How about you: Who were the prescribing physicians on lobotomies?
There is a difference between referrals and prescriptions.
Why beat up psychiatry now about something that faded out ~65 years ago? You would have to look extremely long and hard to find a psychiatrist capable of referring for a lobotomy today, he/she/they would have to be 90+ years old.
Move on.
You never heard me say a peep about them before it came up here and you decided it means something about SSRIs.
You arent answering the question, again. Just ducking. I have no ax to grind about who referred it, prescribed it or performed it. You do and do and do. Why?
Can you even admit that they are the physicians of lobotomy patients? Are you in denial of this fact? There are some still alive now. Lobotomy is entirely within the life of my parents. It’s not that old.
IOW shut up? What do you need out if this? There’s peace and quiet lots of places.
WHERE, pray tell, were you told to “shut up”? Be specific.
Ok. Anyone suffering from panic disorder or agoraphobia should accept their fate, there’s no hope because lobotomy’s were once a practice and Tylenol’s are too expensive 
and tapering off SSRIs cause panic disorder and agoraphobia
It’s not libel, it’s simple fact. Psychiatrists promoted and extolled lobotomies, period. The fact that a neurologist was typically the one who literally performed the procedure doesn’t change that psychiatrists were the ones pushing for the procedure.
Pointing out the history of the field and its tendency to latch on to alleged miracle cures that turn out to not work nearly as well as expected, or even to be horribly destructive, is looking at the real world and historical evidence. And the pattern has repeated in other places, notably with SSRIs (the topic of this thread) which makes it extremely relevant. Psychiatry is not a field with a history of calm, measured implementation of new ideas, it’s a field that tends to get a new tool, then extols the tool and tries to use it incredibly widely, often ignoring evidence of issues with the tool, and then a few decades later steps back from the tool.
The fact that the two of you are desperately attempting semantics games and insisting that it’s unreasonable to look at recent history (again, victims of the lobotomy craze are still alive) indicates to me that the criticism is hitting it’s mark. It appears that there’s no substantive response either of you can come up with, so instead of addressing the real issues that psychiatry has that should lead one to be skeptical of the field, especially new alleged miracle cures, you’re trying desperately to discredit the criticism and/or get people to get tired of this 300+ post thread.
The only one making allegations about “miracle cures” is you.
Stop trying to rewrite history (and fairly ancient history at that), and you might achieve a modicum of credibility.
I never claimed that the drugs were completely ineffective. They have some effectiveness in major depressive disorder. I’m not going to dispute to 50 to 70% effectiveness rate for serious depression ( although it sounds a little higher than the numbers I’ve seen). But you do also have to consider how the study defines “effective”. If the study identifies 50 major depression symptoms and the patient is scored as “greatly improved” in 2 of them, “somewhat improved in 12 of them, “no change” in 34 of them and “worse” in 2 - is that patient counted as a success? If not, what’s the tipping point?
I’m saying they are overprescribed for mild to moderate depression as well as premenstrual disorders, social anxiety disorder, general anxiety disorder, nerve pain, tobacco addiction and whatever else I missed. And I admit that I’m skeptical of any drug that claims efffectiveness over such a wide range of disorders - I really think they should adopt an active placebo as the standard for effectiveness trials.
What I’ve been saying is the side effect profile is minimized and that the side effects are too serious to justify the use of the drugs for the kinds of minor disorder they are frequently used for, and all too often side effects are dismissed as a new symptom of the underlying disorder.
I don’t believe that the doctor and pharmacist are “overprescribing for profit”, that’s an oversimplification. I do beIieve that when they are consulting with patients that are “seeing their doctor” because they saw a TV commercial or magazine ad, they are under pressure to prescribe the drug being advertised - especially if the patient took the manufacturers quiz before the visit. And that doctor knows that if they push back on the prescription the patient will just go to another doctor. This happens often enough and the medication becomes the standard of care, even if it shouldn’t be the first line treatment.
And physicians once promoted bleeding and “balancing humors”. What’s your point?
What was the point of trying to say they weren’t “responsible” in the first place? It needed to be corrected.
You’re the one trying to rewrite history, as I posted links to multiple newspaper articles reporting on the historical fact that antidepressants were touted as miracle cures. I am not worried about my credibility compared to someone who claims that I’m making up a phenomenon that is well-documented and non-controversial outside of their own head.
As I already posted,
Pointing out the history of the field and its tendency to latch on to alleged miracle cures that turn out to not work nearly as well as expected, or even to be horribly destructive, is looking at the real world and historical evidence. And the pattern has repeated in other places, notably with SSRIs (the topic of this thread) which makes it extremely relevant. Psychiatry is not a field with a history of calm, measured implementation of new ideas, it’s a field that tends to get a new tool, then extols the tool and tries to use it incredibly widely, often ignoring evidence of issues with the tool, and then a few decades later steps back from the tool.
Doesn’t seem like there’s much consensus in favor of those tests: Gene testing to guide antidepressant treatment: Has its time arrived? - Harvard Health
I did. About a year ago.
To be fair when I went into the ER for an accidental gunshot wound they were pretty stingy with the opioids, instead of getting 30 I got 10 and I had to go back every weekend for 3 weeks.
Fair enough. It’s also about ones history. But we have an opiod crisis and they are lookling much harder at all scrips and everyone is tighter.
And once again, has that never happened in other branches of medicine? You really think that’s the case in psychiatry alone? 
If another medical specialty jumped off a bridge would you follow?
Seriously where does this argument go?
Thank you for bringing this study forward into the discussion. I learned from reading it.
The wait continues for a single concrete example of any health professional or drug company ever proclaiming that SSRIs were a “miracle cure” for depression.
A “Prozac Miracle Cure!” headline from a 90’s edition of the Weekly World News would not qualify, though we haven’t even seen evidence of that.
This thread has provided striking examples of the Nirvana Fallacy - the belief that an intervention that’s imperfect is automatically worthless.