Started By
Message

Interesting Article About SSRI's. HHS Director Kennedy vs Congress

Posted on 5/21/26 at 8:03 am
Posted by lake chuck fan
Vinton
Member since Aug 2011
23832 posts
Posted on 5/21/26 at 8:03 am
The portion below that states "the FDA doesn't have a clue how any of th SSRI's work" is mind boggling.....

quote:


Republished with permission from AbleChild
In light of the recent mental health summit in which the Health and Human Services Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr, announced initiatives to reduce overprescribing of psychiatric drugs, AbleChild couldn’t resist a second look at the 2025 letter to the HHS Secretary from 26 Members of Congress “demanding” Kennedy rescind several statements about mental health.

quote:


Of course, these are just a few of the numerous mass shootings that have occurred while the perpetrators were taking the very “medications” the Congressmen and women are so eager to protect. But it actually is more than that. AbleChild would suggest that these Members of Congress should consider what is known and not known about the psychiatric “medications” they so desperately want to protect.

For instance, the Members of Congress may find it interesting that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not have a clue how exactly any of the prescribed psychiatric drugs “work” as “treatment” for any psychiatric diagnosis.

Further, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) uses the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, which was created by literally voting by a show of hands for each of the diagnoses in the book. There is no science to support any abnormality in the brain that is any psychiatric diagnosis. Worse, the long reporter “chemical imbalance” was thoroughly debunked in 2022 by Dr. Joanna Moncrieff who made it clear in her peer-reviewed study that the “chemical imbalance, “specifically low serotonin, is a myth not supported by scientific evidence.”


quote:


Even the former head of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), Thomas Insel, had the integrity to admit that he had spent 13 years at NIMH “really pushing on the neuroscience and genetics of mental disorders…and I don’t think we moved the needle in reducing suicide, reducing hospitalizations, improving recovery for the tens of millions of people who have mental illness.” Yes, Insel spent an admitted $20 billion that Congress appropriated and got nothing in return except, according to Insel “lots of really cool papers published by cool scientists at fairly large costs.”

Now let’s consider the nuts and bolts of the psychiatric drug “medications,” antidepressants, that Congress is so emotionally attached and how the HHS Secretary’s concerns about violence associated with the “treatments” is worthy of serious consideration.

Let’s review the possible side effects associated with Prozac, the first SSRI antidepressant. Anxiety, confusion, difficulty with concentration, mood or behavior changes, amnesia, hyperkinesia, sensory disturbances, depression, dyskinesia, memory impairment, abnormal dreams, agitation, emotional lability, hostility, hypomania, mania, personality disorder, thinking abnormal, depersonalization, paranoid reaction, aggression, suicidal thoughts, and behavior and suicide attempt to name a few.

In fact, all of the SSRI antidepressants carry similar possible adverse events and the FDA black box warning for suicidality. This is the most serious warning the FDA produces before pulling drugs from the market. Certainly, these lawmakers must be aware that with the increase in prescribing antidepressants comes an increase in suicides among the nation’s youth. And let’s not be confused about suicide as it is very much a violent act.



LINK
This post was edited on 5/21/26 at 8:04 am
Posted by kingbob
Sorrento, LA
Member since Nov 2010
70548 posts
Posted on 5/21/26 at 8:06 am to
This is where I parked my car full of guns and fireworks that nice FBI lady gave me.
Posted by Boss
Member since Dec 2007
1797 posts
Posted on 5/21/26 at 8:10 am to
That article is poorly written with parsed quotes, assumptions, and no actual scientific data. But if it fits your narrative….
Posted by lake chuck fan
Vinton
Member since Aug 2011
23832 posts
Posted on 5/21/26 at 8:12 am to
quote:

That article is poorly written with parsed quotes, assumptions, and no actual scientific data. But if it fits your narrative….


I think thats exactly what the article is stating, the lack of scientific data surrounding SSRI's.
It's not MY narrative.
Posted by SaintsTiger
1,000,000 Posts
Member since Oct 2014
2108 posts
Posted on 5/21/26 at 8:15 am to
There was a Time cover story on SSRIs a while back. Summarized all the science showing SSRIs do not work but have guaranteed horrible side effects.

