well said... in order, then... 1. Read the reference before responding; the study looked (in part) at antidepressant-placebo differences. Also - I can't prescr

well said... in order, then... 1. Read the reference before responding; the study looked (in part) at antidepressant-placebo differences. Also - I can't prescribe placebo. 2. Got anything to back that up? 3. OK 4. Because it implies that some of the 'withdrawal' symptoms are actually recurrent depressive/anxious symptoms (which can include somatic symptoms). Which is different than arguing that all of these symptoms are a consequence of relapse/recurrence. 5. Well, one of the critiques of antidepressants is that, after someone is on them for years, depression can recur... but fair point, not a perfect analogy. 6. Fully understood? It's not even a little understood. What does that have to do with detecting long-term consequences? We have 25 year follow-up data with antidepressants now. Despite lots of effort to find otherwise, show me some solid literature supporting risk. 7. Yup. We should. And we should keep looking. We also agree that there's substantial harm associated with people confidently posting misinformation - so while I mostly lurk here on HN, I feel that 20+ years of treating mood disorders and 20+ years of pharmacovigilance research gives me the right to push back. Lived experience is critically important, but it does not trump data.