & new. It needs to be more widely understood outside of the cutting edge of research.
Review articles like this also serve a pretty important role, especially in the context of efforts to develop new diagnostic criteria. As such, important for general public to read them.
I disagree with the sentiment too. Psychiatrists are stumped when meds don't work--it is because they are battling inflammation, not depression. Remove the inflammation, then treat symptoms. Ketones are powerful anti inflammatories. They can't be patented and when you go into ketosis, you are opting out of Big Food and Big Pharma. They will suppress this research.
Tried and failed to zap. Very good additional point