3 ms·

> I have seen these things really work though. The argument (based on some large scale trials and other data) is that after 2+ years, those on SSRIs are worse

> I have seen these things really work though. The argument (based on some large scale trials and other data) is that after 2+ years, those on SSRIs are worse off than they would have been without them. The issue is that by taking SSRIs, you may be getting a few weeks of negligible benefits in exchange for a lifetime of being disabled, when otherwise you'd have been better after a few months using other interventions.

falcolas 10y ago
> are worse off than they would have been without them With, or without continuing monitored dosage to account for the body's corrections towards what it perceives as equilibrium? If without a continued dosage, is this before or after a "withdrawl" phase?
- Alex3917 10y ago
  > With, or without continuing monitored dosage to account for the body's corrections towards what it perceives as equilibrium? The efficacy of SSRIs isn't dose dependent. And the the monoamine hypothesis is a long disproven myth.
  - pjc50 10y ago
    > The efficacy of SSRIs isn't dose dependent This is rather surprising, given that most pharmaceuticals are, and contradicted by the experience of people I've known who've been prescribed them and advised to taper withdrawal - which is then experienced as reducing effectiveness.
Leon 10y ago
Can you cite this?
- Alex3917 10y ago
  The book the article is about...
Broken_Hippo 10y ago
That means there is more to figure out, not that people shouldn't be taking them. It could be that a combination of therapy and SSRI's are the answer, or they only work with certain blood chemistry and we develop a test for such a thing so we'll know. Someone with a major mental illness might just do worse after a couple of years, despite medication. Some folks with bi-polar disorder truly can't work, despite the medications, for example. They'd definitely be doing "worse" after starting their medications, some of which might easily include SSRIs, but it isn't really because they started medications. None of this means we shouldn't use them, just use them responsibly with a bit more medical oversight. After all, for some people these really do help.

falcolas 10y ago

> are worse off than they would have been without them With, or without continuing monitored dosage to account for the body's corrections towards what it perceives as equilibrium? If without a continued dosage, is this before or after a "withdrawl" phase?

Alex3917 10y ago
> With, or without continuing monitored dosage to account for the body's corrections towards what it perceives as equilibrium? The efficacy of SSRIs isn't dose dependent. And the the monoamine hypothesis is a long disproven myth.
- pjc50 10y ago
  > The efficacy of SSRIs isn't dose dependent This is rather surprising, given that most pharmaceuticals are, and contradicted by the experience of people I've known who've been prescribed them and advised to taper withdrawal - which is then experienced as reducing effectiveness.

Leon 10y ago

Can you cite this?

Alex3917 10y ago
The book the article is about...

Broken_Hippo 10y ago

That means there is more to figure out, not that people shouldn't be taking them. It could be that a combination of therapy and SSRI's are the answer, or they only work with certain blood chemistry and we develop a test for such a thing so we'll know. Someone with a major mental illness might just do worse after a couple of years, despite medication. Some folks with bi-polar disorder truly can't work, despite the medications, for example. They'd definitely be doing "worse" after starting their medications, some of which might easily include SSRIs, but it isn't really because they started medications. None of this means we shouldn't use them, just use them responsibly with a bit more medical oversight. After all, for some people these really do help.