suggestion
Joined 4 years ago
Joined 4 years ago
They outperform by the metrics that matter for a clinical diagnosis and the West is so quick to jump to the conclusion that they're "under diagnosed", it's a uniquely Western and especially American conclusion.
It's something that persistently prevents someone from living a "normal" life, which is also defined far too narrowly.
You're absolutely insistent that virtually any amount of "negative effects" is sufficient for diagnosis and pharmacological intervention which is absolutely not the case.
Nobody is saying it's easy or the discomfort and difficulties aren't real.
People were constantly bombarded with death, disease, things like starvation were near term risks, violence was everywhere, etc.
You're also overestimating the prevalence of alcoholism. Alcohol consumption was largely driven by safety and necessity, not abuse. Alcoholism was arguably more of a social stigma historically than it was today, certainly with harsher criminal penalties in many societies.
You're leaving out the part about being "well studied" paired with your conclusions is almost exclusively in American and Western European populations, things are significantly less clear in other populations and cultures.
Exact quote from second article
"Furthermore, the SSRIs were accorded a rock-star status as effective antidepressants that they did not deserve. Most troubling from the standpoint of misleading the general public, pharmaceutical companies heavily promoted the “chemical imbalance” trope in their direct-to-consumer advertising."
There second article admits the overuse of the term while trying to defend psychiatry for never officially adopting it, but everyone who's been on them knows that's exactly what they were told about their effectiveness, so whether the trope originated with the pharmaceutical companies (my assertion) or not, they were still way over prescribed and there's no statistically significant evidence they actually work when controlling for confounders, as the first meta analysis clearly demonstrates.
"Quality" is an arbitrary definition that means nothing, that's one of the problems we're talking about in psychiatry. The OP clearly mentioned that there was minimal impact on academic, professional, or social functioning other than internal discomfort, for example, yet was prescribed anyway.
>False, regarding CBT
Wow it's almost like the replication crisis is a real thing and we have no idea what we're talking about. Look at these completely disparate results when examining a different population group.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01651...
Why do you think that is?
To pretend that humans are hedonic beasts incapable of cognitive adaption is ridiculous. We do not operate purely on impulse save for pharmaceutical intervention. We can force ourselves to give things more or less importance regardless of the actual stakes.
I bet if you knew your house would burn down if you didn't do "normal" things you would have done them no problem.
Stimulants make otherwise unenjoyable things enjoyable? Who would have thought? Do you think people that do "normal" things enjoy them? Is it necessary to enjoy everything all the time?