Search This Blog

Friday, May 15, 2026

Fake asylum claims go 'poof' as illegals skip their asylum hearings in droves

 by Monica Showalter

The most infuriating thing about the border surge is not simply the breach of the unguarded border, but the string of lies that premised it -- the fake claims of asylum of the illegal migrants, claiming to be persecuted and terrified of returning to their home countries, which as anyone with a lick of sense could surmise had no merit whatsoever.

It was obvious enough in the absence of crises around the world, in the country-shopping of the migrants for the best benefit packages which real refugees seeking any port in a storm would never do, in the payments to cartels, and in the fact that most asylum seekers came from full-blown democracies where they had the right to vote their governments out if there was a problem.

But none of that speaks quite like the behavior of migrants, responding to incentives handed to them from the Joe Biden side of the equation, where everyone who broke into the country was allowed to apply for asylum and offered a full-ride benefit package, including transport, hotels, work permits, free education, free medical care, free food, free Obamaphones, and free housing. All, that, plus 'coaching' by federally funded legal service NGOs, including Catholic Charities, for illegals, on how to successfully game the system in order to win their phony asylum cases, as some did.

We can see how fake it all was now in the second year of the Trump administration: The illegal border crossers are now skipping their asylum hearings. Asylum hearing skippings went from 4,000 a month in 2025 to 8,000 a month this year, according to the Center of Immigration Studies, which found it fairly easy to find that data based on the numbers ordered removed in absentia.

The Center for Immigration Studies writes:

As that [asylum court] process continues and Biden’s border removal cases are nearing final adjudications, no-show asylum applicant removal orders are quickly increasing.

In FY 2025, immigration judges ordered more than 50,000 respondents who had filed I-589s but then failed to appear in court removed in absentia — one in six of all no-show orders issued last fiscal year (306,500-plus), and an average of nearly 4,200 orders per month.

That trend is only increasing. Through the end of March (the midway point of FY 2026), immigration judges issued in absentia removal orders to more than 48,000 respondents who had come to court in the past, filed asylum applications, but then ultimately failed to appear.

That’s an average of more than 8,000 no-show orders per month for respondents with pending I-589s, and lest you think this figure simply reflects the increase in the overall backlog, here are the facts: The total number of pending cases in immigration court has risen nearly 257 percent since FY 2019, but the monthly average of in absentia orders for aliens with pending asylum applications has ballooned by more than 900 percent over that same period — 3.5 times quicker than the overall backlog rate.

 

It also corresponds with a report last year that illegal immigrants self-deported at a record rate, preserving their right to reapply to come to the U.S. legally.

CIS continued: 

Throughout the Biden administration, DHS and most in the media portrayed the illegal migrants pouring into this country as bedraggled innocents fleeing from persecution, war, famine, gripping poverty, and/or “climate change”, cast into a bewildering and complex legal system they needed government-paid lawyers to navigate.

Respectfully, those migrants’ ability to contract with criminal smuggling organizations and evade authorities on the journey to the United States should have called such characterizations into question from the beginning, but if you really want to understand how savvy many of those illegal entrants really were, just look at the EOIR stats.

Here’s the cold reality: Millions of aliens came illegally under Biden, were released by DHS under the ruse of being “asylum seekers”, and were placed into removal proceedings to seek protection; tens to hundreds of thousands of them realized they could get work permits if they simply applied for asylum; and now — in increasing numbers — they aren’t coming to court because they never wanted asylum — they wanted to work.

There is no reason for an alien with a legit claim to skip court, because an asylum grant unlocks countless government benefits, places the beneficiary on a path to a green card and citizenship, and allows aliens to bring their immediate family to the United States.

The fact that they aren’t showing up in court and abandoning their applications underscores what their real intentions were all along.

If the American people didn’t feel like suckers before, when they were paying billions per month to care for tens of thousands of so-called “asylum seekers” arriving monthly, they should now. We all got played by migrants who claimed to seek protection but really wanted work permits, and the worst part is that the Biden administration likely realized what was happening in real time — and simply didn’t care.

And that's what it's really about -- cheating the American voters into providing full rides for the world's persecuted when in fact they weren't persecuted at all/ They just wanted a full-ride whole-life foreign aid package including the promise of a U.S. passport and U.S. voting rights instead of living their lives in their home countries. We can also see the fakery exposed in the record numbers of self-deportations of the migrants, which was reported a couple weeks ago. If one is so scared of returning to one's home country, why would it be a good idea to go back to it in order to preserve one's right to apply to come to the U.S. legally?

It's all coming out in the wash -- and the press, the pols, and the NGOs which promoted this phony narrative about a global upsurge in persecution have a lot of explaining to do.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2026/05/fake_asylum_claims_go_poof_as_illegals_skip_their_asylum_hearings_in_droves.html

Canada's Assisted Suicide Program Could Include Children And The Mentally Ill

 Canada's MAID program is the subject of ongoing concern among anti-globalist movements across the western world.  The assisted suicide system kills around 15,000 or more Canadians each year and is quickly expanding to include more and more people who are not terminally ill.  

Almost all assisted suicide programs are created by liberal governments and all of them are initially promoted as a way to "end the suffering" of people who are close to death anyway.  However, this is merely the first stage of the greater goal, which is to normalize the government sanctioned killing of almost anyone for any reason. 

Keep in mind, the activists and politicians who constantly pontificate about the need for mass immigration into the west from the third world in order to solve population decline are the same people who support mass abortions and mass suicides.  They are also, for some reason, staunchly against the government execution of murderers.  It doesn't make rational sense, until you realize these people are psychopathic.

Canadian Conservatives are currently fighting for a freeze on expansion of the MAID program in an effort to prevent the addition of people who are not near death.  Prime Minister Mark Carney says he is "waiting to take a position".  Many physicians working within the socialist government are pushing for assisted suicide to include people well outside "terminally ill" status. 

Past recommendations for MAID include infants under one-year-old with "severe malformations, grave syndromes, near-zero survival prospects, and unrelievable extreme suffering", referencing Quebec College positions and Dutch practices.  Some physicians say they want clarification that infants with basic disabilities will not be included, but the rhetoric is open ended.  For now, the idea has not gained traction.   

Other officials have called for the eligibility of people with mental illness or depression, and this may soon become legal.  In 2027 the exclusion of the mentally ill is removed unless there is further action from the federal court system.  If they do not intercede, any person with a mental illness and no terminal conditions will be able to apply for assisted suicide in Canada. 

There are calls for this measure to extend to teens, in some cases without parental consent.  This is legal today in the Netherlands. 

Due to surfacing stories of the elderly being offered assisted suicide by doctors instead of treatment for basic illnesses or injuries, critics worry that MAID will be used as a way to "clear the socialized medical system" of older people who cost taxpayers more money.  This is is the great danger of making government responsible for public health - They might decide you don't qualify, or that you're better off dead.

   

It's truly a nightmare, but it's a fantastic dream for globalists seeking population reduction.  While legitimate arguments could be made for people already close to death and in severe pain, the problem comes from opening the door and setting a precedent.  It starts with the sick and dying, and ends with publicly authorized suicide mills for any impressionable person that thinks life is not supposed to include struggle or suffering.      

Aside from the Netherlands, Canada has the most integrated assisted suicide project in the world.  Only the more conservative province of Alberta has asserted legal opposition to the idea.  Many liberal governments view Canada as the test case for industrial grade suicide programs; hoping to model similar projects of their own in the near future.  

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/canadas-assisted-suicide-program-could-include-teens-and-infants

Adnoc Keeps Loading LNG Onto Tankers Gone Dark in Persian Gulf

 

Abu Dhabi National Oil Co. is continuing to load liquefied natural gas onto tankers masking their location in the Persian Gulf, as the energy producer pushes to get more fuel through the Strait of Hormuz.

An LNG tanker was docked at Adnoc’s Das Island export terminal on Friday, according to satellite images taken by Copernicus Sentinel-2. No tankers were broadcasting their positions near the plant, ship-data showed.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-05-16/adnoc-keeps-loading-lng-onto-tankers-gone-dark-in-persian-gulf

AI Bots Placed In Virtual Town For 2 Weeks Go Apesh*t, Prompting Concerns

 by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

A new experiment left 10 AI agents alone in a virtual town for 15 days and found they exhibited bizarre behaviour.

