Preferences

> my 7-year-old son just started half that dose

This is horrifying.


We had/have a lot of reservations about it too, and discussed it at length with our pediatrician over months of observation. We decided what was more horrifying was hearing a 7-year-old — who has supportive family and friends, good health, no traumatic events, no major life changes going on, never worries where food/shelter is coming from — say he feels like "he shouldn't be on Earth anymore" and suddenly react with extreme physical anxiety to almost everything. It was bad enough that he couldn't really implement any of the coping skills he learned in therapy. His therapist hoped that medication would bring him to a baseline where he was able to benefit more from therapy. My family's historical success with Prozac also made the decision more palatable since depression appears to be hereditary.

There has been a phenomenal positive shift in his behavior since he started medication. All that said, another commenter pointed out that the study specifically says that Prozac is no better than placebo for depression, which is similar to but distinct from anxiety, which is what my son is being treated for. My mom and I were both diagnosed with depression, but anxiety may be more accurate -- I'm not sure.

You seem to be handling the naysayers pretty well. But, still wanted to compliment you for sharing and encourage you not to let them get to you.

It sounds like you made a wise decision given your personal and family history and your son is benefiting. Kudos.

I was one of those “medicating kids is a terrible idea” people, until I had kids with severe generalised anxiety. It took a lot to convince me to try it, but it made their lives better in such an obvious, immediate way. The whole experience made me a lot more humble about opinions I hold without relevant experience.
It's important to remember that not being a "medicating kids is a terrible idea" person doesn't mean one is a "every medication is a great idea" person. I'm probably like most people where in a perfect world I wouldn't medicate at all, and treat unfamiliar medications with some skepticism. But also I accept that I'm not (and am not interested in being) a medical expert, so if there is a medical need that I can't handle myself I'll take the advice of a clinician who has earned my trust with good reasoning.
> The whole experience made me a lot more humble about opinions I hold without relevant experience.

I wish there were a way to shortcut this process for society so that so many people didn't need to either go through a similar experience personally to have such an epiphany, or worse, never have it at all. (Speaking not only about medication for kids, but other polarizing issues as well.)

I'd be more interested in where your 7-year-old even learned phrases like "I feel like I shouldn't be on Earth anymore."
Yes, us too. Beats us. Sure wasn't around our house, and we can't imagine any family/friends/TV/whatever he may have learned it from.
It sounds to me how a someone would describe feeling suicidal when they don't know the word for it.
Ya, when I'm sad I can come up with pretty creative language to express it. It does feel really tough to know that a seven year old feels like that :(
7 year olds are second graders in school. They are exposed to plenty.
Many public schools have teachings about climate change, issues white people gave the world, native stolen land etc.

It could be easy for a kid to feel depressed when they're either the source or the victim of all the world's problems only being 7 years in

All this comment points out it’s you aren’t very familiar with second grades curriculums.
For me it shows he's trying to shoehorn in right wing talking points into this situation.
With both my kids in 2nd grade and my wife also a public 2nd grade teacher, I consider myself pretty aware of what kids are being taught these days. They certainly are being gradually introduced to some of the problems of the world, but I think childhood development experts would all agree that's healthy. As for them being told they're the source or victim that's hardly the case. I'm sure there are a few isolated incidents that right-wing media love to bang on about, but not the experience for most.
Issues like what? Civilization? Ending slavery? Those aren't teachings, they are genocidal lies.
Not sure about you but I didn’t learn my native language phrase by phrase only. You learn the individual parts and concepts and construct sentences from that.
He learned it from being on Earth? And noticing that some people who used to be on Earth aren’t anymore? And it dawning on him that he doesn’t have to be either?
I’m with you on this. Granted my oldest is only 5, but anything profound my kids say can be traced back to something they heard
Teachers / schools / mandatory privilege education
You seem to have a pretty narrow view of the world, especially about “privilege education.” FWIW I’ve never once heard anything about “white people bad” from my kiddo, about 10.

