[tsimionescu]

There's a simple reference that doesn't even need to be quoted: SSRIs are approved for treating depression in all major countries on Earth. And this approval required they pass phase 3 clinical trials, demonstrating effectiveness over placebo.

Also, given that they are typically preferred over other classes of anti-depressants (try-cyclics etc), we also know they have demonstrated better effectiveness than other drugs.

Given all this, it is obviously up to the person flippantly contradicting well-established medical practice to provide citations, or rightfully be accused of spreading FUD.

[pseudalopex]

SSRIs are preferred because better tolerability and safety compensate for worse efficacy.[1]

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK67142/

[bheadmaster]

If it's so obvious and well-established, it shouldn't be hard to find some reference to support it, no?

How else would I know that the emperor is, indeed, wearing clothes?

[tsimionescu]

Do you disagree that SSRIs are an FDA-approved treatment for depression, should I find references for that? Or do you not know what is the standard for FDA approval?

[bheadmaster]

Does drug being approved by FDA prove its effectiveness? If you can demonstrate without reasonable doubt that it does, i.e. that it's virtually impossible for a drug to be both approved by the FDA and as effective as placebo, then that would make a good argument.

In any case, any argument is better than just a "Stop spreading FUD and misinformation, you antivaxxer"-style comment.

[tsimionescu]

The standard for drug approval by the FDA is that the drug has proven to be more efficient than the controls in a phase 3 clinical trial, to the satisfaction of the FDA's experts. The ESA has similar requirements, as do the NHS and other national bodies.

Given this, I consider that the right prior is to believe that a drug that has been FDA, ESA, NHS and many other national bodies is actually more effective than placebo. Which means, the onus is on you to bring evidence if you want to claim they are not - otherwise, "Stop spreading FUD and misinformation" is the exact right response.

[tsimionescu]

Edit: I should have written EMA(European Medicines Agency) not ESA (the European Space Agency).

[bheadmaster]

> "Stop spreading FUD and misinformation" is the exact right response.

I strongly disagree. Everyone should have the right to "spread FUD and misinformation" as much as they like, and those who care should learn how to argue for the truth. Otherwise our society is pretty much guaranteed to devolve into a bunch of gullible morons.

The fact that nobody is willing to dig up any proof of effectiveness of SSRIs beyond "well, they're in use, so they must be good", but are perfectly okay with silencing people who disagree with them is both funny and scary to me. And annoying. Who the fuck are they to silence others?

[tsimionescu]

It's exhausting to argue every obvious point over and over. If you want to claim that well established practices are wrong, it's up to you to bring the evidence. I'm not going to cite studies to prove the earth is round either.

[currymj]

As of a while ago, this was a very good discussion of the situation with research on this topic:

https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/ssris-much-more-than-y...