> my 7-year-old son just started half that dose
This is horrifying.
This is horrifying.
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.
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.
Could it be that we think it's healthy because we can just give meds to the kids that it affects?
How would someone even have the ability to say "it's healthy" - I'm struggling to think how it comes about. I think it's healthy for my kids to cry about a worm dying in the garden, but anything less than "anxiety about a dying planet"...
Put it another way: climate change messaging IS totally about anxiety and putting human as the cause, so we can (as adults) change our habits and save the planet. Could it be too much for kids though?
(so in this particular situation, maybe highschool / early adult)
I only felt motivated to annoy my parents to recycle more. Since the effects were not directly in front of me a strong emotional reaction didn't occur.
Perhaps there are children who already have anxiety and latch onto climate change and other problems.
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.
It sounds like you made a wise decision given your personal and family history and your son is benefiting. Kudos.
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.)
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.
Have some empathy.
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.
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.
I have had a lot of Spinal and sleep issues. I have read almost all new literature on this niche subject and I have brought to my spine doctor some new therapy and treatments they had literally no idea about. Those treatments have changed my life.
As an engineer I read a lot of deep technical paper as my day job. Medical papers are comparatively relatively simple. The most complex part being usually the statistical data analysis.
We have pushed to a whole generation of people that only the "experts" can have opinion on some fields. I encourage everyone to read papers and have opinions on some of those subjects.
We are in 2025. That type of gatekeeping needs to go away. AI if anything, is going to really help with this as well.
It's also good to work with your doctors (as you seem to have done), have a discussion, and mutually agree on a plan of treatment.
Experts don't know everything. But they probably know some things you don't, and can think of questions you might not to have even thought to ask. As the saying goes, "you don't know what you don't know". Experience matters.
There's also a lot of people out there without an academic background that don't know how to properly read journal papers. It's common to see folks do a quick search on PubMed, cherry-pick a single paper they agree with, and treat it as gospel - even if there's no evidence of repeatability. These skills are not something that many people outside STEM are exposed to.
My experience in journal club- basically, a group of grad students who all read a paper and then discuss it in person- taught me that most papers are just outright wrong for technical reasons. I'd say about 1 in 5 to 1 in 10 papers passes all the basic tests, and even the ones that do pass can have significant problems. For example, there is an increasing recognition that many papers in biology and medicine have fake data, or manipulated data, or corrupted data, or incorrectly labelled data. I know folks who've read papers and convinced themselvs the paper is good, when later the paper was retracted because the authors copied a few gels into the wrong columns...
The knowledge is out there. Yes there are a ton of bogus papers and a ton of bad research. Not everyone got the critical knowledge to figure this out but I also don't think this is only reserved to the "experts". They are also subject to groupthink and other political pressure to think a specific way.
At the end of the day, do your best own research and work with your "expert" to agree on a solution.
Pushing back on people reading paper is an anti-intellectual take (to use the same wording as another poster below).
There's nothing wrong with having an opinion on something as a non-expert, as long as those opinions are not acted upon or relied upon as a source of reliable information. Read papers, watch YouTube, browse WebMD, satisfy your curiosity--knock yourself out. But don't undergo treatment without working with an actual expert! I'm not an expert on orbital mechanics, but I have played KSP and have formed various opinions about it. But nobody should be listening to me for advice on how to launch a rocket.
We need gatekeeping for a reason, especially in the medical field which is rife with miracle cures, snake oil, herbal remedies, detoxes, homeopathy, and other forms of quackery.
Believing my "research" is better than my specialist's education is a path back to the dark ages.
Doing your research should not be in competition with your specialist's education. It should be complementary as yet another source of information.
I'm not saying experts are wrong but I also don't think they are particularly always right. They are human and they have strong groupthink. They will agree and disagree with some takes based on their personal or political beliefs.
If you get rid of the scare quotes, you can spend 10x or 100x as long as your doctor when researching something specific enough. That has many advantages, even without the training.
> is a path back to the dark ages.
This is quippy but doesn't actually make sense.
Yes, experts are wrong all the time, they have the disability of being human, but this seems like an extremely anti-intellectual take.
You seem to think that the educated class got a monopoly on knowledge on that field, yet after that claim to know that experts are wrong all the time. The anti-intellectual take is to give up on trying to understand as much as you can in a field because you don't have the right credentials to do so. Yes, medical papers are not that complicated to read.
That doesn't make you more competent than your doctor. But it probably makes you a better advocate for yourself than your doctor is.