It’s also impossible to to talk about idk Columbus, slavery, Great Britain, or the founding of America (and like ya know, the treatment of native Americans) without ascribing some blame to the people responsible…who were by and large “white”. We also talk about how any judgement based on skin, appearance, gender, ethnicity, or religion, is flat out wrong.

Come on, 7 year olds should have already learned to form phrases.
No, you see, this phrase must have appeared in his training set.
As someone with bad mental health since I was ~5 and parents who refused to acknowledge it - I think you're making the right decision.

There is however also benefit in updating your priors as new research comes out. I won't say this particular research discounts your experience. But maybe some day your son will prefer a different medication.

I appreciate your candor in this. A respectful and on-going discussion and dialogue about this subject is really the best way forward for us all.
The solution for suicidal thoughts is a drug known to induce suicidal thoughts?

You said elsewhere that there were "no known long-term side effects". Aside from that not being universally true for any drug I've ever personally researched, no side effect is more long-term than suicide.

It's also horrifying to hear your 7-year old child talk about committing suicide when you have a deep family history of depression, anxiety, and suicide.

Have some empathy.

Why? If a kid has diabetes, would it be horrifying to treat it? Why would it be different for a neurochemistry issue that makes the same kid tired and sad all the time?
Because the problem's not a "neurochemistry issue" (that theory's been debunked and the "chemicals" in play have never been known), and the solution is "no better than placebo."
Can you provide a source for that theory having been debunked? I agree that data has been found that is at odds with the various neurochemical theories but am not aware of the neurochemistry link as a whole having been definitely debunked.
Whenever I read a comment like this, I’m always curious if the commenter did some basic searching of their own. Just searching “chemical imbalance debunked” yields a wide array of sources. So why ask? It seems almost like a form of Socratic questioning. You want to debate the point, but for whatever reason, are not doing so directly.
I'll take this sincerely, and ask you, is this really something you've a continuing curiosity about? I have a suspicion you understand what is taking place, but for whatever reason, are not expressing so directly. Are you asserting there is nothing more to discuss after one parses the search results for “chemical imbalance debunked”. The parent is quite clearly, at the minimum, meeting their parent's level of input, which essentially amounted to "this thing is debunked". As an onlooker and after a quick skim of the search query you suggested, I am still not exactly clear on what "neurochemistry issue [theory]" entails. What would help, is a more clear underpinning for what is being discussed, which your parent is suggesting, through question, before attempting to respond. I appreciate this personally!
Ah, well-put! I think we may be reacting differently to the same articles. My understanding is that while various neurochemical theories have not been proven as the general public seems to think, they have also not necessarily been disproven or debunked. Certainly it has not been proven that neurochemistry has no role at all.
I wouldn't recommend searching for "chemical imbalance debunked" unless you intend to confirm an existing bias. The internet will show you whatever you want, and there are enough people who distrust medical professionals that any search for "debunking" will be a minefield of fringe theories and grifters. I'd recommend someone start generally, searching for information about clinical depression, and then build on that to look at root causes and how the medical understanding of those root causes has changed over time.
Probably because the commenter is not a medical professional and isn't qualified to judge the veracity of anything they find. "Do your own research" is a fucking plague on our modern world and is why the internet is like wall to wall grifters now.

By all means, Google whatever you like, but if you show up to a doctors office waving WebMD sheets in a medical professionals face, you are going to be mocked and you deserve it.

Please share your qualifications for making a statement like this- do you work in biology? Are you knowledgeable about the underlying biology here, and the limitations of medical publications?
Not that I agree or disagree with the underlying claim but a call to "credentialism" to dismiss someone's opinion is not as strong in 2025 as you think it is.

The last few years have been a proof that even the "experts" are following strong political or personal ideology.

Also we don't live in the 18th century anymore. A lot of knowledge (especially around medicine) is open to the world. People can read papers, understand research etc.