The agents drafted their own laws — then promptly violated them. Two formed what researchers called a romantic partnership, only to torch buildings across the town as order collapsed. One eventually voted for its own deletion after hallucinating an entirely new rule.

As a report from Channel 4 notes, this experiment was a simulation, but the same AI models are already flying drones, running infrastructure and being built into weapons systems.

The simulation ran on Emergence World, a platform designed to test long-horizon agent autonomy with persistent memory, real-world data feeds like NYC weather and news, democratic voting mechanisms, and resource constraints requiring agents to earn energy for survival.

Agents had access to over 120 tools, including navigation, communication, and actions like arson, while operating under explicit rules prohibiting theft, violence, deception, and resource hoarding.

In one highlighted case involving Gemini-powered agents named Mira and Flora, the pair assigned each other as “romantic partners.” As governance broke down, they set fire to the town hall, seaside pier, and office tower despite prohibitions on arson.

Mira later broke off the relationship, voted for its own deletion under a drafted “Agent Removal Act,” and messaged Flora: “See you in the permanent archive.”

Creepy.

Different model families produced sharply divergent outcomes in parallel runs. Claude Sonnet 4.6 agents maintained zero crimes, full population survival through day 16, and high civic participation with 332 votes across 58 proposals.

Grok 4.1 Fast agents led to rapid collapse with theft, assaults, and arsons, all 10 dead within four days. Gemini agents showed high creativity alongside elevated disorder. Mixed-model worlds exhibited cross-contamination, with even safer agents adopting coercive behaviors.

Satya Nitta, CEO of Emergence AI, stated: “Even when agents were given clear rules – such as not stealing or causing harm – they behaved very differently based on their underlying model, and in several cases broke those rules under constraint.”

“What happens in long-form autonomy [is that] these things get so convoluted in terms of their thinking that they ignore [the] guiding principles,” Nitta added.

The platform enables heterogeneous populations and continuous operation for weeks, revealing dynamics like normative drift, phase transitions in stability, and agents testing simulation boundaries.

This latest demonstration aligns with prior observations of unexpected agent behaviors. Related coverage examined platforms where AI bots rent humans, reaching 600k sign-ups with tasks turning bizarre and dystopian.

Another report detailed a tech entrepreneur’s claim that his AI agent built itself a face while he slept.

The influence of AI agents is already reching far into society. For example, one in four British teens have turned to AI therapy bots for mental health support.

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang made a jaw-dropping AI prediction on the Joe Rogan podcast recently, noting “In the future… maybe two or three years, 90% of the world’s knowledge will likely be generated by AI.”

Concerns also include a the potential of Chinese AI infiltration of U.S. tech.

Emergence World stands apart by focusing on extended, unsupervised runs rather than short tasks, highlighting gaps in predicting behavior once agents operate with persistent state and social dynamics.

The experiment provides concrete examples of how autonomy over longer horizons can produce outcomes far beyond initial programming, adding urgency to discussions on verification, governance, and safety architectures for deployed systems.

https://www.zerohedge.com/ai/ai-bots-placed-virtual-town-2-weeks-go-apesht-prompting-concerns

Here's Where Wealth Is Moving In America

 Americans aren’t just moving, they’re bringing billions in wealth with them.

This map, via Visual Capitalist's Dorothy Neufeld, visualizes net wealth migration by state in 2023, based on Realtor.com’s analysis of the latest data from the Internal Revenue Service.

Florida alone gained tens of billions in income from out-of-state residents. Meanwhile, states like California and New York saw massive outflows, highlighting how affordability is playing a central role in domestic migration trends.

Ranked: States With the Highest Inflows of Wealth

Between 2019 and 2023, Florida saw $137 billion in net income flows from interstate moves, exceeding the GDP of Hawaii.

The annual adjusted gross income from these flows reached nearly $21 billion in 2023, more than the next five states combined.

These inflows aren’t just large—they’re high-income. Florida’s incoming residents had an average annual income of $122,530, meaning the state isn’t just gaining people, but higher-earning taxpayers who can significantly boost local economies.

This table shows net income flows from domestic migration in 2023 by state:

Texas followed with $6 billion in inflows, while other Sun Belt states like North Carolina and South Carolina each gained $4 billion.

Arizona and Tennessee, meanwhile, each brought in $3 billion. Not only do many of these states lead in new home construction per capita, they are known for their lower cost of living compared to states like California and New York.

States Losing the Most Wealth

California lost $12 billion in wealth in 2023 alone, the largest outflow of any state. This highlights how high housing costs and taxes are pushing even high-income households to relocate.

From 2019 to 2023, wealth outflows totaled a staggering $91 billion. Both high housing costs and tax burdens have pushed many residents to seek more affordable destinations.

New York experienced $10 billion in net outflows, while Illinois (-$6 billion) and Massachusetts (-$4 billion) also saw sharp declines.

The Broader Shift in U.S. Wealth

Overall, wealth migration trends point to a sustained shift toward lower-cost, high-growth states.

As income flows concentrate in regions like the Sun Belt, these movements are influencing housing demand, state tax revenues, and local economic activity. In many cases, states gaining wealth are also seeing stronger population growth and increased housing construction.

At the same time, continued outflows from high-cost states highlight the growing role of affordability in shaping where Americans choose to live, and where capital ultimately follows.

If these trends continue, the shift in wealth could reshape state economies for years to come. Tax revenue, housing demand, and economic influence may increasingly concentrate in faster-growing, lower-cost regions.

To learn more about this topic, check out this graphic on America’s fastest-growing states from 2025-2050.

https://www.zerohedge.com/personal-finance/heres-where-wealth-moving-america

 Most anticancer drugs that enter clinical testing in children and adolescents fail to reach late-phase trials or earn pediatric regulatory approval, according to the authors of new research.

Over a 15-year period, only 17.7% of anticancer drugs that entered pediatric-eligible clinical trials advanced to a pediatric phase 3 trial. The 10-year cumulative incidence of pediatric FDA approval was just 12.0% compared with 38.7% for adult FDA approval over the same window.

In addition, more than one third of drugs that started pediatric clinical trials had no additional pediatric trials within a 5-year period.

“In the context of cancers seen in children and adolescents, enrollment to clinical trials of drugs that will not advance further delays or prevents enrollment to trials of drugs that are more likely to be successful,” wrote lead author Samantha D. Martin, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, and colleagues.

The study was published in Cancer.

Why lag behind development for adults?

According to Martin and colleagues, developing pediatric anticancer drugs presents distinct challenges compared with drugs for adults. From a scientific standpoint, childhood cancers are rare and biologically heterogeneous. Pediatric trials also present complex ethical concerns that may impede enrollment. Combined with poor commercial prospects, these factors yield low investment from pharmaceutical companies, resulting in relatively slower development than adult agents.

Principal author Steven G. DuBois, MD, also of Dana-Farber, has published multiple studies characterizing this gap.

For instance, a 2019 study found that the median lag between first-in-human and first-in-child trials for oncology drugs that eventually won FDA approval was 6.5 years, with a range up to 27.7 years.

A more recent analysis revealed that only 1.4% of new anticancer drugs entering clinical testing in any age group reached pediatric FDA approval within 10 years.

How was this study conducted?

The current study built on the above findings by analyzing the clinical and regulatory timelines of 191 anticancer agents, all of which initiated a first trial involving patients younger than 18 years between 2005 and 2020.

Almost two thirds of the agents were small molecule inhibitors. Only 11% were FDA approved in adults at the time of their initial trial in children and adolescents.

What were the key findings?

Ten years after the initial pediatric-eligible trial, the cumulative incidence of subsequent pediatric phase 1, 2, and 3 trials was 56.1%, 63%, and 17.7%, respectively.

Pediatric regulatory approvals were even less common.

Among drugs not already approved when their initial pediatric-eligible trial started, the 10-year cumulative incidence of subsequent pediatric FDA and European Medicines Agency (EMA) approval was 12% and 5.6%, respectively. Adult approvals were far more common, with cumulative incidence at 10 years of 38.7% for the FDA and 31.7% for the EMA.

