> 1. they prescribe both boosters, and inhibitors, to treat the same symptoms. This suggests the aetiology of disease here, is not well defined by a single beha

> 1. they prescribe both boosters, and inhibitors, to treat the same symptoms. This suggests the aetiology of disease here, is not well defined by a single behaviour because the same symptom (depression, anxiety) is responsive in some people to suppressing of a chemical imbalance, and in others to boosting it. "Chemical imbalance" isn't actually taught as the root cause of depression. I suspect your psychologist might be overestimating their own knowledge of a different field (psychiatrist formally study these systems and medications, psychologists do not) and underestimating the amount of research being performed in this field. Regardless, these drugs don't really work as "boosters" like commonly thought. It's better to think of them as modulators. In fact, in conditions like anxiety SSRIs are well-known to actually reduce serotonin transmission in certain areas of the brain. The research has diverged quite a bit from the simple marketing-material models that a lot of people have about these drugs. The purpose of the drugs is to induce changes that result in positive downstream effects. It's not actually a contradiction that enhancing and inhibiting certain receptors could result in similar downstream effects. For example, a number of receptors in your brain will downregulate in response to both agonists and antagonists, even though they have opposite direct effects. Your psychologist's understanding of this topic is deeply flawed. > 2. the drugs were tested inadequately across race, age, weight, sex. SSRIs have been in widespread use since the 80s and tricyclics since the 50s. At this point, the idea that we haven't tested enough or that we haven't collected enough data is just a strawman argument proposed by people with impossibly high standards. I suspect no amount of testing would actually satisfy someone proposing this argument for drugs that have been studied for this long. > 3. the drugs appear to be best applied for as brief time as possible but are routinely being prescribed for extended periods, and demand de-habituation and great care with withdrawal It doesn't make sense to make blanket statements about "the drugs" when psychiatric drugs differ widely in this regard. Benzodiazepines should absolutely be prescribed for brief periods and this is reflected in their status as controlled substances and all of the prescribing literature. There are some doctors who ignore this advice and overprescribe, of course, but they are going counter to standard practice. On the other hand, medications like SSRIs can actually take weeks or months to reach full effect and many patients unnecessarily relapse by quitting them early. I'd be cautious of taking advice from anyone who makes blanket statements about "the drugs". This is bordering on uninformed anti-psychiatry. > 4. almost all successful uses of the drugs are accompanied by CBT and like processes The most successful uses of SSRIs are accompanied by therapy. However, we have plenty of studies where SSRIs are prescribed without any accompanying therapy and a positive result is still seen. If you're suggesting that the therapy is actually doing 100% of the work, that's easily disproven by the studies that test all combination (placebo, therapy alone, SSRI alone, therapy + SSRI). I'd recommend getting your psychiatry advice from actual psychiatrists. The number of misunderstandings and mistruths in what you've relayed here is quite high.