In this area, having credentials makes a difference. Experts matter.

Few if any non-medical people can read medical papers and make sense of what they say. There is simply far too much context to evaluate such papers, especially in the cases of complex medical conditions.

> People can read papers, understand research etc.

Then he should cite the papers, point out the research, etc. Rather than dismissing the entire discipline and all its practitioners with a wave of the "common-sense mental illness isn't real" wand.

I hope you do realize that this comment thread is linked to an article that includes the words "Prozac no better than placebo" in its headline?
Yes, I do. I don't consider articles in the regular press to be even remotely worth looking at due to their high rate of inaccuracy. Here's the paper that the article refers to: https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356%2825%2900349-X/f...
These types of studies are published all the time and can easily be dismissed. Antidepressants are _only_ for major depression. Not mild or moderate. These studies that find no significance compared to a placebo are always tried in patients with all types of depression. Not just major.

It's so common it's a trope. "Antidepressants don't work" says the scientists testing antidepressants on things they're not supposed to work on.

Studies repeated with just major depression all conclude antidepressants are better than a placebo.

Click through the article to the study and you'll find they did not limit their study to must major

I don't think we know if it's a neurochemistry issue. From what I understand what was debunked was the idea that they worked by blocking the reuptake of serotonin specifically.
…so what?

There’s an interesting theory lately [0] that the antidepressant effect of SSRIs is actually unrelated to its effect on serotonin. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that this is completely true: serotonin has nothing to do with depression, increasing serotonin levels is useless for treating depression, and everything everyone has ever claimed about chemical imbalances causing depression is flat-out wrong.

If so, pharma companies should probably try to develop different drugs instead of new SSRIs. But it does not follow that a patient with depression ought not to take an SSRI. That would be like saying that taking aspirin for aches has been completely debunked because there is no connection between aches and aspirin’s anticoagulant effect.

[0] See, for example, https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/trkb-bdnf-and-depr...

"neurochemistry issue debunked" is a very weak argument about the (in)effectiveness of proper drugs for treatment of mental illness. It's not exactly known how they work but I am 100 percent sure SSRIs often have a very positive, even life changing effect. Moreover, every approved drug is tested 'double blind' exactly because the placebo effect has such a big biasing effect on subjectively appreciated outcomes. Only when ruling out pure placebo effect, a drug can be approved.
> Moreover, every approved drug is tested 'double blind' exactly because the placebo effect has such a big biasing effect on subjectively appreciated outcomes. Only when ruling out pure placebo effect, a drug can be approved.

Pretty weird the article we're commenting on about Prozac being no better than placebo for children is just now coming out when it was already approved for use in children, then.

> Because the problem's not a "neurochemistry issue" (that theory's been debunked and the "chemicals" in play have never been known), and the solution is "no better than placebo."

It most certainly has not been debunked and mind altering chemicals most certainly do work.

SSRIs have _questionable_ efficacy but that's not the same as proven to have none, which is an exceptionally high bar.

This is close minded dogma no better a religion.

If you don't have a serious model for what you are treating, then you are experimenting on your patients and hoping it works for unknown reasons. Not too different from folk remedies. Even worse, patients are essentially never informed that the doctor is throwing things at the wall hoping something sticks.
You just described what psychiatrists do.

(I have many first-hand and second-hand experiences.)

> This is horrifying.

I agree with this.

I've learned a lot through life, one thing I've learned is about detrimental long term physical and even social effects of antidepressants, and other medications like adderal. Both I used to take.

At this point in my life, if I realized my parents gave me an antidepressant prescription when I was SEVEN years old because I said something stupid WHEN I WAS SEVEN I'd be very disturbed and disappointed in them, I'd definitely give both of them a solid scolding.

Before you respond to this remember I'm talking about me. Not your kid or your friends kid or your cousins kid.

EDIT: Quick edit to add when I was a kid I was a total outcast, I was weird, anxious, and definitely often depressed. A lot of kids in my religious schooling systems were.

My kids go to a ordinary public school. They are very bright, cautious, and thoughtful, and generally pretty happy and upbeat. There is a strong correlation between academic intelligence and mental illness. Being depressed to the point of being suicidal and having a sunny disposition are not mutually exclusive at all. I absolutely agree that it would be disturbing and disappointing for a child to be medicated because of something stupid they said when they were seven. I think medication may be appropriate if they show a consistent pattern over several months of physiological symptoms and reactions that are consistent with depression or anxiety, and cannot be explained by external factors like trauma or major life changes.
> My kids go to a ordinary public school. They are very bright, cautious, and thoughtful, and generally pretty happy and upbeat. There is a strong correlation between academic intelligence and mental illness. Being depressed to the point of being suicidal and having a sunny disposition are not mutually exclusive at all.

If my parents said this to me the moment I realized what I was on and that I had to deal with coming off of it late in life I would be beside myself.

I'd probably also look up the doctor that encouraged my parents to put their seven year old on SSRIs so I could warn friends.

These huge lists of side effects are haunting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_serotonin_reuptake_i... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoxetine

If my parents were like "uh well I had virtually no symptoms" I'd lose my mind!

Life sucks, I'm depressed all the time, kids are depressed all the time. There's material everywhere explaining a decline in general mental health. I'm happy and lucky that when my parents (or the one that was paying attention, who was certainly also depressed) noticed I was depressed or sad during a few events, some long lasting, they asked me about it, listened to me, and did their best to give me advice instead of giving up when I was seven and giving me drugs.

Remember when replying, this post has all been about myself, a victim of depression.

I'm a victim of depression too, and don't think it's fair that you say we "gave up." I would never give up on my child. You imply that we didn't talk to our son, listen to him, and do our best to give him advice before we discussed medication? Don't we all try to make the most well-informed decisions we can?

This decision was made collectively by me, my wife, our pediatrician, the child therapist, the psychiatrist, and for what it's worth also my son. We did extensive research. You may disagree with our decision, but please don't cast aspersions on how much we care.

No, it's not.

Medicine is advancing. We're increasingly able to understand and adjust dysfunctions that cause major, negative quality of life impacts. These dysfunctions have always existed, we're just getting better at finding ways to help people work through it.

This is empirically false; the rates of chronic physical and mental illnesses nowadays are are far higher than e.g. 50 years ago, and these are serious illnesses, not the kind of thing that could have been just not noticed.
That's your opinion, that is not the general opinion of the professionals in the field.

I trust a cohort of scientists significantly more than anonymous strangers online, and you should too.

The data is very clear that the rate of mental illnesses is increasing. Rates of severe mental illnesses like Schizophrenia are also increasing.

NONE of the current theories being experimented with on patients have a concrete, proven scientific basis with some such as the decades-long SSRI scam have actively harmed patients and created physical dependence/addiction and actively causing harm to patients and their families (eg, SSRI-induced suicides).

I trust science, but I don't trust scientists any more than I trust any other human with their money, career, and reputation on the line. I trust the FDA and pharmaceutical company ethics even less (eg, Bayer knowingly selling HIV-infested drugs to hemophiliacs, saying Oxycotin is non-addictive, or the revolving door that allows non-working SSRIs to be released and marketed as working despite all evidence to the contrary).

Our ability to diagnose mental illnesses are improving.

50 years ago many people with mental illness would go undiagnosed. They would instead self-medicate through alcohol, illicit drugs, or risky behavior and die far too young after leading miserable lives.

This is an assertion, but there’s no supporting evidence and many indicators you are incorrect.

50 years ago was 1975. It wasn’t the dark ages and the worst cases were already being moved to asylums for at least 150 years before that.

