> They can also increase suicidal ideation.
A very close family member committed suicide, after Prozac dosage adjustments made his brain chemistry go haywire.
This happened 30 years ago, and it has been known to us that Prozac can cause this, since then.
The Guardians headline is way, way understating the real situation here.
Medications almost always target symptoms and never address root causes.
> "Mark Horowitz, an associate professor of psychiatry at Adelaide University and a co-author of the study,"
Austria - cold, has mountains, but not Adelaide University
Australia - hot, has kangaroos, and Adelaide University
Is the Grauniad returning to form?
I’m bipolar and a lot of the medication I take does not become fully effective for months. For me, my medication slowly became more effective over years as my brain no longer had to compensate for hardware problems.
Do not care what the science says. It 100% worked for me. Please get help if you need it, tens of millions of people use this medicine successfully
Articles like this are part of the narrative that SSRIs in general are no better than placebo. Absolutely not true for me!
I'm not sure what kinds of studies have been done about it, but I've had a few therapists same similar ideas. If it's not a studied phenomenon, then it has folks that believe it exists.
But is the only true cure to the suffering. We’d have to undergo a massive reorganization of society (and upset a few hefty profit margins) to prioritize that, so we settle for the messy symptom management we have.
Having a child forced me to fix my life, and I'm incredibly happy because of it.
I grew up in a stable household with a loving family and both parents present and supportive. I’ve never had financial hardship, either as a kid depending on my parents to provide or as an adult providing for myself and family. I did very well in school, had plenty of friends, never had enemies, never got bullied or even talked bad about in social circles (so far as I know…). I have no traumatic memories.
I could go on and on, but despite having a virtually perfect life on paper, I have always struggled with depression and suicidal ideation. It wasn’t until my wife sat down and forced me to talk to a psychiatrist and start medication that those problems actually largely went away.
In other words, I don’t think there’s a metaphorical “cow” that could have helped me. It’s annoying we don’t understand what causes depression or how antidepressants help, and their side effects suck. But for some of us, it’s literally life saving in a way nothing else has ever been.
I went through a frankly terrible few months on my current meds because they removed the emotional numbness before removing the bad feelings. However, once that was over they effectively gave me my life back after 10+ years of continual exhaustion and brain fog.
There have been some serious efforts made to reproduce the original groundbreaking results that showed how effective SSRIs were, without much success. Anecdotally, I know plenty of people who have benefited from them, so I would not say they are ineffective as a blanket statement. I do think it’s important to understand that nobody really knows how these drugs will impact any one individual, and it’s trial and error to find something that may help.
We saw a similar whiplash with Ritalin after over-prescribing in the 90’s/2000’s. ADHD medication absolutely works, but for a lot of people it didn’t for this reason.
Though, I am curious about the, "otherwise have very good lives" part.
Whose definition are you using? It seems the criteria you laid out fits a "very good life" in a sociological sense -- very important, sure. You could very well have the same definition, and perhaps that is what I am trying to ask. Would you say you were satisfied in life? Despite having a good upbringing, were you (prior to medication) content or happy?
I am by no means trying to change your opinion nor invalidate your experiences. I just struggle to understand how that can be true.
As someone that has suffered with deep depressive bouts many times over, I just cannot subscribe to the idea that depression is inherently some sort of disorder of the brain. In fact, I am in the midst of another bout now. One that's lasted about 3 or so years.
To me, I have always considered emotions/states like depression and anxiety to be signals. A warning that something in one's current environment is wrong -- even if consciously not known or difficult to observe. And if anyone is curious, I have analyzed this for myself, and I believe the etiology of my issues are directly linked to my circumstances/environment.
> I don’t think there’s a metaphorical “cow” that could have helped me.
The smart-ass in me can't help but suggest that maybe medication was your cow?
If you're a doctor, and if Prozac helps your patients, then it's obviously excellent. You should keep writing prescriptions.
If you're a scientist, you obviously want to distinguish between "real" drugs and drugs that help because people believe they should. So, you do these kinds of tests.
And then, from the perspective of ethics, once you know it's just placebo, you kinda shouldn't keep giving it to people, even if it helps? Maybe? I don't know. That's the weird part.
As crazy as it may sound, I think a lot of my depression stems from living a life that is not true to myself and due to countless failed attempts to be someone I cannot never be. As far as I am concerned, depression is just a symptom of my situation and not some true disorder. For the sake of analogy, I would say it's like food poisoning. Yes, the GI issues are awful, but the body is responding appropriately.
That's a very big ethical question in the medical field. Placebos _do_ help, but only if people believe they will. So is it ethical to lie to a patient and give them a placebo knowing it's likely to help?
Sometimes girls get depressed when their periods start. Girls often don't ovulate regularly, which can cause problems until their cycle stabilizes. Sometimes pediatricians don't allow girls' cycles to stabilize. The doctor says to the girl, "you're a woman now, so we're going to regulate your irregular period with birth control."
Women often get depressed due to the progestins used in all the birth control prescriptions.
SSRIs never help because of boosting serotonin. When someone benefits, it's from the drug's other physiological effects.
To be honest, I've never really thought about it... I suppose I mean in both a sociological and self fulfillment way.
> Would you say you were satisfied in life? Despite having a good upbringing, were you (prior to medication) content or happy?
