don't care what the scilons say, psychiatry now a sick joke

[nathan28]

There's another thread about a woman confusing DMT with mescaline with salvia active right now. That sort of "all drugs = all drugs" reasoning is anti-rational and shows a genuine unwillingness to commit to careful analysis of a problem.

I do hope you're not referencing me. I'm not confusing drugs with each other. As a matter of fact, that's why I had posted, to get things squared away so that I might understand, which has nothing to do with "all drugs = all drugs" and being "anti-rational". As a matter of fact, the woman who came to me with the comments about the DMT was specifically attempting to discern between the truth and the "urban legends" going around about it. So please don't use that thread as an example, as its a very poor one, and actually works against your argument. Especially with the amount of educated information going on in it.

Thank you.

No Maddy, I'm not referring to you but your thread, where your co-worker was spouting off what sounds like it was a lot of confusion. You did the right thing and asked a question instead of just smearing a bunch of half-knowledge together to make it less than the sum of its parts. Please don't think I was pointing to you, because I wasn't--I was pointing to your co-worker, who does sound mixed-up. I'm sorry not to have been clear enough.

But even with that said, it may just be that she was trying to start a conversation and that was her way of doing it! Maybe that was her way of 'asking'. If you got upset b/c I didn't make myself clear and it made you feel like I was calling you ignorant pejoratively, it's possible that she didn't want to show either curiosity in a forbidden subject or ignorance about it, either. That might be me being too generous, but I wasn't there, I don't know, and even if I was, I can't be sure I'd be so kind because I generally just disengage when people start saying stuff like that, but it's better to be generous and right about someone's honest efforts than stingy and wrong about them. So again, I didn't mean to go foul on you and apologies for not being more explicit about what I was talking about.

Sorry to cause any concern--that's the second time in two days where I've seen how low-context this medium is and how it can upset people who only read what I'm writing instead of being there talking to me!

[nathan28]

...But I think you've stepped into new territory using the "b" word, ... I'll just quietly back away now.

So now you hate puppies *and* their mothers?

[nathan28]

So, a general, all-points caution. I don't want people chucking their medication or deterred from seeking treatment on account of opinion read here.

As always, I am not a doctor, lawyer or financial professional and nothing I write should be taken as medical, legal or financial advice.

(IANADLFP/DYODD)


...did my back-to-back-to-back posting kill the thread?

[Maddy]

You didn't upset me. I have to have an emotional, or at least an intellectual attachment to people for them to upset me. I was simply clarifying - it was a bad choice of example. Perhaps I should apologize for my co-worker upsetting you, however. Sorry.

[thegovernmentflu]

Sorry, SSRIs are *not* at all like cocaine. They work on an entirely different class of neurotransmitter.

Cocaine produces its effects by boosting serotonin, dopamine and norepinephrine. SSRIs don't work exclusively on serotonin - they also have cross action on either dopamine or norepinephrine, depending on the antidepressant.

The fact that views critical of psychiatry are considered to be a ridiculous "fringe" topic among even the conspiracy intelligentsia is a central reason why I can't take the conspiracy community even remotely seriously. Years ago I was practically chased off the forum with virtual torches and pitchforks for daring to air anti-psychiatry views, so I'm going back into semi-permanent lurk mode after this post. Still, it's hard to resist jumping into the discussion just this once when I see people passionately defending the most overt form of social control in existence.

All mood-altering drugs produce their effects via neurotransmitter manipulation, but a lot of effort goes into implying that this is a unique property of psychiatric drugs. The "chemical imbalance theory" is just psychologically manipulative marketing to differentiate government drugs from the "immoral" recreational drugs. It's a hypothetical illness that would in theory transform the neurotransmitter altering effects of a drug into the equivalent of a "brain nutrient".

You can easily predict the effects of any mood-altering drug if you know which neurotransmitters it acts upon and whether the substance is an agonist or antagonist. Psychiatric drugs are supposedly the only drugs in existence that this doesn't apply to.

If you have two unlabeled substances that are both serotonin and dopamine agonists, you can correctly predict that both drugs will be euphoric stimulants. But if one of the drugs turns out to also have a Big Pharma brand name associated with it, then supposedly the drug boosts those neurotransmitters merely to compensate for an (undetectable) brain deficiency in dopamine and serotonin.