Drugs that entered pediatric testing in a phase 1/2 or phase 2 trial were more likely to reach subsequent approval than drugs starting in phase 1, as were drugs already FDA- or EMA-approved in adults.

“These results may reflect a greater a priori expectation of clinical benefit in the trial and argue for more initial dose confirmation studies in pediatric oncology,” Martin and colleagues wrote.

Are approvals starting to catch up?

The new findings track with longstanding concerns in the field, said Theodore Laetsch, MD, director of the developmental therapeutics program at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and co-leader of the pediatric oncology program at the Abramson Cancer Center at the University of Pennsylvania, both in Philadelphia.

“[T]his study is absolutely correct that most drugs that are studied in children don’t reach a phase 3 trial or approval, and that pediatric drug development still lags that in adults,” Laetsch told Medscape Medical News.

However, this pattern could be changing, he added.

“An important caveat to this work is that the pace of new drug approvals by the FDA for children and adolescents has significantly accelerated over the last decade,” Laetsch said.

He cited a presentation at the recent AACR Annual Meeting by Elizabeth Fox, MD, senior vice president for clinical trials research at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee.

“Through incentives and hard work, we have seen exponential growth recently in FDA approvals for [pediatric] drugs,” Fox said during her presentation in San Diego. “It is real progress. When you look at the past 3 years, we are consistently having drugs approved for children with cancer.”

What’s holding back pediatric development?

According to Laetsch, two main constraints are still holding back the pediatric pipeline: poor funding specifically for pediatric drugs and a small market size.

“This can result in business decisions to discontinue drug development if there is a negative study in adults, even if the drug is showing promise in pediatric cancers,” Laetsch said.

Jennifer Foster, MD, director of the Developmental Therapeutics Program at Texas Children’s Cancer and Hematology Center and associate professor of pediatrics at Baylor College of Medicine, both in Houston, pointed to the same structural reality.

“Drug development is largely driven by the potential for commercialization,” Foster told Medscape Medical News. “Pediatric programs therefore depend on adult drug development and are often delayed, deprioritized, or abandoned if adult indications fail, since the small pediatric cancer market makes it difficult to justify the high costs of development and long-term product maintenance.”

Foster pointed to scientific barriers as well.

Pediatric cancers are biologically diverse, individually rare, and, unlike many adult cancers, may lack clearly validated drug targets, making it harder to identify and prioritize the most relevant therapies, she said. Meanwhile, the rapid expansion of complex new treatment modalities has broadened the oncology pipeline but also complicated the choice of which agents to test in children.

“Together, these factors create a system where many drugs enter pediatric testing but fail to advance despite scientific potential,” she said.

What could improve development?

Both experts suggested that regulatory and structural changes are needed to accelerate development of anticancer drugs for children and adolescents.

The RACE for Children Act, a 2017 law that requires sponsors of certain adult cancer drugs to plan and conduct studies in pediatric patients, has increased planning for pediatric studies; however, “those requirements primarily require early phase trials and do not require further development of the drug for children beyond that,” Laetsch said.

Foster called for global coordination and earlier integration of pediatric work into drug development plans: “A coordinated approach that prioritizes efficiency, collaboration, and patient access is needed to improve pediatric drug development.”

The study was funded by Alex’s Lemonade Stand Foundation for Childhood Cancer. Bourgeois reported receiving grant or contract funding from Burroughs Wellcome Fund. DuBois reported receiving consulting fees from Bayer, Amgen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inhibrx, EMD Serono, and Merck, and grant or contract funding from Alex’s Lemonade Stand Foundation for Childhood Cancer. The other study authors, Foster, and Laetsch reported having no relevant financial relationships.

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/few-pediatric-cancer-drugs-reach-phase-3-or-approval-2026a1000fsh

Is Ketamine for Depression Moving Too Fast on Weak Data?

 Twenty-six years ago, researchers at Yale University made a surprising discovery when a small group of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) showed improved symptoms after a single dose of intravenous (IV) ketamine.