I would say "yes" overall. Aside from the depression (typically manifesting as a week or two of me emotionally spiraling down to deep dark places every month or so), I was very happy and satisfied. That's what makes the depression so annoying for me. It makes no sense compared to my other aspects of life.
> In fact, I am in the midst of another bout now. One that's lasted about 3 or so years.
*fist bump*
> To me, I have always considered emotions/states like depression and anxiety to be signals. A warning that something in one's current environment is wrong -- even if consciously not known or difficult to observe. And if anyone is curious, I have analyzed this for myself, and I believe the etiology of my issues are directly linked to my circumstances/environment.
I think that's a great hypothesis so long as it's not a blanket applied to everyone (which I don't think you're doing, to be clear; I mention this only because it is what motivated my original response to the other commenter).
I don't want to go into private details of family members without their permission, but I will say that given the pervasive depression in my family and mental health issues like schizophrenia and bipolar disorders (neither of which I have, thank goodness), I feel like there's something biologically... wrong (for lack of a better word?)... with us, particularly since you can easily trace this through my mother's side.
> The smart-ass in me can't help but suggest that maybe medication was your cow?
Ha fair. I interpreted the story to be about depression being a symptom of your situation (job, health, etc.) and if you just fixed that then there's no need for medication. That definitely makes sense in some (many? most?) situations. But not all, unfortunately.
https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/wk4et_v3
Clinical trials of antidepressants are weird because they're usually short-term (6-12 weeks), whereas practical use of antidepressants usually lasts years. I personally suspect that short-term trials show an exaggerated placebo effect, because the novelty doesn't have time to wear off.
The medication is the cow for you. In this story your support system figured out what would work best for you, which was medication, and facilitated that.
It’s a story about a doctor that serves patients in rural Cambodia. Help from the local community would look different in Borey Peng Huoth, for example.
At first it sounded like your antipathy was with SSRIs specifically (which I largely share), but it seems like it's anti-depressants in general.
FWIW, I used to think similar to you, and roughly agree with the gist of your second paragraph, but I've come to think of antidepressants as useful in a specific way: people say "it's a crutch" as a negative thing (about a lot of things including antidepressants), but a crutch was very useful to me when recovering from a fracture, and helped me enormously with my progress; similarly, even if "depression is just a symptom of my situation", it can and does often lead to a cycle where the depression itself feeds into the situation and in turn sustains itself. An antidepressant that works for you is a good way to be able to see things more clearly, feel the motivation and insight that depression clouds out, and thus be able to break out of the cycle.
It doesn't have to be a "cure" that counters a disorder, it can be a tool that you use for its purpose and then throw away (and it does sound like you're well-motivated to do that).
It's too early to say. Obviously the idea is to get her off it if possible.
SSRIs never help because of boosting serotonin.
That's a hell of a claim, which could use some evidence.
Check out one of the modern black box warnings of fluoxetine (Prozac) that only addresses a subset of side-effects, suicide in children and young adults: https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/fda/fdaDrugXsl.cfm?set...
Somehow, I doubt there is much motivation to look for economically inconvenient and unnerving side-effects in some demographics, especially if they're adults who can easily be blamed entirely for all of their own actions because it's "definitely not" due to a (formerly) profitable pill or a pseudoscientific profession that doesn't exactly know how the medications it prescribes work, who would benefit from or be harmed by them, or have any ability to measure the organ or system they're supposed treating.
My point is if you include more and more people who don’t need it because of over-prescription it’s going to appear as lower overall efficacy while still helping a lot of people in the pool.
Making up numbers: If only 20 out of 100 people actually have ADHD then out the gate you’ve ruled out helping 80% of the people. So if 15 of the remaining 20 see improvement in their daily lives that means 75% suddenly looks like 15%.
Diagnosing and treatment is never that clean, there will always be some people who don’t necessarily need a certain medication yet get it prescribed (or don’t when they need it! Especially women with ADHD) because doctors are fallible like anybody else, systemic issues, etc. But with a commonly prescribed medication like Adderall the problem is definitely more pronounced.
Anyway I’m curious enough to look more closely at the study, this is a very interesting topic. If Xanax is really not helping people that’s pretty serious.
Religion is a good example. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3426191/
The point I was trying to make is that the effect on someone with ADHD can be profound and transformative, not like going from 80 to 100 but rather from 0 to 100. You suddenly feel like a functional person (I say this as someone with ADHD).
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20616621/
Results: Meta-analyses of FDA trials suggest that antidepressants are only marginally efficacious compared to placebos and document profound publication bias that inflates their apparent efficacy. These meta-analyses also document a second form of bias in which researchers fail to report the negative results for the pre-specified primary outcome measure submitted to the FDA, while highlighting in published studies positive results from a secondary or even a new measure as though it was their primary measure of interest. The STARD analysis found that the effectiveness of antidepressant therapies was probably even lower than the modest one reported by the study authors with an apparent progressively increasing dropout rate across each study phase.*
> That's a hell of a claim, which could use some evidence.
My experience with the chatbots is that they start with the conventional marketing tropes, but if you ask pointed questions they'll dig into the actual research.
This thread started with a generic question about why ECT seemed to help some patients. It had a really good reasoning about why SSRIs are still the first-line treatment for depression, even though the MAOIs were much better drugs.
https://chatgpt.com/share/69207aa3-26a0-8005-8dda-8199da153f...
The Big Picture
SSRIs flood serotonin globally, which can suppress
dopamine/norepinephrine and blunt mood.