My point is: Don't discount yourself reading papers and doing your own research. Then work with your "credentialed experts" to come to an agreement. Don't ever think that the "experts" got your best interest at heart.
That said, I have a tough time believing that spending an hour on Sci-Hub makes you better at diagnosis, yourself or otherwise, than someone who spent a decade being educated with decades of practicing. Thinking that you know better than trained experts because you have an understanding of the very beginning of a field is overwhelmingly tempting but is generally not based in reality. Usually the people who have actually been trained in the field know more about the field than a random person who read a few papers that they thought were "comparatively relatively simple".
I read papers all the time, usually formal methods, but sometimes other fields like medicine, and I will sometimes leave the medical paper thinking that it's "easier" than what I study, but I think that's just Dunning Kruger. I know more about formal methods, so I know a lot more about what I don't know, and thus I feel like it's harder. I don't know a ton about medicine, and since I don't know what I don't know it can feel like I know everything, and I have to fight this urge.
By all means, read about research in whatever ailment you have, I'm not really trying to discourage that, but I feel like dismissing experts in the field is almost the definition of "anti-intellectualism". If you find a study that you think is promising, bring it to your doctor. Hell, bring it to a dozen doctors, multiple opinions isn't a bad thing.
I just don't like the general "don't trust experts" thing that seems to be flying around certain circles now.
I'm not saying you issued such a dismissal, but the comment that started this thread did so.
The excuse from my doctor? "I didn't know!"
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.
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
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.
So should I not have done my own research?
With that said, the first few search results for the query were from the journal Nature, the NIH, and Harvard university. Hardly the loony or malicious caricature that you attempt to paint.
The average medical professional is worst-placed to judge the veracity of any studies they find than the average engineer or mathematician who's done a solid statistics and probability course. Medical students are assessed on their ability to memorise and regurgitate facts, not on their ability to conduct statistical analysis.
The caveat you cite applies to basically any and all internet (or even media) consumption, and is therefore a non-argument.
I will say if you search for "chemical imbalance debunked" as discussed, the first result for me is a paper that also says dyslexia cannot be proved to be a disorder. Which just from vibes feels really conspiratorial, even without making comments on the veracity of the academic paper.
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...
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.
(I have many first-hand and second-hand experiences.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I trust a cohort of scientists significantly more than anonymous strangers online, and you should too.
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).
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.
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.
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.
Do you think that there is a way to treat the underlying cause and not the symptoms?
I was on medication during that period and it complemented my practice, provided a stable base to apply meditation and other recovery protocols.
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.
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.
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!
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.
‘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.’
‘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.
> This is one of the most shocking things I have ever read.
Good grief. I hope you're exaggerating for effect.
Are you disturbed by that claim? That's what you're raising your hand to.
Edit: in case the OP is reading, I should say also that the package insert won’t mention many other potential long term effects addressed in the literature, like extra pyramidal symptoms (akathisia, Parkinsonism, dystonia, tardive dyskinesia).
Another edit: ask GPT-5 ‘What are the long term side effects of Prozac use which aren’t addressed in the package insert?’ for a list.
What are the long-term effects of suicide?
A 7-year-old kid doesn't understand what suicide really means. Putting them on something that encourages a behavior that they don't understand and has completely catastrophic results isn't a risk I would take with my children.
The subject was specifically about long term brain chemistry changes.
People committing suicide after taking it, while incredibly sad, is completely unrelated.
Lower bone mineral density, increased risk of fractures, osteoporosis
Sexual dysfunction / PSSD (Post-SSRI Sexual Dysfunction)
extra pyramidal symptoms (akathisia, Parkinsonism, dystonia, tardive dyskinesia)
emotional blunting / apathy
slowed thinking, brain fog
increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding
QT prolongation
On the other hand, I watched family members take these drugs, and their lives seem somehow dulled-- filled with banal tragedy, like staying in a bad marriage, or not being particularly interested in their grandchildren. I have a theory that the drugs make palatable that which otherwise wouldn't be, hence they stay in the bad marriage, the bad job, and they watch their bad TV and eat their bad food and everything is fine. I've also seen one of them go off the drugs, and for a couple months they were a much more vibrant person. I saw them express joy. I feel a low grade rage toward the industry that I've been deprived of this version of them. I do entertain the possibility that I'm imagining it all. Maybe things really would have been worse without the drugs. But I am glad no one ever insisted, or even strongly advocated I take them myself.