Daily use of serotonin agonists will result in serotonin receptor downregulation - in response to perpetual chemically elevated serotonin levels, the brain reduces its capacity to produce its own serotonin. This leads to severe lasting malaise and depression when the drugs are discontinued, actually very similar to the burnout experienced by long term users of club drugs and cocaine. This burnout is denied by psychiatrists, but keep in mind that prescription SSRIs are the ONLY serotonin agonists in existence that serotonin downregulation supposedly doesn't apply to.

Receptor downregulation is a reality of all mood-altering drugs, but it gets swept under the rug by psychiatrists because it directly contradicts the "chemical imbalance theory" of how psych drugs work. Obviously a serotonin deficiency was never the issue if the brain reduces the production of its own serotonin in reaction to an SSRI. But if a psychiatrist were to acknowledge serotonin downregulation, they'd also have to acknowledge that SSRIs are just uppers that artificially elevate the mood - and a lot of self important weasels would realize that they're nothing more than government drug dealers. Proponents of psychiatry have so much psychologically at stake in the matter, it's impossible to reason with them. It's very similar to dealing with cult members.

Psychiatric drugs are helpful, but they should be treated like any drug. That's the biggest problem with the "chemical imbalance" theory - it leaves patients and psychiatrists ill equipped to deal with the fallout caused by taking psychoactive drugs long term. If someone is sensitive to stimulants and reacts badly to SSRIs, they'll be told by a well-meaning psychiatrist that the drug "brought out" an underlying "manic depressive illness" and they'll then be urged to go on "bipolar medication" - in reality heavy tranquilizers - to even out the stimulant reaction. When a patient goes off an SSRI and experiences lasting horrific burnout as the result of serotonin receptor downregulation, the shrink will deny the existence of SSRI-induced rebound depression and will instead insist that the patient's "illness" is worsening. This is a form of abuse, and it's how lifelong drug victims are created.

Psychiatry negatively impacts us all, whether or not we want to acknowledge it. Exactly what do people mean when they snidely tell us to "get help" for believing in "conspiracy theories"? They're saying that we should go to a doctor to get "medication" for our "paranoia". And what does the "medication" do? Well, it just corrects an "imbalance" in dopamine. But if you do a little research, you'll find that dopamine suppression is the mechanism by which the drug induces heavy sedation. And once you've realized that "antipsychotics" are major tranquilizers, you face the stunning reality of the situation - our fellow citizens are conditioned to urge us to take heavy government tranquilizers if we express unpopular political views. If you truly take in the full scope of the situation, it suggests that our society has been far, far gone for decades.

[thegovernmentflu]

Sorry, SSRIs are *not* at all like cocaine. They work on an entirely different class of neurotransmitter.

Cocaine produces its effects by boosting serotonin, dopamine and norepinephrine. SSRIs don't work exclusively on serotonin - they also have cross action on either dopamine or norepinephrine, depending on the antidepressant.

The fact that views critical of psychiatry are considered to be a ridiculous "fringe" topic among even the conspiracy intelligentsia is a central reason why I can't take the conspiracy community even remotely seriously. Years ago I was practically chased off the forum with virtual torches and pitchforks for daring to air anti-psychiatry views, so I'm going back into semi-permanent lurk mode after this post. Still, it's hard to resist jumping into the discussion just this once when I see people passionately defending the most overt form of social control in existence.

All mood-altering drugs produce their effects via neurotransmitter manipulation, but a lot of effort goes into implying that this is a unique property of psychiatric drugs. The "chemical imbalance theory" is just psychologically manipulative marketing to differentiate government drugs from the "immoral" recreational drugs. It's a hypothetical illness that would in theory transform the neurotransmitter altering effects of a drug into the equivalent of a "brain nutrient".

You can easily predict the effects of any mood-altering drug if you know which neurotransmitters it acts upon and whether the substance is an agonist or antagonist. Psychiatric drugs are supposedly the only drugs in existence that this doesn't apply to.

If you have two unlabeled substances that are both serotonin and dopamine agonists, you can correctly predict that both drugs will be euphoric stimulants. But if one of the drugs turns out to also have a Big Pharma brand name associated with it, then supposedly the drug boosts those neurotransmitters merely to compensate for an (undetectable) brain deficiency in dopamine and serotonin.

Daily use of serotonin agonists will result in serotonin receptor downregulation - in response to perpetual chemically elevated serotonin levels, the brain reduces its capacity to produce its own serotonin. This leads to severe lasting malaise and depression when the drugs are discontinued, actually very similar to the burnout experienced by long term users of club drugs and cocaine. This burnout is denied by psychiatrists, but keep in mind that prescription SSRIs are the ONLY serotonin agonists in existence that serotonin downregulation supposedly doesn't apply to.