Anti-serotonin strategies (receptor-specific antagonism,
reuptake enhancement, or targeted modulation) often
result in cleaner antidepressant effects with fewer
side effects.
This supports the criticism you mentioned: SSRIs may
“work” only because the brain adapts to the serotonin
disruption, whereas directly reducing or modulating
serotonin is more therapeutic.
A simple pregnenolone supplement can sometimes be magical, because of the steroidogenesis cascade: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steroid#/media/File:Steroidoge...
There's a supplement seller that said his pregnenolone powder was made with a newer, cleaner process than is used by most of the pregnenolone supplement vendors, but I don't know if he's still using that supplier. The powders are a much better value than the capsules.
hth.
> Somehow, I doubt there is much motivation to look for economically inconvenient and unnerving side-effects in some demographics,
Robert Whitaker examined the pharmaceutical industry's ideological capture of conventional psychiatry in his third book, Psychiatry Under the Influence.
https://robertwhitakerbooks.com/psychiatry-under-the-influen...
I've written for the Mad in America Foundation's webzine. My latest piece was titled Theodoric of Arizona: State-Sanctioned Pharma-Based Pseudo-Doctor: https://www.madinamerica.com/2024/07/theodoric-arizona/
This was inspired by the old SNL skit, Theodoric of York, Medieval Barber. The article is structured around my proposal of a Theodoric’s Principle of Medical Advancement, to explain why medical progress is so glacial.
Does "placebo" mean "no effect" to some people? Placebo absolutely has an effect. Testimonies like this are on the level of "vaccines caused autism" pseudoscience and the serotonin theory of depression isn't even taught any more. It belongs in the bin of crackpot treatments like chiropractic. There is zero chance Prozac would receive FDA approval today.
Inflammation and depression are linked. Infection causes inflammation. It doesn’t follow that depression is caused by infection.
There is a great Bojack Horseman episode in which Diane struggles with the idea of taking antidepressants for similar reasons.
If it’s depression, that’s closer to allergies, chronic inflammation or a broken bone healed wrong than vomiting after food poisoning.
If this is their mindset, they might benefit from CBT more than medication.
I'm not against SSRI at all. But after taking them for a few months in my 20's, and experiencing how terrible the withdrawal symptoms are when stopping, I'd be very hesitant to ever start up on them again. I remember having to open up the lowest dose pill capsule and splitting the dose into very tiny increments to be able to wean off completely.
Also you should try your SSRI prescription. They really aren't very strong drugs. You might get mild relief or if you're like me and the majority of people you will see no effect whatsoever. It's worth a try anyway. You won't get "high" or "dull" or any of that nonsense. At best it will lift your mood a bit. But more often than not, just won't do anything.
No, it’s not. Depression can be influenced by inflammation.
This thread is a good example of the GIGO pitfalls that researching with chatbots entails.
EDIT - I ask because the only results I get when searching are a Harvard article debunking it. I'd rather hear the opinion of someone that actually believes in it before I read about why it's all malarky. I believe in arguing against the best version of someones argument.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/the-dubious-p...
Second - light. Lots of light, specifically in winter time. Like this https://www.benkuhn.net/lux/
I had a horrible time with school because as finals rolled around in the fall semester I’d get extremely depressed and anxious.
How is it different from the expected hormonal changes that an adolescent is expected to go through?
Years later there was a time when me and my sister noticed our mom was acting a bit strange -- more snappish and irritable than usual, and she even started dressing differently. Then at dinner she announced proudly that she had been off Prozac for a month. My sister and I looked at each other and at the same time went, "Ohhhh!" Mom was shocked that we'd noticed such a difference in her behavior and started taking the medication again.
I've been on the exact same dose as her for 15 years, and my 7-year-old son just started half that dose.
If I have a good day it's impossible to day whether that's due to Prozac. But since starting Prozac I have been much more likely to have good days than bad. So, since Prozac is cheap and I don't seem to suffer any side effects, I plan to keep taking it in perpetuity.
What I tell my kids is that getting depressed, feeling sad, feeling hopeless -- those are all normal feelings that everyone has from time to time. Pills can't or shouldn't keep you from feeling depressed if you have something to be depressed about. Pills are for people who feel depressed but don't have something to be depressed about -- they have food, shelter, friends, opportunities to contribute and be productive, nothing traumatic has happened, but they feel hopeless anyway -- and that's called Depression, which is different from "being depressed."
PS Thanks for keeping this a good place to be!
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
More for the avid reader:
1.) https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7698404/
Most of the "treatment" is apparently just telling people to stop feeling sad [0], or giving them drugs
[0] https://old.reddit.com/r/thanksimcured
but no one bothers to take the time out to sit down and figure out WHY they feel sad and FIX THAT FOR THEM. That takes too much work.
Sometimes depression is this vague feeling that this world is just wrong. That Damocles' sword of mortality. The nagging sense of ultimate pointlessness. You can't really "fix" that. But having stuff to ignore it helps, like video games :')
Antidepressants were bona-fide miracle drugs when we first started using them on desperately ill inpatients who experienced every moment as exquisite torture. We saw the most miserable lives completely transformed in a matter of weeks. They have become merely "sorta-kinda useful sometimes" now that we're mainly prescribing them to broadly functional people who are feeling a bit sub-par.
