I mean, you don't have to take his opinion seriously, or more importantly, as a final answer to the issue of addiction. I personally don't think that just beca

I mean, you don't have to take his opinion seriously, or more importantly, as a final answer to the issue of addiction. I personally don't think that just because he's a journalist without those backgrounds, that he's not capable of learning and presenting truth in those spaces—I see a lot of value in journalistic skills of investigation and interdisciplinary exploration. That being said, it doesn't necessarily mean he's right or that he's not exaggerating or oversimplifying. I found the podcast episode to be quite compelling to get me more interested in looking up other sources to see whether they agree with him, or if they differ, and in which ways. Even you posting this, questioning his credibility, inspired me to search a bit of what people with more experience in directly related scientific fields have said. Some have questioned whether the studies done with rats extrapolate to humans, some have questioned his seeming disapproval of antidepressants, and more. I guess it just depends on who and what you trust to give you the truth about this issue. I found the interview illuminating, but that doesn't mean you would or should.