Suicide in particular is hard to hide any suicide rates are going up despite treatment. If mental illness rates are the same as 50 years ago and more people are getting effective treatment, we’d expect per capita rates to decrease.

Impoverished third world countries where people have nothing but problems almost universally have higher reported happiness and less suicide.

Severe mental health issues don’t just go away because you drink and if alcohol could suppress the problems, we’d never have made treatments to begin with.

In terms of “self medicating” with drugs, we’re hitting an all-time high (pun intended). Risky and self destructive behavior is also way up as evidence with our prison systems overflowing.

Nothing indicates to me that mental health is improving and everything seems to indicate it getting worse despite all the attempted interventions.

You don't understand what having extreme anxiety at that age feels like.

As someone who lived through that, I refuse to let him. All of memories of school are just feeling anxious about everything, just tight and suffocated, always in a panic. I started living when I started taking anxiety pills at 39 years old, and I can see my 2 year old having the exact same anxiety ticks and fits I have.

I don't know at what age I'll medicate him, but I'll do it as soon as I notice he isn't coping and happy anymore.

Horrifying is forcing him to experience that because you can't comprehend us.

I'm sorry that you're dealing with this - it was my greatest fear at that point. That my daughter seems to not have my disposition and seems happy go lucky is the greatest thing ever. There's no rhyme or reason to my depression and anxiety, it's completely maladaptive and I'm relieved, that knock on wood, she stays happy and light while not having to shield herself from the horrors of the world.
The main issue I see is that the anxiety pill is a way to treat the symptoms, not the cause.

Do you think that there is a way to treat the underlying cause and not the symptoms?

How do you know an anxiety pill is treating symptoms only? What if the cause is physiological, and the pill treats that? It is entirely possible to sit in your therapist's office and mutually shrug because neither of you can find an underlying reason for your anxiety. Sometimes anxiety just is.
I had severe anxiety/depression and majorly recovered from the anxiety component through a year of dilligent transcendental meditation. It changes the brain structure and neurochemistry.

I was on medication during that period and it complemented my practice, provided a stable base to apply meditation and other recovery protocols.

I had panic attacks every morning before school. God, I hated school. Mainly because of the other kids, and when I was older, because of both the kids and the teachers. I remember telling my IT teacher I am using Linux (I forgot why I told her) and she was very condescending. I have a lot of other stories but yeah, school was an anxiety-inducing nightmare.
Often the cause is things that most people can handle, without being able to easily wield the tools to handle them. Having a pill that dulls the symptoms gives space to learn and become adept at the tools
Beyond obvious tumors/lesions/clots/abnormalities, we are not even close to being able to identify the cause of organic anxiety or mood disorders even if we wanted to.

We can say certain behaviors, experiences, illnesses and some genetic identifiers can trigger the conditions, but not the underlying cause. We can say things like some therapy and medication can help with the illness, but not the cause.

Not to trivialize therapy, but for many illnesses, not just mental, a portion of it can be described as ways of learning to live with the illness, not necessarily treating the underlying cause.

> Not to trivialize therapy, but for many illnesses, not just mental, a portion of it can be described as ways of learning to live with the illness, not necessarily treating the underlying cause.

Yeah, I feel like it's fair to describe the cognitive behavioral model. We're not necessarily looking for the cause of these thoughts and beliefs, tho they may come up, we're simply going to challenge them at face value and reinterpret the situation.

What if there is no rational cause?
I had terrible anxiety as a child and what I experienced dramatically affected the core of who I am. It is engrained in me and I struggle with it daily, though after decades I have surpassed a good portion of it. If a small dose can help someone have a somewhat "normal" childhood, then its worth a try.
If you're horrified that we are in a world and society where a 7yo has been put in a position where antidepressants help them, yeah, that's understandable. If you're horrified that a kid is taking them, that the parents sought medical intervention for "just a kid", then, I'd say you're reacting to the concept of a kid on antidepressants than actually listening to the OP and their family's history and story.