SSRIs are a pretty poor fit for the latter cohort, because SSRIs cause significant emotional blunting in the majority of patients, to the extent that some people hypothesise that emotional blunting is the fundamental beneficial effect. Feeling quite numb is an incredible improvement if you are constantly unbearably miserable. If you have a more normal range of emotional experience than relentless misery, it is likely a sideways move at best; if your core complaint is that you feel numb and apathetic, they're probably actively harmful.
SSRIs are very widely used because of their extraordinary safety, but they're often thoughtlessly prescribed by overworked primary care doctors. There are a wide range of antidepressants (and drugs that have antidepressant effects despite not being marketed as such) that are likely a better option for a large proportion of patients.
For some people, Prozac is a very dangerous drug. It is fully deserving of its FDA black label warning (which it didn't have 30 years ago).
The thing is, they work very well for that 15%. I suspect the eventual conclusion will be that depression is a syndrome with multiple causes rather than a single condition, and SSRIs treat one of the causes.
Edit: Mark Horowitz is one of the authors of both studies.
It's true for some, but be wary of such a generalization.
It took many years of people telling me the same thing before I understood what they were saying: "Having an objectively crappy life is normal. Being depressed about it isn't."
(Almost) everyone will have problems - temporary or permanent. And while they may feel down about it for a while, or occasionally, most of them more or less recover their mental health and are not chronically depressed.
Because the majority of people have problems, it becomes easy for a depressed person to think "Ah, this is just due to problem X" or even "This is just because I want a life different from mine". Most people with problems also want a different life than what they have. But they're not depressed.
You understand that the people who sold you that drug have a vested interest in making sure it's not possible and/or that you & she think it's not possible, right?
Someone else in the thread's testifying with personal experience that there were significant withdrawl symptoms after only a few months: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45999622#46008522
Are they lying, or are you misrepresenting something?
The phenomenon should not be considered a reason to not medicate (which I don’t think you are implying, but some may take that as the conclusion). Instead it’s definitely something important to explicitly make people aware of.
Depression or the feeling so much mental agony that the idea of escaping with death becomes comforting, is a signal that something is wrong.
Realizing this has been important with weathering my own occasional dealings with severe[0]depression, once I realize “something is wrong”, I can start the annoyingly slow process of trial and error making changes to correct things. This turns depression from “how reality is” into “this is just feedback on my body’s state”. It turns things getting worse into either a “this is either a transient state or the wrong solution”.
[0] Which I define as the point where any passive ideation (fantasies of dying) starts to enter the gradient of becoming involuntary. As opposed to regular negative thoughts which can (and should) be brushed away as easily as a fly landing on me. Curiously, once I noticed it also affected my ability to experience color. While I could technically see colors, it was like have a mental partial greyscale filter because there was no beauty in it, color was just a meaningless detail.
There has been a phenomenal positive shift in his behavior since he started medication. All that said, another commenter pointed out that the study specifically says that Prozac is no better than placebo for depression, which is similar to but distinct from anxiety, which is what my son is being treated for. My mom and I were both diagnosed with depression, but anxiety may be more accurate -- I'm not sure.
As someone who lived through that, I refuse to let him. All of memories of school are just feeling anxious about everything, just tight and suffocated, always in a panic. I started living when I started taking anxiety pills at 39 years old, and I can see my 2 year old having the exact same anxiety ticks and fits I have.
I don't know at what age I'll medicate him, but I'll do it as soon as I notice he isn't coping and happy anymore.
Horrifying is forcing him to experience that because you can't comprehend us.
I was acknowledging that the "good days" could be due to Prozac or could be a placebo effect, but since being on Prozac correlates with having significantly more good days, and I experience virtually no ill effects, I choose to continue with it.
There is however also benefit in updating your priors as new research comes out. I won't say this particular research discounts your experience. But maybe some day your son will prefer a different medication.
If this guy has a non chemical cure, I'm all for it. In fact I'm actively researching children psychologists to stave off the meds as much as we can, the problem is that 99% of psychologists are quacks, so choosing them is tough.
I’m not sure if it has a technical name or if it’s been rigorously studied, but it’s a common observation which even I’ve seen (and reported to growers I work for).
A casual mention here: http://www.sheep101.info/201/behavior.html
Then how could a drug fix it? We're positing that there is not only a mechanism causing it, but that this mechanism can be manipulated external to their own self/agency/whatever.
I think that it is at least as absurd to posit that you can come up with one chemical substance or another that will alleviate their depression when you dismiss the idea of coming up with a sequence of words spoken to them that might alleviate their depression. It's the conceit that we have a better idea of how their brains work chemically than we do of how their brains work cognitively.
It was just the best “every man” link I could provide for understanding how efficacy of toxin-clearing (toxicity) could be related to depression, other struggles with homeostasis.
Did you grasp the connection?
Sounds like a philosophy more than a science. What does "normal" even mean in this context? Are we talking about something measurable? For instance, if the number of people who were depressed about those circumstances doubled (or quadrupled) would it then be normal, and there would be no reason to treat it (because it's normal)?
If you have an objectively crappy life, but not just ignore it and instead are incapable of even noticing, that sounds a little like dysfunction to me. It's not some superpower, it's a micro-lobotomy.
Well, of course, if you anesthetize someone they can't feel anything. If you cut off the physical pathways of ""feeling sad"" then they can't feel sad, but is that really the same as "fixing" the reason for why they were feeling sad in the first place?
