4 ms·
> hasn't really been taken seriously in the field for decades, except by naysayers like yourself who continue to use it as a strawman. …and by basically the en
by AmericanChopper 3y ago
> hasn't really been taken seriously in the field for decades, except by naysayers like yourself who continue to use it as a strawman.
…and by basically the entire general public. Big pharma did a great job on the “depression is a just a chemical imbalance…” awareness campaign, but absolutely dropped the ball on the “actually we were wrong about that” campaign, so that’s still what most members of the public tend to believe.
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y agoCan you name one topic of bleeding edge research on which the general public's understanding is not either outdated, oversimplified, or both?
- AmericanChopper 3y agoThe reason it’s outdated in this case is because the pharmaceutical industry invested so much money and time into selling Prozac to the public, for a treatment that was ultimately ineffective, and then of course invested no money at all into correcting the public’s subsequent misunderstanding. So unlike what you’ve claimed, this isn’t a concept taken seriously only by naysayers who want to use it as a strawman. It’s a concept many members of the public generally believe to be true, because the experts spent so much time and money telling them it was.