A large part of me dislikes being on any sort of medication long-term, and think most people have the same dislike. I have gone off of Prozac a few times and always found that I gradually became frustrated and depressed again, and as you said the reason for the dislike is ineffable, so I chose to go back on. I'm fortunate to have a life with no bad marriage, no bad job, and very little trauma at all, which is also unfortunate since it means despite years of therapy and introspection and travel and hobbies and other varied experiences I've never been able to find any cause for the depression and therefore no way to fix it, other than medication. It makes me think of Captain Picard: "It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness; that is life."
Yeah, I did that too, then I took some and I was less goddamn depressed aftwards.
Medication does not remove the need for therapy. If they are stuck in a bad situation and do not have the tools to come out of it, then in therapy they can learn about the tools and techniques.
Medication avoids having that particular day where everything hits rock bottom and the only solution seems to be suicide.
For some people just therapy is not sufficient but need also medication.
Psychiatric illness is something where many people have misunderstandings. Since many people go through depressive episodes, they feel that their experience is the same as others who are facing chronic depression. And since it is not physically visible, it is also hard to empathize with.
No one says you can come out of heart disease or diabetes by just bearing it bravely. Somehow for psychiatric illness people assume that it is something that can be braved out.
'AstraZeneca LP and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP will pay $520 million to resolve allegations that AstraZeneca illegally marketed the anti-psychotic drug Seroquel for uses not approved as safe and effective by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services’ Health Care Fraud Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) announced today. Such unapproved uses are also known as "off-label" uses because they are not included in the drug’s FDA approved product label.
[..]
The United States alleges that AstraZeneca illegally marketed Seroquel for uses never approved by the FDA. Specifically, between January 2001 through December 2006, AstraZeneca promoted Seroquel to psychiatrists and other physicians for certain uses that were not approved by the FDA as safe and effective (including aggression, Alzheimer’s disease, anger management, anxiety, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, bipolar maintenance, dementia, depression, mood disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and sleeplessness). These unapproved uses were not medically accepted indications for which the United States and the state Medicaid programs provided coverage for Seroquel.
According to the settlement agreement, AstraZeneca targeted its illegal marketing of the anti-psychotic Seroquel towards doctors who do not typically treat schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, such as physicians who treat the elderly, primary care physicians, pediatric and adolescent physicians, and in long-term care facilities and prisons.
[..]
The United States contends that AstraZeneca promoted the unapproved uses by improperly and unduly influencing the content of, and speakers, in company-sponsored continuing medical education programs. The company also engaged doctors to give promotional speaker programs on unapproved uses for Seroquel and to conduct studies on unapproved uses of Seroquel. In addition, the company recruited doctors to serve as authors of articles that were ghostwritten by medical literature companies and about studies the doctors in question did not conduct. AstraZeneca then used those studies and articles as the basis for promotional messages about unapproved uses of Seroquel.
"Illegal acts by pharmaceutical companies and false claims against Medicare and Medicaid can put the public health at risk, corrupt medical decisions by health care providers, and take billions of dollars directly out of taxpayers’ pockets," said Attorney General Eric Holder. "This Administration is committed to recovering taxpayer money lost to health care fraud, whether it’s by bringing cases against common criminals operating out of vacant storefronts or executives at some of the nation’s biggest companies."
The United States also contends that AstraZeneca violated the federal Anti-Kickback Statute by offering and paying illegal remuneration to doctors it recruited to serve as authors of articles written by AstraZeneca and its agents about the unapproved uses of Seroquel. AstraZeneca also offered and paid illegal remuneration to doctors to travel to resort locations to "advise" AstraZeneca about marketing messages for unapproved uses of Seroquel, and paid doctors to give promotional lectures to other health care professionals about unapproved and unaccepted uses of Seroquel. The United States contends that these payments were intended to induce the doctors to prescribe Seroquel for unapproved uses in violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. '
The takeaway is that anytime a physician prescribes you a drug, at the very least you have to check that there hasn't been a gigantic fine levied against the drug maker for illegally tricking your doctor into prescribing it to you.
It's horrible that A-Z would illegally market drugs for off-label uses -- I would not disagree for a minute with your reasoning! -- but we retain this "escape hatch" because it is important to patient health
without the off-label "escape hatch," we would not have, for example, the glp-1 class of anti-obesity drugs, or, buproprion for smoking cessation, the most effective drug ever found in its area.
We needed doctors working firsthand with patients, and building "anecdotal" (i.e. case-based) evidence to learn things that really matter on a population level
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...
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.
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.