Unless the reason was that the physical causes are running haywire and making someone feel sad when they otherwise wouldn't, but how often is that just uhh a lazy scapegoat? "Oh this person has no reason to feel sad, something must be wrong in their brain"
Meanwhile the NNH[2] is as low as 21, that is 1 in 21 cases will stop due to negative side effects.
Source: https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2008/0315/p785.html
[1]Number Need to Treat, that is, number of patients you need to treat to prevent one additional bad outcome
[2]Number Needed to Harm, that is, number of patients you need to treat to generate side effects so bad that someone halts treatment
So, I'd buy that they don't fix your brain. They definitely reduced anxiety for me and I can see the value for stabilizing people so they can do the heaking work in therapy.
@dang it's hard to believe that I'm not being brigaded.
Noticing it is very different from being depressed about it.
> What does "normal" even mean in this context? Are we talking about something measurable?
Let's take a trivial example. Person A is depressed because he is unhappy that he doesn't make enough money to travel and buy nice cars. Now take all the people who are unhappy that they cannot afford to travel and buy nice cars. Most will not be depressed - they will merely be unhappy about it.
Person A isn't depressed because he can't travel and buy nice cars. He's depressed and he can't travel and buy nice cars. He's mistakenly coupling the two.
Another tell for these kinds of things: Ever know someone chronically depressed who blames it on X? Then somehow, X is resolved. There may be a temporary improvement, and they go back to being depressed again, only they now blame it on Y? Somehow Y gets resolved and some months later they're blaming it on Z.
Everyone has problems. Including those who are not depressed. Fixing X, Y, Z, AA, AB, and whatever else is not going to take care of the depression.
On the flip side, people who do not suffer from depression make the same mistake: They claim they are not depressed because they "choose" not to let the problems get to them. Self serving beliefs!
Have some empathy.
I understand your comment, my issues were due to life circumstances and not a low level neurological imbalance, and I too dismissed these treatments almost entirely, mostly because they felt like blanket solutions from medical professionals who didn't really listen to symptoms.
The last few years have been a proof that even the "experts" are following strong political or personal ideology.
Also we don't live in the 18th century anymore. A lot of knowledge (especially around medicine) is open to the world. People can read papers, understand research etc.
Few if any non-medical people can read medical papers and make sense of what they say. There is simply far too much context to evaluate such papers, especially in the cases of complex medical conditions.
Beyond the response someone else commented explaining exactly where the comparison was mentioned, the anecdote itself is useful in offering an experience of someone who's life has been changed by the drug.
In any case, the study mentioned in the article is a meta-analysis about children, not adults, so there is no onus on OP to qualify anything about placebo or not.
‘Warning: Suicidality and Antidepressant Drugs
Increased risk of suicidal thinking and behavior in children, adolescents, and young adults taking antidepressants for Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and other psychiatric disorders’
Read the package insert: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2011/01...
The fact that you were not informed about this should serve as proof that you cannot blindly trust what doctors tell you. They will absolutely kill you out of ignorance or incompetence, and never even realize their responsibility.
It sounds like you made a wise decision given your personal and family history and your son is benefiting. Kudos.
But the issue is that nobody wants to really look at the cause. We are all trying to treat the symptoms with those quick-fix pills.
The cause is deep in our society. We are too stressed, lost touch with each others, work on meaningless jobs (or downright negative jobs for society.. if you work at Meta or TikTok, yes your job is in fact a negative for society).
I have also been on a journey for the last 5 years on working on myself and bringing those things back in my life and I have been feeling better than ever: - A lot of outdoor time and exercise. - Take the time to build a community of friends that genuinely care for each other - Work on some projects that you feel help humanity and each other (or volunteer). - Build things you are proud of. Build a legacy
All of those removed almost all anxiety and depression. It is not an easy journey but I'm shocked how few people even consider making those changes
By all means, Google whatever you like, but if you show up to a doctors office waving WebMD sheets in a medical professionals face, you are going to be mocked and you deserve it.
>once I noticed it also affected my ability to experience color
A small amount of evidence does support the notion that depressed people literally see the world as being less vibrant.
For starters, everybody has a different utopia, so no matter how you change society it "won't work" for someone.
And depression isn't sadness.
I have had a lot of Spinal and sleep issues. I have read almost all new literature on this niche subject and I have brought to my spine doctor some new therapy and treatments they had literally no idea about. Those treatments have changed my life.
As an engineer I read a lot of deep technical paper as my day job. Medical papers are comparatively relatively simple. The most complex part being usually the statistical data analysis.
We have pushed to a whole generation of people that only the "experts" can have opinion on some fields. I encourage everyone to read papers and have opinions on some of those subjects.
We are in 2025. That type of gatekeeping needs to go away. AI if anything, is going to really help with this as well.
‘Highlights
• Antidepressant withdrawal can be severe and protracted.
• It produces characteristic physical and emotional symptoms.
• All symptoms were more severe after stopping than before starting antidepressants.
• We identified the 15 most discriminatory withdrawal symptoms in our sample.
• Withdrawal did not differ between people with physical or mental health diagnoses.’
Usually this takes the form of "I'm prescribing you with <Brand> instead of generic" or "I'm prescribing you this specific drug from this class of drug"
Some people would rather believe that pediatric depression isn't real, rather than confront the reality of a loved and cared-for child who is constantly tearful, severely underweight, sleeps for three or four hours a night, spends most of their time staring into space and frequently talks about wanting to die.
Depression is an utterly dreadful illness and should not be confused with normal sadness or unhappiness.
> This is one of the most shocking things I have ever read.
Good grief. I hope you're exaggerating for effect.
It's also good to work with your doctors (as you seem to have done), have a discussion, and mutually agree on a plan of treatment.
Experts don't know everything. But they probably know some things you don't, and can think of questions you might not to have even thought to ask. As the saying goes, "you don't know what you don't know". Experience matters.
There's also a lot of people out there without an academic background that don't know how to properly read journal papers. It's common to see folks do a quick search on PubMed, cherry-pick a single paper they agree with, and treat it as gospel - even if there's no evidence of repeatability. These skills are not something that many people outside STEM are exposed to.
The drug absolutely destroyed me. Within a few days of taking it, I was in a bizarre state of delirium where I would sleep something like 18 hours a day. When I wasn't asleep I would gnash my teeth at my parents. At school I would lash out at my classmates and randomly punch the walls of my classroom. I was taken off the drug after about five days but I didn't fully recover.
To this day, my emotions are severely blunted. I still have complete anhedonia and avolition. I can go on a roller coaster and feel not a shred of an adrenaline rush. Nothing. I struggle maintaining relationships with people because I have no innate "desire" to do so.
The drug is absolutely evil and should never be given to minors.
My experience in journal club- basically, a group of grad students who all read a paper and then discuss it in person- taught me that most papers are just outright wrong for technical reasons. I'd say about 1 in 5 to 1 in 10 papers passes all the basic tests, and even the ones that do pass can have significant problems. For example, there is an increasing recognition that many papers in biology and medicine have fake data, or manipulated data, or corrupted data, or incorrectly labelled data. I know folks who've read papers and convinced themselvs the paper is good, when later the paper was retracted because the authors copied a few gels into the wrong columns...
One of the key diagnostic criteria for melancholic depression - what we might lazily and inaccurately call biological or "real" depression - is mood unreactivity. Someone with severe melancholic depression could win the lottery one week, lose all of their family in a plane crash the next, and feel literally nothing about either event.
Some people with atypical depression (or normal sadness that has been mis-diagnosed as depression) can respond rapidly and dramatically to a change in their circumstances. For many others with depression, there is no external why - something has gone fundamentally wrong in the functioning of their brain. Trying to help those people with talk therapy or exercise or companionship would be as futile as using those things to treat hepatitis or gangrene.
The subject was specifically about long term brain chemistry changes.
People committing suicide after taking it, while incredibly sad, is completely unrelated.
Medicine is advancing. We're increasingly able to understand and adjust dysfunctions that cause major, negative quality of life impacts. These dysfunctions have always existed, we're just getting better at finding ways to help people work through it.
So should I not have done my own research?
I get what you want to say, but to nitpick the analogy: If the "treatment" for gangrene is amputation, then that's not really "fixing" anything. That's just the scorched earth strategy of destroying the afflicted along with the affliction. Like lobotomies. What do people think of them now?
> Someone with severe melancholic depression could win the lottery one week, lose all of their family in a plane crash the next, and feel literally nothing about either event.
Why SHOULD someone feel a specific feeling about any event? If you're subconsciously aware of the ultimate pointlessness of any event, if you're aware that feelings won't change what happened, you won't. You'd move on and handle the new reality in the means available to you.
I'm not saying that medicine should never be used and there's never a "chemical" cause to sadness (or any "wrong" feeling), just that it may be used too often as a lazy escape for the "helpers".
Bluntly, if someone is capable of actually starting and sticking with an exercise routine, then they aren't very depressed and should not be offered medication as a first-line treatment. Antidepressants are markedly less effective in patients with milder illnesses, so psychotherapy and lifestyle interventions are a far better initial treatment option. It's only when these treatments fail - or when engaging with them is severely impaired by the severity of the illness - that medication becomes the favoured option.
Children speak like this and then I correct them. I explain it isn't helpful, explain why they are blessed, how their life could be worse, and provide them alternative phrases while they explain their emotional state.
Depression is caused by laziness and anxiety by hopelessness. My kids know that they aren't permitted to be lazy or say they are bored. They don't have anxiety because they have hope despite circumstances.
Edit: in case the OP is reading, I should say also that the package insert won’t mention many other potential long term effects addressed in the literature, like extra pyramidal symptoms (akathisia, Parkinsonism, dystonia, tardive dyskinesia).
Another edit: ask GPT-5 ‘What are the long term side effects of Prozac use which aren’t addressed in the package insert?’ for a list.
Additionally, there's very little - if any - evidence they actually work the way they're purported to.
There are countless heartbreaking stories of people who were prescribed these drugs not knowing what they were subscribing to. In many cases, the effects of those drugs are worse than the symptoms they are supposed to alleviate. With "I Don't Wanna Be Me" there's even a song by Type O Negative (from Peter Steele's own experience with Prozac) about the devastating effects SSRIs can have on a person's life.
These drugs are handed out like candy while the physicians prescribing them often point-blank deny any side effects or even attribute those to the illness they are meant to treat.
I'd go as far as to say that prescribing these drugs for any but the most severe or otherwise untreatable cases violates the "First, do no harm." ethical principle of medicine.