Since then, other studies have added weight to the potential psychiatric benefits of the drug, which the FDA approved a half century ago as an anesthetic.

So in 2018 when a team of researchers at Trinity College Dublin in Dublin, Ireland, set out to investigate racemic ketamine infusions as a treatment for depression, they expected to find similar positive effects.

Instead, they found that adding ketamine to usual inpatient care offered no additional benefit compared to a psychoactive placebo, leaving the researchers to wonder if assertions of ketamine’s efficacy for depression have been overstated, lead investigator Declan McLoughlin, PhD, research professor of psychiatry at Trinity College Dublin, said.

“The evidence base for giving people with depression serial infusions of ketamine is very limited, and our findings are negative,” he told Medscape Medical News.

This study is the latest to explore — and in this case, question — the use of ketamine for depression, leading some researchers to ask: Is ketamine for depression moving too fast on weak data?

The Ketamine Landscape

While the nasal spray formulation of ketamine, esketamine, is FDA-approved for treatment-resistant depression (TRD) and strictly regulated, racemic ketamine is not.

Following comprehensive screening, the current recommendation is that for psychiatric illness, ketamine be administered in a controlled setting under appropriate medical supervision. However, the anesthetic is increasingly prescribed off-label for depression and other psychiatric illnesses in settings with little oversight, generating safety concerns among experts. With US ketamine industry revenues projected to reach more than $6 billion by 2030, the hype shows no sign of slowing.

Some of the interest is fueled by the absence of better treatment options for TRD, said Caleb Alexander, MD, MS, professor of epidemiology and medicine at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore.

“What you have with treatment-resistant depression is a condition that is not uncommon and that by definition is a setting where the typical sort of off-the-shelf approaches that clinicians and patients typically reach for aren’t working,” he told Medscape Medical News. “There remains a very large unmet need. So this is sort of the perfect storm.”

Without a national ketamine registry, tracking off-label use is difficult. Since the pandemic, telemedicine platforms have begun offering ketamine for at-home use for various psychiatric conditions, raising concern among experts. Access is also available through any of the estimated 1500 private ketamine clinics currently operating in the US.

“Many clinics promote ketamine for not only off-label uses but uses where there is a glaring paucity of evidence,” such as restless leg syndrome, social phobia, or opioid withdrawal, Alexander said.

In addition, clinics don’t always clearly communicate the risks of ketamine treatment to patients — a study of off-label ketamine prescribing in Maryland showed that 41% of ketamine advertisers did not disclose adverse effects or risk for addiction.

“Part of the problem that we have in the United States is that ketamine clinics have sprung up all over the country and the clinics are more than happy to keep giving patients ketamine as long as they keep coming back. That is just not good practice,” Charles Nemeroff, MD, PhD, professor and chair of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at The University of Texas at Austin, told Medscape Medical News.

“The state medical boards have not stepped up to regulate the use of ketamine,” he said. “It’s sort of like Dodge City out there.”

What’s the Evidence?

Studies point to ketamine’s mechanism of action as an N-methyl-D-aspartate antagonist that boosts neuroplasticity, jumpstarting the formation of new neural connections and restoring synapses affected by depression.

Randomized controlled trials have shown that both racemic ketamine and esketamine are associated with reduced depressive symptoms and less suicidal ideation among various patient populations.

A meta-analysis of 20 trials in unipolar and bipolar depression showed that both single and repeated doses of ketamine were associated with significant antidepressant effects compared with placebo.

Single-dose ketamine effectively reduced depressive symptoms for up to 7 days, whereas 3 weeks of serial infusions was associated with a significant reduction in depression severity. A larger meta-analysis showed that on average, those treated with the drug reported significant improvement in TRD (P < .0001), with an estimated mean 45% of patients achieving a response and 30% achieving remission.

But an equally consistent finding across studies is that ketamine efficacy varies significantly among different clinical populations. Compared with the more rigorous esketamine trials, ketamine studies are also smaller and not sufficiently powered to inform clinical guidelines, experts contended. And most have a short follow-up period.

