The popular British medical journal, the Lancet, has received a number of letters from leading academics, wherein they have laid emphasis on the issue that the renowned psychiatrist Prof. Ian Hickie was having a clash of opinion in a recent review done on account of a new drug.

Prof. Hickie is a prominent psychiatrist at the Brain and Mind Institute in Sydney and is a part of the newly-formed national mental health commission which has as many as eight leading psychiatrist from all over the region. As per recent reports, he has claimed of being victimized by a crusade that was carried out with the sole intent of discrediting his work.

While expressing his opinion regarding the entire ongoing cold war over the claims made by Hickie and his review of the novel drug meant for curing depression among patients, University of Adelaide's Professor Jon Jureidini, who is a member of the national mental health commission, said that The Lancet might have got someone else for conducting the study.

He further added his concerns that, "The authors had financial and other relationships with the manufacturer of the drug. There are concerns about the misrepresentation of the effectiveness of the drug, about the clinical usefulness of it, about its adverse effects and about conflicts of interest".

However, a detractor of Prof. Hickie has said that the panel is clearly acting scientifically decisive. It is fairly evident that the entire controversial spoilsport came into being at the time when Prof. Hickie was given the job by The Lancet to carry out a study and make significant reports regarding the pros and cons of the new anti-depressants in prospect.

In the meantime, Hickie has rebuffed all the allegations, claiming that he disclosed his relations to the drugmaker earlier and even then The Lancet contacted him for working on the article.