|
|
|
|
|
|
by ryan-allen
3846 days ago
|
|
|
It's different in different countries. I'm in Australia and we have laws that limit the influence drug companies have over our doctors here, and we don't have pharma ads on television. SSRIs were recommended to me by a proper doctor and it was a good decision to start them. I was fortunate that the first type I took worked well and I didn't have to change types. > perhaps the bigger mistake was not going off SSRIs but agreeing to go on them in the first place. This kind of 'common sense' stigma is what kept me away from professional help for years. It's not helpful, it's FUD. |
|
|
That's great and I'm glad your decision worked out well for you.
This kind of 'common sense' stigma is what kept me away from professional help for years. It's not helpful, it's FUD.
Funny thing is, there's about an equal amount of FUD floating around as to the potential benefits of talk therapy. Which is what kept me off it for decades and decades.
Anyway, what I'm saying about SSRIs isn't FUD. There's a near-consensus view out there that though they may sometimes help, their technical workings are still poorly understood[1]; that they have complex side effects; are hard to get off of, for many people; have been over-proscribed for certain vey broad classes of folks (such as adolescents and children); and have often been disingenuously promoted by their makers -- in at least one very famous case, criminally so.
I'm not giving citations for these points. There's plenty of stuff out there to read about these topics -- most of it not only non-sensationalistic, but quite well-reasoned (to the point of sounding dry and impassioned), and really now, pretty easy to find.
[1] Not in "serotonin re-uptake inhibition" part; but in the, you know, "how do these drugs actually treat chemical depression?" part. (Assuming your depression actually is chemical, which is also quite debatable).