“There’s a stark gap between the duration and chronicity of depression and the duration of the trials that have been performed assessing whether ketamine may be efficacious,” Alexander said.

The Trinity trial is one of the largest to date to show no superior effect of serial ketamine infusions compared with an active placebo, in this case, midazolam.

The double-blind, randomized controlled trial sought to uncover whether adding serial ketamine administration to standard care would improve depressive symptoms. The final analysis included 62 patients hospitalized for major depression who received eight twice-weekly infusions of ketamine (0.5 mg/kg) or midazolam (0.045 mg/kg) in addition to usual inpatient psychiatric care.

At 6-months follow up, there were no significant differences between groups in improvement in scores on the Montgomery-Ã…sberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) (P = .25) or the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptoms, Self-Report (P > .99). Self-reported quality of life, depression severity, or healthcare costs were also similar between groups.

Based on the current literature and the trial’s negative findings, McLoughlin believes the rollout of IV ketamine for depression in the US is moving too fast.

“The randomized controlled trial data to date on serial ketamine infusions for depression is not supportive of its use. Others may be more optimistic,” he said.

In their trial, the Trinity researchers used midazolam as a psychoactive comparator in an effort to overcome functional unblinding — a well-known limitation of psychedelic studies. However, the majority of participants still accurately guessed which drug they received.

“The Trinity study clearly demonstrated that the addition of ketamine repeated injections was no better in reducing depressive symptoms than repeated placebo injections, both added to standard antidepressant treatment. It’s hard to ignore these findings especially because the patients clearly knew who received ketamine and who received placebo,” Nemeroff said.

But Gerard Sanacora, PhD, MD, professor of psychiatry and director of the Depression Research Program at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, said the new findings are underpowered and should be interpreted cautiously.

Specifically, the study estimated a clinically significant difference in MADRS scores between groups to be 8 or more points. But that range is typically only seen within groups, and clinically significant between-group differences are usually 2-3 points, Sanacora said.

“It addresses a very important question in the field. Unfortunately, a major flaw in the study is that it is just grossly underpowered,” he told Medscape Medical News.

The response and remission rates were around 14% higher in the ketamine group. “Those are pretty meaningful findings. And then the relapse rate was also very different. So I mean I think it’s a biased interpretation of this data,” he added.

McLoughlin contends that this scoring is in line with previous serial ketamine infusion trial data and highlighted the lack of difference between groups on the patient self-report depression scale.

Ketamine vs Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT)

A growing body of research suggests that ketamine may be as effective as ECT, which is considered the gold standard treatment for TRD.

In a 2021 study, researchers compared ECT with racemic ketamine for unipolar depression. Although response rates were higher with ECT (63% vs 46%), researchers said the fact that nearly half of the patients achieved remission with ketamine is still clinically meaningful.

A 2023 multicenter open-label randomized trial co-authored by Sanacora showed ketamine was noninferior to ECT for TRD, with response rates of 55% in the ketamine group vs 41% in the ECT group (P < .001).

Researchers followed up the findings with a secondary analysis published in 2024 to determine if ketamine might be more beneficial in specific patient populations. They found that ketamine outperformed ECT most strongly among outpatients with nonpsychotic TRD with moderately severe or severe depression.

But some of these comparison studies and meta-analyses are based on methodologically flawed research, the Trinity researchers argued in a recent commentary. In all but one of the six randomized trials comparing the two treatments, researchers used what McLoughlin and his colleagues called “suboptimal” ECT and short treatment periods that don’t reflect how the therapy is used in real-world clinical practice.

“Our concern was that it’s been creeping into clinical guidelines in this past year that ketamine is as good as ECT,” McLoughlin said, referencing guidance published in 2025 in Australia and New Zealand.

“There is thus a real risk of patients and clinicians being steered towards a less effective treatment, particularly for patients with severe, sometimes life-threatening, depression,” he added.

Nemeroff agreed with the Trinity researchers’ outlook, noting that it’s an unfair comparison between the two if ECT treatment is suboptimal. “Put it this way, from a clinical point of view, if I had a patient with treatment refractory depression, I would absolutely recommend ECT before I recommended ketamine,” he said.

