Why? If a kid has diabetes, would it be horrifying to treat it? Why would it be different for a neurochemistry issue that makes the same kid tired and sad all the time?
Because the problem's not a "neurochemistry issue" (that theory's been debunked and the "chemicals" in play have never been known), and the solution is "no better than placebo."
Can you provide a source for that theory having been debunked? I agree that data has been found that is at odds with the various neurochemical theories but am not aware of the neurochemistry link as a whole having been definitely debunked.
I'll take this sincerely, and ask you, is this really something you've a continuing curiosity about? I have a suspicion you understand what is taking place, but for whatever reason, are not expressing so directly. Are you asserting there is nothing more to discuss after one parses the search results for “chemical imbalance debunked”. The parent is quite clearly, at the minimum, meeting their parent's level of input, which essentially amounted to "this thing is debunked". As an onlooker and after a quick skim of the search query you suggested, I am still not exactly clear on what "neurochemistry issue [theory]" entails. What would help, is a more clear underpinning for what is being discussed, which your parent is suggesting, through question, before attempting to respond. I appreciate this personally!
Ah, well-put! I think we may be reacting differently to the same articles. My understanding is that while various neurochemical theories have not been proven as the general public seems to think, they have also not necessarily been disproven or debunked. Certainly it has not been proven that neurochemistry has no role at all.
I wouldn't recommend searching for "chemical imbalance debunked" unless you intend to confirm an existing bias. The internet will show you whatever you want, and there are enough people who distrust medical professionals that any search for "debunking" will be a minefield of fringe theories and grifters. I'd recommend someone start generally, searching for information about clinical depression, and then build on that to look at root causes and how the medical understanding of those root causes has changed over time.
One of the first search results for me was a paper published in Nature. Other top results were from respected institutions like the NIH and Harvard University. Hardly grifters or crazies.
The caveat you cite applies to basically any and all internet (or even media) consumption, and is therefore a non-argument.
Probably because the commenter is not a medical professional and isn't qualified to judge the veracity of anything they find. "Do your own research" is a fucking plague on our modern world and is why the internet is like wall to wall grifters now.
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.
I witnessed a pair of doctors prescribe a family member an incredibly dangerous drug for an off label use. The company had been fined $500 million dollars for various illegal schemes to convince doctors to write such prescriptions, but I’m sure the doctors in question were unaware of this. When this family member began to exhibit textbook symptoms of an extremely dangerous (life threatening) condition which could only be caused by the drug in question, the doctors failed to notice, and in fact repeatedly increased the dosage, and added more drugs on top to treat the symptoms caused by the initial drug. It was not until I accompanied my relative to a doctor’s appointment and delivered a carefully designed incantation that they made the correct diagnosis and halted the prescriptions.
>Probably because the commenter is not a medical professional and isn't qualified to judge the veracity of anything they find.
The average medical professional is worst-placed to judge the veracity of any studies they find than the average engineer or mathematician who's done a solid statistics and probability course. Medical students are assessed on their ability to memorise and regurgitate facts, not on their ability to conduct statistical analysis.
I both agree and disagree. The issue is not independent thinking and research - it’s the low media literacy of the average person that makes them vulnerable to frauds, grifters, and crazies.
With that said, the first few search results for the query were from the journal Nature, the NIH, and Harvard university. Hardly the loony or malicious caricature that you attempt to paint.
Not that I agree or disagree with the underlying claim but a call to "credentialism" to dismiss someone's opinion is not as strong in 2025 as you think it is.
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.
In this area, having credentials makes a difference. Experts matter.
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.
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.
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.
But is that really what you are seeing in this HN comment thread? People who seem very well researched in the biochemicals and meta studies of Prozac? I don’t. :)
> 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.
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.
This just reads as Dunning Kruger-esque to me. You think that because you know how to read a technical paper in engineering, you're as or more competent than a doctor.
Yes, experts are wrong all the time, they have the disability of being human, but this seems like an extremely anti-intellectual take.
Ya, well i was diagnosed with a serious genetic condition by my doctor. I found out i was misdiagnosed based on information from the support group for the condition. If I hadn't, I would have had unnecessary surgery.
> People can read papers, understand research etc.
Then he should cite the papers, point out the research, etc. Rather than dismissing the entire discipline and all its practitioners with a wave of the "common-sense mental illness isn't real" wand.
These types of studies are published all the time and can easily be dismissed. Antidepressants are _only_ for major depression. Not mild or moderate. These studies that find no significance compared to a placebo are always tried in patients with all types of depression. Not just major.
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
I don't think we know if it's a neurochemistry issue. From what I understand what was debunked was the idea that they worked by blocking the reuptake of serotonin specifically.
There’s an interesting theory lately [0] that the antidepressant effect of SSRIs is actually unrelated to its effect on serotonin. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that this is completely true: serotonin has nothing to do with depression, increasing serotonin levels is useless for treating depression, and everything everyone has ever claimed about chemical imbalances causing depression is flat-out wrong.
If so, pharma companies should probably try to develop different drugs instead of new SSRIs. But it does not follow that a patient with depression ought not to take an SSRI. That would be like saying that taking aspirin for aches has been completely debunked because there is no connection between aches and aspirin’s anticoagulant effect.
"neurochemistry issue debunked" is a very weak argument about the (in)effectiveness of proper drugs for treatment of mental illness. It's not exactly known how they work but I am 100 percent sure SSRIs often have a very positive, even life changing effect. Moreover, every approved drug is tested 'double blind' exactly because the placebo effect has such a big biasing effect on subjectively appreciated outcomes. Only when ruling out pure placebo effect, a drug can be approved.
> Moreover, every approved drug is tested 'double blind' exactly because the placebo effect has such a big biasing effect on subjectively appreciated outcomes. Only when ruling out pure placebo effect, a drug can be approved.
Pretty weird the article we're commenting on about Prozac being no better than placebo for children is just now coming out when it was already approved for use in children, then.
> Because the problem's not a "neurochemistry issue" (that theory's been debunked and the "chemicals" in play have never been known), and the solution is "no better than placebo."
It most certainly has not been debunked and mind altering chemicals most certainly do work.
SSRIs have _questionable_ efficacy but that's not the same as proven to have none, which is an exceptionally high bar.
If you don't have a serious model for what you are treating, then you are experimenting on your patients and hoping it works for unknown reasons. Not too different from folk remedies. Even worse, patients are essentially never informed that the doctor is throwing things at the wall hoping something sticks.