Posted by lake chuck fan
Vinton
Member since Aug 2011
23832 posts
Posted on 5/21/26 at 8:43 am to
quote:

There was a Time cover story on SSRIs a while back. Summarized all the science showing SSRIs do not work but have guaranteed horrible side effects.


Big Pharma lobbyist working hard and spending dollars to keep this off the radar...
Posted by LemmyLives
Texas
Member since Mar 2019
16192 posts
Posted on 5/21/26 at 8:53 am to
quote:

Big Pharma lobbyist working hard

As opposed to little pharma?

I think SSRIs had a more societally damaging effect: the problem isn't your parenting, and your kid's behavior isn't their fault. Fast forward 40 years, and 3 year olds are expressing gender confusion, everyone has ADHD and anxiety, gets "overstimulated" and all that associated horseshite.

Prozac started all of that.
Posted by lake chuck fan
Vinton
Member since Aug 2011
23832 posts
Posted on 5/21/26 at 9:07 am to
quote:

As opposed to little pharma?

I think SSRIs had a more societally damaging effect: the problem isn't your parenting, and your kid's behavior isn't their fault. Fast forward 40 years, and 3 year olds are expressing gender confusion, everyone has ADHD and anxiety, gets "overstimulated" and all that associated horseshite.

Prozac started all of that.


I agree with you. Not sure about the sarcastic statement about little pharma.
You don't think the huge pharmaceutical corporations that make and sell SSRI's don't have lobbyists in DC attempting to influence Congressmen?
Or you just didn't read the article??
Posted by LemmyLives
Texas
Member since Mar 2019
16192 posts
Posted on 5/21/26 at 9:26 am to
quote:

little pharma.

Anytime someone begins an argument with "big" (oil/pharma/tech/etc.), "big" is used to elicit emotional reactions and responses, rather than logical or factual.

What does a prescription for Prozac cost? It's $9 at Walgreens, and $0 and H-E-B according to GoodRX. How many tens of millions is Eli Lilly seriously going to spend lobbying congress for it? They spend way more money advertising drugs on TV than they do almost anything else. And that's directed at you, not congress.
Posted by lake chuck fan
Vinton
Member since Aug 2011
23832 posts
Posted on 5/21/26 at 9:28 am to
quote:

quote:
little pharma.

Anytime someone begins an argument with "big" (oil/pharma/tech/etc.), "big" is used to elicit emotional reactions and responses, rather than logical or factual.

What does a prescription for Prozac cost? It's $9 at Walgreens, and $0 and H-E-B according to GoodRX. How many tens of millions is Eli Lilly seriously going to spend lobbying congress for it? They spend way more money advertising drugs on TV than they do almost anything else. And that's directed at you, not congress.


You do know there are other "anti depression " meds than Prozac, right?

So your position is that Big Pharma doesn't lobby Congress?


I checked with Grok:

quote:


PhRMA (the main trade group for big pharma) spent a record ~$38.2 million.

opensecrets.org

Top company spenders included Amgen (~$13.3M), Pfizer (~$12.9M), Roche, Eli Lilly, Merck, and Bristol-Myers Squibb (many reporting decade-highs).

opensecrets.org

The industry dominated lobbying overall, outspending every other sector. It was on pace for records early in the year (e.g., ~$227M in the first half).

readsludge.com

This lobbying focuses heavily on drug pricing, Medicare negotiations, patents/orphan drugs, regulatory issues, and responses to Trump administration policies.


This post was edited on 5/21/26 at 9:31 am
Posted by NC_Tigah
Make Orwell Fiction Again
Member since Sep 2003
139071 posts
Posted on 5/21/26 at 9:49 am to
quote:

the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not have a clue how exactly any of the prescribed psychiatric drugs “work” as “treatment” for any psychiatric diagnosis.
That is a misleading innuendo.

The same could have been said of Penicillin, Aspirin, etc., when they were found effective.

We actually know exactly what what SSRIs do. It's inherent in their name. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) selectively inhibit serotonin reuptake with little concomitant effect on other neurotransmitters.