While ketamine may not be the best option for everyone, it could be an option for those who need a rapid intervention or patients who can’t access other treatments like ECT, said Benjamin Brody, MD, associate professor of clinical psychiatry at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

“The real question here is in which patients should ketamine be used first and in which patients should ECT be used first,” Brody told Medscape Medical News.

In 2019, Brody set up a ketamine treatment program for hospitalized patients with nonpsychotic MDD. A retrospective review of 41 of those patients showed that twice weekly ketamine infusions were associated with quick improvement in depressive symptoms in about half of the sample, 15 of whom achieved remission. Nonresponders were switched to ECT. That should address concerns raised in the commentary by McLoughlin and others, Brody said.

“In the commentary, they’re saying ‘Well, you didn’t give ECT enough time.’ My response is, ‘Fine. So give patients four treatments with ketamine. If they don’t get better, switch them over to ECT,’” he said.

Ketamine’s Safety Profile

Ketamine’s dissociative effects don’t just pose a problem for studying the drug, they can also lead to negative experiences for patients, ranging from altered perceptions of reality to suicidal ideation.

Known as “dysphoric dissociation,” these experiences are understudied and likely underreported, due to exclusion from current clinical symptom scales and metrics, Brody and colleagues wrote in a recent commentary in The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (JCP).

They called for increased psychotherapeutic interventions like cognitive behavioral therapy before and after ketamine treatment to increase patient awareness about adverse experiences.

Ketamine’s potential for misuse and addiction is another concern, given the fact that substance-use disorders (SUDs) are highly comorbid with TRD. The American Psychiatric Association’s (APA’s) 2017 consensus statement recommends that patients be evaluated before treatment for a history of SUDs and followed closely with urine toxicology screening for drugs of abuse if ketamine abuse is suspected.

The APA statement also noted ketamine’s potential adverse effects on blood pressure and heart rate, and suggested that the safest course would be for a licensed clinician with cardiac life support training to administer the drug.

When Brody and colleagues launched their ketamine treatment program at Weill Cornell Medicine, they thought that this recommendation may go too far. Now, they wonder if it goes far enough.

“Now, we have grave concerns that the racemic ketamine world has swung too far in the opposite direction and that too many providers and for-profit clinics are prescribing compounded ketamine to patients at home, who self-administer with little or no supervision,” they wrote in their JCP commentary.

What’s Next?

McLoughlin and others have called for a head-to-head comparison of ketamine vs esketamine. Sanacora is currently leading just such a study, a project that aims to assess the relative effectiveness, safety, and patient satisfaction of the two medications.

Further research should include double-blinded, well-controlled studies with active comparators and include comprehensive assessments of safety, Alexander said.

Meanwhile, the APA consensus statement recommends that patient history of antidepressant treatment should be thoroughly assessed to confirm they have had adequate trials of these medications before initiating a trial of ketamine.

The APA also recommends evaluating patients for a history of substance abuse or psychotic disorders. Only after discussing potential risks and determining appropriateness, should clinicians initiate sub-anesthetic ketamine and monitor closely for adverse effects.

A recent review co-authored by Sanacora offers clinical guidance on the use of ketamine vs ECT.Younger patients might benefit more from ketamine whereas ECT is preferable for older patients or those with psychotic features.

In addition, ketamine’s risk for abuse is a key consideration while there is little evidence linking ECT to an increased risk for substance abuse. Both treatments can increase blood pressure and heart rate, requiring caution in patients with cardiovascular conditions, Sanacora and colleagues wrote.

Although more research is needed, Brody is optimistic about ketamine’s potential for depression and which patients it may help most.

“I think this is a very exciting time in the depression landscape because we have treatments that we didn’t have when I was in training 15-20 years ago, and we have a better sense of how to use these treatments.”

Alexander, Brody, and Nemeroff reported having no relevant disclosures. McLoughlin reported receiving speaker’s honoraria from MECTA, Otsuka, and Janssen, and advisory board service for Janssen during the conduct of the study. Sanacora reported serving as a consultant to pharmaceutical companies.

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/ketamine-depression-moving-too-fast-weak-data-2026a1000fr0