Lobotomy was in fact an effective treatment (albeit with extremely severe side-effects), but we now have much better and safer treatments available. The abandonment of lobotomy was fundamentally driven by the invention of effective antidepressants, antipsychotics and mood stabilisers. Neurosurgery is still offered to an extremely small proportion of patients suffering from very severe and treatment-resistant depression and OCD.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bjpsych-advances/art...
There's nothing wrong with having an opinion on something as a non-expert, as long as those opinions are not acted upon or relied upon as a source of reliable information. Read papers, watch YouTube, browse WebMD, satisfy your curiosity--knock yourself out. But don't undergo treatment without working with an actual expert! I'm not an expert on orbital mechanics, but I have played KSP and have formed various opinions about it. But nobody should be listening to me for advice on how to launch a rocket.
We need gatekeeping for a reason, especially in the medical field which is rife with miracle cures, snake oil, herbal remedies, detoxes, homeopathy, and other forms of quackery.
Believing my "research" is better than my specialist's education is a path back to the dark ages.
I wish this were true, but its not even close. I wonder how your kids will react when they move away, and you're not around to police their emotional expression. If they're like me, they will promptly collapse into paralysis and self-destruction.
I strongly suggest that you frequently give your kids long stretches of time (months) to practice regulating themselves, without your interference.
And if they have anxiety or depression, please let them see a professional. If my parents had noticed the signs earlier, they would have saved me decades of pain.
Do you really believe this, or do you believe your children aren't depressed? Your comment is not in accordance with science. Depression is a complex topic. I'm having trouble imagining a way to be more wrong. Is this satire?
That said, I have not met a depressed person who exercises each day and lives in a clean house.
And then you feel worthless for not being able to do those things, reinforcing the depression.
As for when they grow up, adults who cannot manage their emotions get fired or are sent to jail. It is critical to be slow to anger, quick to forgive, and work at building strong friendships.
The lack of learning constructive perspectives and ways for discussing emotions while young, may very much be a source of depression, the same way people say "he can't help it, he has ADHD".
I was about 16 and the doctor recommended this new SSRI called ... I think it was Paxil, The side effects, especially if you missed a dose are hard to describe. If you missed a dose you couldn't function at school, and everyone thought you were really stoned. Also, you could look at a pretty girl and just nothing. A 16 year old boy doesn't know why THAT's happening, neither does the girl, and it just makes things worse. Try having that conversation with your Dad, while doped out on the drugs he told you to take. Imagine the anxiety. It's really depressing. Better to be alone, and safe in one's bedroom and on the Internet... ( and that was 20 years ago ).
Around the same time there was Ritalin and maybe a few others came out.
The issues kids are facing, the feelings they are then given pills to erase are still there, even when numbed to them. The answer lies somewhere in familial stability and relearning respect?, and how to constructively frame life's difficulties and teach that to our kids.
I would never give my kids anything that altered their brain chemistry. Even as adults, the only way is through.
I will admit I was semi cognizant of the distorted thinking/reality so played it down when talking to the psychiatrist I was urgently (+2 months into it) referred to for early psychosis intervention. I was eventually handed a dozen valium (which the doctor was incredibly hesitant to prescribe, for good reasons) which let me sleep and the mania lifted.
I'm terrified of SSRIs now. I have been diagnosed bipolar for a few years now (went private because in the UK unless you're a danger you're ignored). This week was the first session with a clinical psychologist in a bipolar group. Unsurprisingly almost everyone had a similar experience with SSRIs.
I'm speculating here but I'm pretty sure if you did an MRI on my brain you'd see lesions from the mixing of mdma and sertraline (I get myoclonic jerks to this day).
Lower bone mineral density, increased risk of fractures, osteoporosis
Sexual dysfunction / PSSD (Post-SSRI Sexual Dysfunction)
extra pyramidal symptoms (akathisia, Parkinsonism, dystonia, tardive dyskinesia)
emotional blunting / apathy
slowed thinking, brain fog
increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding
QT prolongation
SSRIs are by an order of a magnitude worse than any other common medication in that respect.
Moreover, like I said there's little evidence these drugs actually achieve any quality-of-life improvement beyond a placebo effect.
Out of curiosity, have you ever been depressed or do you know people with diagnosed depression?
I ask, because when I first visited a psychiatrist my life was going great - very good job, great financial situation (i think i could FIRE today), happy marriage, perfect health. It didn't save me from recurring self harm and suicidal ideation, and it doesn't explain why I had weeks when I couldn't even open my work email.
Sometimes your brain is just causing your trouble for no reason. Drugs work, or may work, and may save lives. I write this because I had a similar opinion before being personally affected, so I see where you're coming from.
Many things that are not necessarily caused by anything external can be fixed by drugs. I don't understand your point.
If the problem is brain not working correctly (because some organ is not doing it's job properly) then no sequence of words will make the brain physically fix itself, just like no sequence of words will cure a heart attack.
Of course it depends, and many people just need a correct therapy. I'm not dismissing talking and figuring out the root cause.
Yes, experts are wrong all the time, they have the disability of being human, but this seems like an extremely anti-intellectual take.
'AstraZeneca LP and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP will pay $520 million to resolve allegations that AstraZeneca illegally marketed the anti-psychotic drug Seroquel for uses not approved as safe and effective by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services’ Health Care Fraud Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) announced today. Such unapproved uses are also known as "off-label" uses because they are not included in the drug’s FDA approved product label.