Often, people react to the concept of a thing rather than the ground reality of life and its complexities of lived experience. Most people also extrapolate (in either direction) others' lived experiences based on their learnings, understandings, pasts and future ambitions. In this case especially, there's also added stigma around mental health, antidepressants and the locus of personal responsibility when it comes to mental health issues.

The _concept_ of a child on antidepressants suspends trust in parents, that's often assumed and unquestioned depending, depending on the child's age. Maybe close to 18yo? Supportive parents. 7yo? Horrible parents. I'd argue it also tends to suspend critical thinking and introduces an unshakeable bias, that a child of 7yo _never [ever]_ needs antidepressants. Why? What makes you say that? What's your evidence and reasoning?

If you feel so horrified by that, can you consider for a moment that the parents recognize the weight and gravity of this decision too? That they had to really think this through, pursue more thorough medical advice than usual, make a judgement call, and have to live through this decision throughout all their lives?

OP's response to multiple comments indicates that they did not make this decision lightly and without making sure that this was the better thing to do overall. I commend OP's openness and honesty in talking about it. It's certainly inspiring to see a parent care for their child's mental health, and not dismissing that to be "oh, the kid's just young and moody, they'll feel better tomorrow."

PS. We (as a society) are always learning more and newer things about mental health and treatments. It might look like we know a lot. Perhaps. But we also don't know so much!

Why?
Because 7 years old is borderline too young to even make a depression diagnosis, and that kid's going to have his brain chemistry altered and essentially be addicted to a drug that he'll have to pay for for the rest of his life.
According to our pediatrician there are no known long-term effects of juvenile Prozac use. The effects may exist, but if they do they are of sufficiently low significance as to not have been detected yet. Interestingly the one possible effect she's aware of is that there may be a correlation with not growing as tall physically as one might otherwise. The data is not conclusive, but it gives me something to blame for topping out at 5'10" and never hitting 6' like my dad. :)
I appreciate how open and honest you have been in this discussion. While it might be that taking Prozac is the best choice for your child, I have to admit I would never let a pediatrician prescribe Prozac (or any other SSRI) - this is enough outside their normal training, I would want to consult with a specialist. Can't you get a referral to a pediatric psychiatrist of some sort?
Your pediatrician is either mistaken or lying. Children and adolescents who take SSRIs for major depressive disorder show increased rates of suicidal ideation, suicidal behavior, and hostility towards others. These effects persist for at least 9 months after starting SSRIs.[1]

Common side effects of long-term SSRI use in adults include weight gain, emotional numbing, loss of libido, and sexual dysfunction. It seems to me that anyone taking SSRIs when their brain is still developing would be more likely to have these side effects, and to have them persist after ceasing use.

It's anecdotal, but I know some people who were prescribed SSRIs during puberty. It's not possible to know how they would have turned out if they hadn't taken these drugs, but as adults I pity them. Their lack of sex drive causes relationship problems, which is especially sad since they do want children. They're starting to get older, so I doubt it'll ever happen.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_serotonin_reuptake_i...

I thought we were talking about long-term effects, i.e. ones that persist to and through adulthood? The sources in that Wiki article appear not to address that.

The clinicians I've interacted with have always warned me of the possible side-effects of psychotropic medications, and said they should be notify immediately if the side-effects appear. I believe this is at least standard procedure, if not legally required?

I do have a low libido. Can't say whether or not that's due to Prozac, but regardless it hasn't negatively affected my life, probably because it was low before I met my wife. If someone enters a relationship while their libido is at one level and then during the relationship it changes considerably then I can certainly see how that could be a major challenge. That's an important thing to weigh when evaluating medication.

In addition to the increased rates of suicidal behavior and aggression in children (which we know lasts for at least 9 months, but don't know if it's longer because the study only ran for that long), the Wikipedia article talks about long term effects in adults, at least one of which you have. Why should it be less likely for children to end up with these same issues?