Receptor downregulation is a reality of all mood-altering drugs, but it gets swept under the rug by psychiatrists because it directly contradicts the "chemical imbalance theory" of how psych drugs work. Obviously a serotonin deficiency was never the issue if the brain reduces the production of its own serotonin in reaction to an SSRI. But if a psychiatrist were to acknowledge serotonin downregulation, they'd also have to acknowledge that SSRIs are just uppers that artificially elevate the mood - and a lot of self important weasels would realize that they're nothing more than government drug dealers. Proponents of psychiatry have so much psychologically at stake in the matter, it's impossible to reason with them. It's very similar to dealing with cult members.

Psychiatric drugs are helpful, but they should be treated like any drug. That's the biggest problem with the "chemical imbalance" theory - it leaves patients and psychiatrists ill equipped to deal with the fallout caused by taking psychoactive drugs long term. If someone is sensitive to stimulants and reacts badly to SSRIs, they'll be told by a well-meaning psychiatrist that the drug "brought out" an underlying "manic depressive illness" and they'll then be urged to go on "bipolar medication" - in reality heavy tranquilizers - to even out the stimulant reaction. When a patient goes off an SSRI and experiences lasting horrific burnout as the result of serotonin receptor downregulation, the shrink will deny the existence of SSRI-induced rebound depression and will instead insist that the patient's "illness" is worsening. This is a form of abuse, and it's how lifelong drug victims are created.

Psychiatry negatively impacts us all, whether or not we want to acknowledge it. Exactly what do people mean when they snidely tell us to "get help" for believing in "conspiracy theories"? They're saying that we should go to a doctor to get "medication" for our "paranoia". And what does the "medication" do? Well, it just corrects an "imbalance" in dopamine. But if you do a little research, you'll find that dopamine suppression is the mechanism by which the drug induces heavy sedation. And once you've realized that "antipsychotics" are major tranquilizers, you face the stunning reality of the situation - our fellow citizens are conditioned to urge us to take heavy government tranquilizers if we express unpopular political views. If you truly take in the full scope of the situation, it suggests that our society has been far, far gone for decades.

[Project Willow]

So now you hate puppies *and* their mothers?

Ah, le secret est dévoilé!

http://cuteoverload.com/

[American Dream]

Don't Drink, Don't Smoke, Prescription Drugs

Creator: Scumbag Bastard
Favorite Quote: "Rush Limbaugh is part of a drug ring."

[barracuda]

I'd also like to invite constructive feedback on this thread.

If things here went astray, when did that happen? Why did that happen?

Most importantly, what can we do to make things better?

I personally felt that this statement of yours, American Dream, was a turning point in the thread:

C2w, my primary concern is not specifically with Bruce Levine's blog post on Scientology' & Psychiatry in relation to the range of criticism that does indeed exist.

Rather it is with the broader points that his blog post raises. You repeatedly conflate all criticism of PsychoPharm with the discourse coming out of Scientology and its fronts and I know you know better than that.

There are a lot of groups and individuals that you unfairly smear with this sort of broad brushstroke argument, and I have named them to you several times before but you persist with your conflation. It's as if the Mad Liberation Movement does not exist, neither Mad Pride, nor the many writers and social critics not part of Scientology who do express criticism of psychophamaceuticals.

I can't tell whether you ignore what to me is legitimate dissent from the Psychiatric Orthodoxy due to a personal blind spot and/or as rhetorical device.

Either way, I quite honestly think you can do much better than that in articulating your own position wrt psychopharmaceuticals.


Sincerely and with genuine good will, as I think you can be a truly awesome thinker and writer,

A.D.

It's probably a bad idea to generalise in pejorative terms about the opinions of other posters which they have held (with what can really only be considered extreme nuance) over the course of the last three years, and arrive at propositions about those opinions which require said posters to cover an inordinate amount of territory simply to get back to square one in the discussion.

The thread was not about c2w's history of posting on the criticism of psychiatry, yet you challenged her with regard to that history (using a variety of charged language, including phrases such as "you repeatedly conflate all", "I know you know better than that", "you unfairly smear", "broad brushstroke argument", "you persist with your conflation", "you ignore what to me is legitimate dissent", and "personal blind spot", etc.) in such a way that you ought to have known would push her buttons, and which essentially comprised a protracted ad hominem argument.

Careful consideration of her rebuttals to these assertions shows that in fact your criticisms of her history really bore little weight, but, as a result of them, you forced her into an defensive position. So she made her defense, and others may have have then piled on, with the predictably resulting feedback loop which commonly occurs under such circumstances, no matter the topic at hand or the posters involved.

In other words, you might wish to examine your interpersonal abilities with regard to interactions with others on the board, and temper the passive-agressive, somewhat patronising tone of your language in order to create a bond with your fellows here that winds up being less antagonistic in the final analysis. That is, of course, if your intent is to create a useful, progressively constructive environment for discussion, rather than to simply stir shit.

Perhaps I'm biased in my reading of the thread though, because, to me, it's more than exceedingly obvious that c2w's position on the topic is carefully considered, highly informed, and particularly fact-filled and persuasive.

I realise this feedback is coming to you from a poster not particularly renown for his bedside manner here, so maybe just take it in the spirit of one shit-stirrer recognising another with a passing a nod of familiarity.


tl;dr - it's all your fault. Way to go.

[American Dream]

Hi barracuda-

Your points are well-taken and they are essentially constructive. So thanks.

Here's the rub, from my perspective: it has been a few years since my first encounters with c2w and it was all the way back then that my opinion diverged from her's regarding psychiatric medications. I felt that I was being accused of either being a closet Scientologist, or at best of being "soft on Scientology". Neither is true and I expressed this clearly, but she did not take what I said seriously, and it did not end the problem.I do have hurt feelings about this and I am definitely pissed off about it.

Here's where we get to the part where you diagnose me as "passive-aggressive": I truly hate injustice and I felt like what has been done to me and many others (rhetorically) regarding criticism of Psychiatry, was and is unjust. Sometimes this is merely annoying, sometimes it really makes me angry, as I consider it a "dirty trick". However, I don't want to give myself permission to just go off and start throwing gasoline on the fire. Neither do I want to simply go away when something I consider "bad" has been done- this may give the other person exactly what they desire- the opportunity to dominate the discourse with their opinions seemingly unrefuted.

So I persist- definitely hot under the collar, but definitely trying to keep a grip on my emotions. That's the best way of responding that I can figure out.

I started off on this thread by posting an article from Sascha which I think showed an articulate and intelligent Mad Liberation voice which. while deeply critical of mainstream psychiatric institutions , also supports an integrative approach wherein psychiatric drugs are an option and professionals can be partners with the people they are supposed to serve. I followed this with an article from a psychologist who is very critical of certain aspects of mainstream psychiatry but who strongly rejects the notion that such criticism is indistinguishable from Scientology's anti-Paychiatry line.

My perspective is that this general view- that Scientology and Mad Lib can be separated and that integrative approaches really are possible- has been essentially ignored by c2w and that she blithely continues on with her same line and I do find that annoying. And it is my considered opinion that c2w did and does conflate legitimate criticism of the mainstream psychiatric paradigm with the Scientology cult line. Sorry, but this is what I see happening, even here on this thread. I don't think it has to be an ad Hominem to say so.

Speaking of ad Hominems, nothing prepared me for this, on page 8 :

AD and undead --

You're both liars and trolls, as well as all-around deceptive, dishonest -- and possibly even dangerously malicious but definitely bone-ignorant -- assholes. Go fuck yourselves.
__________________

I'm more than happy to get the banning stick for saying that. Indeed, I totally deserve it, and -- in fact -- won't accept anything less. So ban me please. I mean, I guess that I could step it up a few more notches if that's what it took to clear the banning bar. But I'd really, really rather not.
__________________

Bye (almost) everybody else! Much love!

c2w

Feel free to go back to that lovely quote and to look back at what preceded it and tell me if you think it was justified. It was a provocative post, and it did exactly what i imagine it was intended to do: it aroused deep emotions for me. I was really hurt and angry. This shouldn't be surprising and I don't think that this was right don't think that I had done the same first.

What do you think, barracuda? Because the facts are that my hurt was compounded when I saw this response from you, the supposed moderator:

We don't ban people for occasional breaches of etiquette and board rules, compared. If that were the case, half the board would be gone. We simply request that you generally observe the posting guidelines regarding obscenity.