[..]
The United States alleges that AstraZeneca illegally marketed Seroquel for uses never approved by the FDA. Specifically, between January 2001 through December 2006, AstraZeneca promoted Seroquel to psychiatrists and other physicians for certain uses that were not approved by the FDA as safe and effective (including aggression, Alzheimer’s disease, anger management, anxiety, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, bipolar maintenance, dementia, depression, mood disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and sleeplessness). These unapproved uses were not medically accepted indications for which the United States and the state Medicaid programs provided coverage for Seroquel.
According to the settlement agreement, AstraZeneca targeted its illegal marketing of the anti-psychotic Seroquel towards doctors who do not typically treat schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, such as physicians who treat the elderly, primary care physicians, pediatric and adolescent physicians, and in long-term care facilities and prisons.
[..]
The United States contends that AstraZeneca promoted the unapproved uses by improperly and unduly influencing the content of, and speakers, in company-sponsored continuing medical education programs. The company also engaged doctors to give promotional speaker programs on unapproved uses for Seroquel and to conduct studies on unapproved uses of Seroquel. In addition, the company recruited doctors to serve as authors of articles that were ghostwritten by medical literature companies and about studies the doctors in question did not conduct. AstraZeneca then used those studies and articles as the basis for promotional messages about unapproved uses of Seroquel.
"Illegal acts by pharmaceutical companies and false claims against Medicare and Medicaid can put the public health at risk, corrupt medical decisions by health care providers, and take billions of dollars directly out of taxpayers’ pockets," said Attorney General Eric Holder. "This Administration is committed to recovering taxpayer money lost to health care fraud, whether it’s by bringing cases against common criminals operating out of vacant storefronts or executives at some of the nation’s biggest companies."
The United States also contends that AstraZeneca violated the federal Anti-Kickback Statute by offering and paying illegal remuneration to doctors it recruited to serve as authors of articles written by AstraZeneca and its agents about the unapproved uses of Seroquel. AstraZeneca also offered and paid illegal remuneration to doctors to travel to resort locations to "advise" AstraZeneca about marketing messages for unapproved uses of Seroquel, and paid doctors to give promotional lectures to other health care professionals about unapproved and unaccepted uses of Seroquel. The United States contends that these payments were intended to induce the doctors to prescribe Seroquel for unapproved uses in violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. '
The takeaway is that anytime a physician prescribes you a drug, at the very least you have to check that there hasn't been a gigantic fine levied against the drug maker for illegally tricking your doctor into prescribing it to you.
It's so common it's a trope. "Antidepressants don't work" says the scientists testing antidepressants on things they're not supposed to work on.
Studies repeated with just major depression all conclude antidepressants are better than a placebo.
Click through the article to the study and you'll find they did not limit their study to must major
Never again. I'm taking Pristiq now and that has been considerably better.
One of the hardest things for me with depression is the incredible guilt I have. What right do I have to be depressed when my life is objectively fine? Why should I get therapy when that might mean one less space for someone who is dealing with trauma or poverty or something else that gives them a "right" to be depressed? This causes a feedback loop of guilt leading to more depression and vice-versa.
Like I tell my kids, it's normal to sometimes feel depressed or hopeless. If you're dealing with a difficult circumstance then it's reasonable to have those feelings, and the only way to address those feelings is to deal with the circumstance. What's not normal is feeling depressed and hopeless for no logical reason at all.
reddit.com/r/thanksimcured
Normal kid behavior has been "diagnosed" by the parents and the kid pumped with Prozac because it worked on his grandma.
This is a tremendous failure in parenting.
Me and my mom are on identical doses of Prozac to treat very similar symptoms.
We consulted with a child therapist, a pediatrician, and a psychiatrist.
Doing your research should not be in competition with your specialist's education. It should be complementary as yet another source of information.
I'm not saying experts are wrong but I also don't think they are particularly always right. They are human and they have strong groupthink. They will agree and disagree with some takes based on their personal or political beliefs.
I always thought DNA determined pretty much everything, and we raised them exactly the same, but they have distinct personalities and some different physical features, although of course they're much more similar than they are different. My other son shows some symptoms of anxiety but not as much, yet.
You seem to think that the educated class got a monopoly on knowledge on that field, yet after that claim to know that experts are wrong all the time. The anti-intellectual take is to give up on trying to understand as much as you can in a field because you don't have the right credentials to do so. Yes, medical papers are not that complicated to read.
That doesn't make you more competent than your doctor. But it probably makes you a better advocate for yourself than your doctor is.
My point is: Don't discount yourself reading papers and doing your own research. Then work with your "credentialed experts" to come to an agreement. Don't ever think that the "experts" got your best interest at heart.
The mass prescribing of SSRIs is going to be seen like leaches (well worse since leaches actually do help in some cases). The rock bottom levels of replication of results in physchiatry and these SSRIs, the whole area should be treated much more like snake oil than it is.
The knowledge is out there. Yes there are a ton of bogus papers and a ton of bad research. Not everyone got the critical knowledge to figure this out but I also don't think this is only reserved to the "experts". They are also subject to groupthink and other political pressure to think a specific way.
At the end of the day, do your best own research and work with your "expert" to agree on a solution.
Pushing back on people reading paper is an anti-intellectual take (to use the same wording as another poster below).