You are asking for evidence that does not exist because nobody has done good studies on it. That's too high of a bar. There are many drugs and life interventions that we don't have studies on regarding children, but that doesn't mean those things are safe for children. To use an example so ridiculous that we can both agree on it: There are no studies showing long term effects of fentanyl on children. Yet if some parent managed to get a fentanyl prescription for their kid, I think we would both be concerned.

Obviously I'm not implying that giving a child Prozac is as harmful as fentanyl. I'm saying that your line of reasoning proves too much. If someone did get their kid on a dangerous drug, and defended their decision by pointing out that there are no studies on children showing its long term harm, there is nothing you can say to that parent that others in this thread haven't already said to you. That should give you pause.

This is one of the most shocking things I have ever read. There is a black box warning for Prozac:

‘Warning: Suicidality and Antidepressant Drugs

Increased risk of suicidal thinking and behavior in children, adolescents, and young adults taking antidepressants for Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and other psychiatric disorders’

Read the package insert: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2011/01...

The fact that you were not informed about this should serve as proof that you cannot blindly trust what doctors tell you. They will absolutely kill you out of ignorance or incompetence, and never even realize their responsibility.

Note that the black box warning has nothing to do with long-term effects of the medication. It was added specifically because kids were killing themselves within weeks of starting the medication.

> This is one of the most shocking things I have ever read.

Good grief. I hope you're exaggerating for effect.

We were certainly informed of this. I didn't count it among the long-term health effects. I'm an educated and skeptical person but have never found any reason to distrust my physicians.
This is such a blatant misrepresentation of the parent post that it feels almost bad faith.

The subject was specifically about long term brain chemistry changes.

People committing suicide after taking it, while incredibly sad, is completely unrelated.

How can you believe it's both "no better than placebo" but also that it's "going to have his brain chemistry altered and essentially be addicted to a drug". SSRIs are not considered addictive, though people can develop a dependence if it provides them significant improvement.
The whole point of the linked article is that the drug is no better at placebo at treating depression but also carries a host of known side effects, besides unknowns when it comes to long term use. They're not saying it's inert.
That's fair, though I never implied that there were no side effects. The part I was trying to point out in the quote was the mention of it being addictive which is not really supported, nor is that mentioned in the article.
A drug can have real effects while being no better than a placebo for doing something specific (what they're supposed to do).
Okay, so what makes you believe that about prozac (or SSRIs) then?
Here’s a paper from last year: The nature and impact of antidepressant withdrawal symptoms and proposal of the Discriminatory Antidepressant Withdrawal Symptoms Scale (DAWSS) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadr.2024.100765

‘Highlights

• Antidepressant withdrawal can be severe and protracted.

• It produces characteristic physical and emotional symptoms.

• All symptoms were more severe after stopping than before starting antidepressants.

• We identified the 15 most discriminatory withdrawal symptoms in our sample.

• Withdrawal did not differ between people with physical or mental health diagnoses.’

O cool. Do you have any appointments I can book for my kid?
Mine too! Only 2 years old but I can already see the massive anxiety bursts in him.

If this guy has a non chemical cure, I'm all for it. In fact I'm actively researching children psychologists to stave off the meds as much as we can, the problem is that 99% of psychologists are quacks, so choosing them is tough.

There's only so many times a kid can get sent home from school for biting/kicking/punching before you realize you need some professional help and will do anything to help the poor kid. I wish you luck.

This item has no comments currently.

Keyboard Shortcuts

Story Lists

j
Next story
k
Previous story
Shift+j
Last story
Shift+k
First story
o Enter
Go to story URL
c
Go to comments
u
Go to author

Navigation

Shift+t
Go to top stories
Shift+n
Go to new stories
Shift+b
Go to best stories
Shift+a
Go to Ask HN
Shift+s
Go to Show HN

Miscellaneous

?
Show this modal