Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> the risk doesn't seem to be as large as often suggested

The anti-depressant business model is genius: (a) They're sold at a very high price point, (b) they generally make you factually dependent for quite some time (and they're quite hard to quit). It's one of big pharma's preferred multi-billion cash cows.

Now you know who's interested in spreading fear, doubt and uncertainty regarding cheap and effective competing substances such as LSD and psilocybin. And this industry has the resources to effectively influence public discussion forums such as HN, Reddit, Slashdot, etc.



None of this is true.

Anti-depressant meds are very cheap. This is one of the problems of meds, they're much cheaper than a course of talking therapy.

They don't cause dependence.

Most people don't have problems coming off SSRIs, SNRIs, NASAs etc.

> And this industry has the resources to effectively influence public discussion forums such as HN, Reddit, Slashdot, etc.

You might want to read any of the posts dang has mad about accusing people of astroturfing: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang%20astroturfing&sort=by...

That's also in the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> Don't accuse others of astroturfing or shillage. Email us and we'll look into it.


> They don't cause dependence.

You say that with such authority, but in my personal experience they can absolutely cause dependency. I've had long-lasting withdrawal effects from certain SSRIs that were both physically and mentally painful.


It's not just me saying it. It's anyone who works in dependency services.

Discontinuation effects exist, are unpleasant, require correct tapering, but are not dependency.


I understand the word "dependency" to be synonymous with what you're calling discontinuation effects. So, I think I agree with you now. Thanks for the following up with your clarification.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: