3 ms·
Yes, I did see that, but it doesn't address the important part of the assertion (more so than drugs or therapy) so to be charitable, I assume the OP has a diffe
by carbocation 14y ago
Yes, I did see that, but it doesn't address the important part of the assertion (more so than drugs or therapy) so to be charitable, I assume the OP has a different reference in mind.
- mindcrime 14y agoGood point, although it's hard to say without reading the full-text. Personally, I wasn't interested enough to pay for access to read it. shrug Still, it is suggestive that the OP isn't totally blowing smoke on this.
- carbocation 14y agoInteresting; I don't have the same take. If the OP's assertion is true, then he's referencing an under-recognized study of critical importance. If it's just hyperbole sitting on top of truth (whether due to an incorrect recollection or otherwise), that's a big problem. Claims that have some truth to them, but which are not correct, are both endemic to and hazardous in healthcare. I will argue that in this type of conversation, claims of fact that are disputed but ultimately unsupported must be taken to be false until shown otherwise. (The fulltext of the article that you found doesn't use the terms "SSRI", "medication", "drug", or "therapy", but I haven't read it in depth to see if they're using some unusual synonyms.)