Since this was the was the extent of your response, it sure seemed to me like you were in fact condoning her behavior and that I could not count on fair and impartial moderation here. Then add to that the contrast with this next post from you here:

undead wrote:

William Shakespeare wrote:
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Why don't you just ban yourself, instead of having a tantrum. The admins can delete your account if you ask them. Lashing out in this way is very childish. It's also silly to call other people trolls when you're acting like that. Rather than whining and flailing about, you can just ignore the people who you don't like. Hell, you can ignore this thread entirely, in the same way I am going to ignore you.

barracuda wrote:

Undead, as much as I'm sure we all appreciate your advice regarding the abilities of the admin in this regard, it doesn't seem to be adding much to the content of the thread beyond bile.

compared2what? had, in fact, asked that her account be closed after her last post on this thread, but we basically ignored that request, seeing as we view her as a highly-valued member of this forum.

However, should you have needs of your own along those lines, we might find our way clear to helping you out. Lemme know.

This completely dashed my hopes that I could count on fair and impartial moderation here.

So I was really, really upset then. I was however trying not to let my upset rule things and so I continued to post, with no interest whatsoever in engaging directly with c2w. Your personal opinion: "it's more than exceedingly obvious that c2w's position on the topic is carefully considered, highly informed, and particularly fact-filled and persuasive", seems to have gotten in your way of being a moderator in this case and providing the container which we need in order to help keep things in bounds. Besides, I think you are friends with her- does this influence your behavior?

This is my opinion and I mean no particular offense by saying it, barracuda, but what do you think of that?

[barracuda]

What do you think, barracuda? Because the facts are that my hurt was compounded when I saw this response from you, the supposed moderator:

We don't ban people for occasional breaches of etiquette and board rules, compared. If that were the case, half the board would be gone. We simply request that you generally observe the posting guidelines regarding obscenity.

Sine the was the extent of your response, it sure seemed to me like you were condoning her behavior and that I could not count on fair and impartial moderation here.

If you look around the board for instances in which the obscenity guideline has needed to be enforced on my watch, I think you'll find that my response to c2w was pretty standard, and along the lines of the general admonition we give to anyone in that circumstance. Our policy is to limit profanity directed from one poster to another, but we are not here to ban people for occasional outbursts of anger. It takes protracted and sustained violation of the rule for any action beyond a warning to occur. That's just a simple statement of fact.

Then add to that the contrast with this next post from you here:

undead wrote:

William Shakespeare wrote:
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Why don't you just ban yourself, instead of having a tantrum. The admins can delete your account if you ask them. Lashing out in this way is very childish. It's also silly to call other people trolls when you're acting like that. Rather than whining and flailing about, you can just ignore the people who you don't like. Hell, you can ignore this thread entirely, in the same way I am going to ignore you.

barracuda wrote:

Undead, as much as I'm sure we all appreciate your advice regarding the abilities of the admin in this regard, it doesn't seem to be adding much to the content of the thread beyond bile.

compared2what? had, in fact, asked that her account be closed after her last post on this thread, but we basically ignored that request, seeing as we view her as a highly-valued member of this forum.

However, should you have needs of your own along those lines, we might find our way clear to helping you out. Lemme know.

This completely dashed my hopes that I could count on fair and impartial moderation here.

I fail to sympathise with your response there, but let me attempt to explain my failure.

- Undead has a history, with me and others on these psy-critical threads, of insinuating that those who choose to argue outside of his catholic dogma regarding the sheer evil of psychiatry are somehow operating as shills or agents of the industry. He has been warned about this behavior.

- Undead's prior propensities for bringing Scientology-sourced material to the board finally required a new guideline to be instituted here, as you are well aware.

- I had already addressed a proscription against c2w's outburst directly to her earlier in the thread. I don't require undead's help in that regard.

- As I stated in my response, his insistence to continue baiting c2w is basically trolling, or flaming, and added absolutely nothing to the thread. Nothing.

Beyond these justifications, all of which fall under the auspicies of the mod's ostensible duties here, I happen to agree with c2w's position, and find the blanket derogation of all of psychiatry and psychopharm to be without nuance, and frankly smacking of demagoguery. As Jeff pointed out upthread, the board has in place guidelines regarding medical advice, and anyone paying attention here is well aware of the fact that some of our posters do take a variety of medications. So I am biased, in that I assert prejudice in favor of those guidelines and the guideline regarding CoS.