A neuron (axon) releases serotonin into the synapse as a transmitter. The serotonin binds to specific receptors on the receiving neuron (dendrites/body), transmitting the signal through that neuron to the next or next group. Normally, the transmitting axon removes the serotonin from the synapse (reuptake), and signal transmission ends. An SSRI blocks that reuptake, so the serotonin continues to trigger transmission.

We also know a range of effects that serotonin causes. We don't yet know how or why specific serotonergic effects occur. Just as we don't know why two identically appearing brains can represent a massive IQ spread. Neuroplasticity, receptor remodelling, etc. are probable mechanisms.
Posted by Bjorn Cyborg
Member since Sep 2016
35579 posts
Posted on 5/21/26 at 9:52 am to
Rogan talks about this regularly.

SSRIs are all bullshite and based on pseudo-science. The entire concept of "chemical imbalance" is fake.
Posted by TigerDoc
Texas
Member since Apr 2004
11880 posts
Posted on 5/21/26 at 10:04 am to
The “chemical imbalance” messaging absolutely got oversold to the public at one point IMO. But people also overcorrect now into “therefore antidepressants are fake”.

Those are different questions: do SSRIs help some people? do we fully understand why? did psychiatry oversimplify its explanations?

You can answer those differently without turning it into either “trust Big Pharma” or “all psychiatry is a scam”.
Posted by TigerDoc
Texas
Member since Apr 2004
11880 posts
Posted on 5/21/26 at 10:10 am to
The “chemical imbalance” messaging absolutely got oversold in the 90's, but people also overcorrect now into “therefore antidepressants are fake.” Using products experts don't understand well is basically a property of modernity at this point.
This post was edited on 5/21/26 at 10:12 am
Posted by DeBoar
Cullman, AL
Member since Jan 2024
2037 posts
Posted on 5/21/26 at 10:13 am to
Anti depressants are terrible and way over prescribed. Just like how peptides are now. The problem isn’t being fixed with either for most people.
Posted by TigerDoc
Texas
Member since Apr 2004
11880 posts
Posted on 5/21/26 at 10:14 am to
I think they're overprescribed and good actually. How are they terrible aside from overprescription?
This post was edited on 5/21/26 at 10:16 am
Posted by WeeWee
Member since Aug 2012
45582 posts
Posted on 5/21/26 at 10:18 am to
As a medical provider who prescribes SSRIs regularly. I am sure going to pay attention to an article that starts off with this.



Having that picture at the start of an article has to be a sign that it is a well written and well sourced and peer reviewed article, right?

Although I am a little confused if I should be triggered by the noose in the picture. Should I send an email to the NAACP asking if I should be offended or can one of the boards SJWs answer the question for me?
Posted by DeBoar
Cullman, AL
Member since Jan 2024
2037 posts
Posted on 5/21/26 at 10:23 am to
quote:

think they're overprescribed and good actually. How are they terrible aside from overprescription?


It doesn’t address the root cause. Just like people who get procedures like lap band have an extremely high failure rate after because they don’t change habits. As for SSRI most people don’t change lifestyle habits as well and it leads to increased problems. Look at every trans kid or school shooter. This is a small group but upwards of 20% and mass prescription of SSRIs are pretty recent. 30% of all suicides we’re on SSRI and again mass prescription has only been the last few decades so that number is insanely high.
This post was edited on 5/21/26 at 10:25 am
Posted by TigerDoc
Texas
Member since Apr 2004
11880 posts
Posted on 5/21/26 at 10:27 am to
The funny thing is there actually ARE legitimate debates worth having here about overprescribing, diagnostic inflation, side effects, etc. Then they slap a lynching for psych image at the top and instantly make the whole thing look like unc Facebook groups.
Posted by TigerDoc
Texas
Member since Apr 2004
11880 posts
Posted on 5/21/26 at 10:31 am to
I agree with part of what you’re saying here. Medication without changes in sleep, exercise, relationships, purpose, substance use, etc. is often incomplete treatment. Psychiatry probably has drifted too far toward “prescription as solution” at times. But the suicide/SSRI numbers are hard to interpret because the people most likely to be prescribed antidepressants are also the people already at higher risk for suicide in the first place.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 4Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram