So your shallow level of arguing and your love of throwing about the claim that people are saying "dangerous" or "harmful" things is a lame tactic to try to dis

So your shallow level of arguing and your love of throwing about the claim that people are saying "dangerous" or "harmful" things is a lame tactic to try to discredit someone - which then misdirects from their actual argument points. "The black box suicide warning is for the startup period and is a rare side effect." Right, so once you kill off the people who will have that "adverse event" then it's all good! Except, let's go to the actual clinical trials - where it shows you're more likely to kill yourself if you take them then if you don't. So your argument seems to be it's okay if more people kill themselves by taking these medications, so long as the overall quality of life increase of the majority improves? Is that what your stance is? You're okay with more death - rather than finding and supporting/providing a solution that doesn't increase death? I'm curious how you value life? It seems you have more of a moral framework that the "health of a society is more important than the health of the individual"? That would open up into a whole discussion on its own of how one orients and how one determines an individuals value and impact on society; I believe the individual is the most important factor, and each life is priceless - a whole universe is lost with each life lost. Instead of saying what I'm saying is dangerous without actually citing the clinical trial data as evidence - which I'm not doing either - but I'm not saying what you're saying is dangerous and "misinformation" - if you want to stop being so shallow in your replies we can go into the actual research and data, but you already admitted the "black box suicide warning" - and where you just don't seem to care that the "rare side effect" actually results in more people killing themselves if they took it than if they didn't take it. But you seem like an extremely intelligent ideologue, highly articulate, but who's never actually gone down into the data - and also where some people dying is minimized by you as a "rare side effect" yet without And a statement like "SSRIs have a net reduction in suicidal ideation" is also dishonest and misdirection because you're then ignoring, avoiding mentioning there's an increase in suicide - e.g. there's a net increase in death if you take them; but yes, if you kill off all the people who will have the "rare side effect" and then your pool of people who'd participate in future clinical trials have already been pruned off, then those future trials will ; so then we'd have to get into the ethics and review of clinical trial design - which more often than not is lacking. "I'm very confident in my knowledge of these subjects and it's clear from your posts that you've been consuming some alternative medicine propaganda. " You're so full of yourself, it's incredible - and the double standard is hilarious. Where's your citation of the data if you're so confident in your knowledge, and why is what your saying not the actual propaganda? Anyone with better logic and critical thinking than you will see how your skirting actually addressing my points as well. E.g. That same patient population - in clinical trials, where you have the placebo group and the group given the SSRIs - MORE PEOPLE KILLED THEMSELVES IN THE SSRI GROUP THAN THE PLACEBO GROUP. Your second last sentence doesn't even fit the frame of how clinical trials are done: the control group isn't the "general public" - the control group compared to are those who qualify through whatever method for the medication - but then are selected for the placebo, and less of them in that group in clinical trials kill themselves; and you don't even realize that. Are you willing to at least concede that point? So I'm the one who has "NO idea" what I'm talking about? And if you respond, please respond to each line so we can all see if/what you're cherrypicking and avoiding. Or at very minimum just respond if you concede/admit to your logical mistake about putting forward the argument that the control group is the general public - when it's not - because otherwise you're so indoctrinated and arrogant that you're just throwing out terms like "dangerous" and "misinformation" as filler. There are probably a good 6-12 books you should read on the pharmaceutical industry to open up your eyes to their shenanigans; and these books are very well written, very well researched, citing research, etc - to pre-emptively counter your shallow-weak-empty "conspiracy theorist" argument point drivel.