Beyond even that beyond, I consider c2w as a good friend of mine. If one of my failings as a moderator here is that I stand up for my friends on the board, I'm afraid everyone is just going to have to live with that for the duration of my tenure. I was not asked to aquiese to limiting my associations or proclivities in this regard upon assenting to become a mod, rather, I was asked to become a mod partly because those very proclivities were well known, and frankly stated. But then, I consider my support of her to be a bias in favor of a true search for understanding.

So I was really, really upset then. I was however trying not to let my upset rule things and so I continued to post, with no interest whatsoever in engaging directly with c2w. Your personal opinion: "it's more than exceedingly obvious that c2w's position on the topic is carefully considered, highly informed, and particularly fact-filled and persuasive", seems to have gotten in your way of being a moderator in this case and providing the container which we need in order to help keep things in bounds.

My personal opinions are unlikely to change barring the introduction of new information which strikes me as important enough for a reassessment of them. Believe it or not, it's happened in the past. My opinions have been changed by careful argument presented by posters here. I'm extremely open to a well thought-out position on just about any subject. I'd simply say that regarding the subject at hand, you do your own perspective a disservice in avoiding the debate with c2w, and by failing to acknowledge the points on which she's got you dead to rights. I don't see any other way in which your own ideas can garner credence but by assessing their durability fairly under fire.

[American Dream]

barracuda wrote:

I fail to sympathise with your response there, but let me attempt to explain my failure.

- Undead has a history, with me and others on these psy-critical threads, of insinuating that those who choose to argue outside of his catholic dogma regarding the sheer evil of psychiatry are somehow operating as shills or agents of the industry. He has been warned about this behavior.

- Undead's prior propensities for bringing Scientology-sourced material to the board finally required a new guideline to be instituted here, as you are well aware.

- I had already addressed a proscription against c2w's outburst directly to her earlier in the thread. I don't require undead's help in that regard.

- As I stated in my response, his insistence to continue baiting c2w is basically trolling, or flaming, and added absolutely nothing to the thread. Nothing.

I know nothing about the history of the relevant threads but am not surprised to hear that there is some. But I'll withold comment on the particulars, since I don't know them.

barracuda wrote:

Beyond these justifications, all of which fall under the auspicies of the mod's ostensible duties here, I happen to agree with c2w's position, and find the blanket derogation of all of psychiatry and psychopharm to be without nuance, and frankly smacking of demagoguery. As Jeff pointed out upthread, the board has in place guidelines regarding medical advice, and anyone paying attention here is well aware of the fact that some of our posters do take a variety of medications. So I am biased, in that I assert prejudice in favor of those guidelines and the guideline regarding CoS.

Yes, but if you care to examine the record, you will see that your statement "the blanket derogation of all of psychiatry and psychopharm to be without nuance, and frankly smacking of demagoguery" is not a critique that would apply so directly to my personal opinion.

barracuda wrote:

Beyond even that beyond, I consider c2w as a good friend of mine. If one of my failings as a moderator here is that I stand up for my friends on the board, I'm afraid everyone is just going to have to live with that for the duration of my tenure. I was not asked to aquiese to limiting my associations or proclivities in this regard upon assenting to become a mod, rather, I was asked to become a mod partly because those very proclivities were well known, and frankly stated.

No one is asking you to stop being friends with anybody. I do think it's reasonable though to say that a good moderator should make every effort to put their friendships and biases aside and try to be fair and impartial in their "official" role.

As to any particulars of my position regarding Psychiatry, Scientology and etc., and the possibility of debating them with c2w, I'll wait till it seems that things have improved around here. And I've got to say you haven't entirely helped make that possible, what with your attitude here. Though I do appreciate the reasonable tone and the clear expression.

[thegovernmentflu]

For the sake of accuracy, I should point out that I slightly mis-explained receptor downregulation in my previous post. The production of serotonin isn't reduced - the postsynaptic receptor's serotonin sensitivity is decreased. The end result is the same as I described though.

Serotonin receptor downregulation induced by SSRIs was originally vehemently denied by psychiatrists. But over the last few years, mainstream psychiatry has actually incorporated downregulation into their "theory" of how SSRIs work. This warped reasoning is predicated on the assumption that a) psych drugs must be inherently good, so b) any lasting changes the drugs produce in the brain must be part of their therapeutic effects. This is utterly illogical, since downregulation is well understood to be a major negative side effect when it's induced by non-psychiatric drugs.

I have no interest in debating this - I'm a socialphobe who's uncomfortable with protracted online debates. If my hit-and-run style of posting invalidates my opinion, so be it. Basic logic is still on my side.