Placebo won't push you into a major psychotic episode if you take too much or withdraw. You won't murder your spouse and children on sugar pills. You won't show up at a TV station in a hedgehog onesie with a chocolate bar bomb. Come on, sugar pills.

The pharma industry has the best shills for SSRIs and anti-psychotics. They're not combative, they're not rude, they rarely copy pasta, and they rarely lie. They merely say, "They worked for me, my life's so much better now. YMMV. If it doesn't work for you, try a different pill." You can usually only detect them because they'll pop in your thread, having never ever been on /r/conspiracy ever, to say this.

Oh - and after any news story where someone on or withdrawing from meds kills themselves or others, they will pop in to say, "You can't blame the drugs, they had a problem that caused them to get on the drugs in the first place. They were just crazy."

There's a special place in hell for these workers and their bosses.

I lurk here every once in a while because you all are hilarious, but basically never comment because this is easily the most irrational sub I visit. Only when I have a directly relevant and factual thing to say, such as this current situation.

You all see shills everywhere because it validates you, not because everyone is actually a shill.

How would it validate me? Would that there wasn't a monster industry and massive cash behind stealth marketing, I'd be pretty happy about that.

You can believe that money isn't funneled from corporations into non-profit vehicles that then pay PR agencies to engage in "stealth marketing" and "opinion management." But a five minute Google and just asking around to friends and family who work in these industries would prove you wrong.

In the 90s, they used phonebanks and direct-to-consumer ads. Now, it's a lot easier to blend in. It's actually illegal in the UK, and can be civilly prosecuted in the US - lawsuits just starting to pop up, and I'm eager to see more (but who gets sued? The poor shmuck pretending to be a real person unaffiliated with the industry their words support, the PR company that pays them, the non-profit that pays the PR folks, or the companies that band together to fund the non-profit)? (Note that in some cases, that "non-profit" is actually a university department funded by the industry the guerilla marketer supports. Which is double-plus-bad as they may also be paid with taxpayer funds - accepting taxpayer funds and shilling for industry on the taxpayer dime. Should be interesting times in the legal field soon.

It's barely legal in the US, though still - but enough to get by - and every major industry engages in it. If interested in Pharma's piece, do some research into PhRMA.

Keeping your head in the sand at the marketing going on around you (and using tax-exempt vehicles to do it, too, which is absolutely infuriating) may make you feel better. Mocking me may make you feel better. But it doesn't stop citizens being fed deceptive marketing on a daily and that deception sure as hell ruins lives. That, unfortunately, should not make either of us feel better or "validated." It's shit.

Shills exist. But calling everyone that disagrees with you or actually approves of a product a shill is just "keeping your head in the sand" and refusing to acknowledge opposite views.

The fact that an accusation of "shilling" requires literally no evidence here is the problem. It is the default stance and requires no justification, so long as the "shill" is going against the common opinion here. Just another circlejerk. Just an attack on character accepted uncritically, often without any explanation as to why (even if shilling) they are wrong in the first place. Exactly what this sub pretends to be against.

It isn't even worth the bytes to call someone a shill unless you have evidence that they are. Otherwise you are just engaging in baseless speculation and buying into yet another machined world-view with no necessary connection to reality. Just as sheeplike, simply walking off a different cliff.

I know people personally that anti-depressants have helped immensely. You claim that this sort of story on the internet is a product of subtle marketing. I don't see any reason to believe that that is the case. Millions take them, I know several successful cases myself, the fact that positive anecdotes gain traction is utterly unsurprising to me. And if it is marketing, then the solution is to truly prove that they don't work. Not post ambiguous, untrustworthy sources and call everyone who disagrees with them a shill.

It is lazy, and only appeals to those seeking self-validation in their views, for personal satisfaction that they are "right" when everyone else is wrong, but are not able to find solid evidence for their instincts so they lash out in an unverifiable way (and on this sub, it doesn't require verification).

You can believe that money isn't funneled from corporations into non-profit vehicles that then pay PR agencies to engage in "stealth marketing" and "opinion management." But a five minute Google and just asking around to friends and family who work in these industries would prove you wrong.

This is just an attempt to turn the debate to something that you can win, by making it about a patently obvious and widely known truth, but in the end has nothing to do with what I was saying. And then you expand this argument, using details to charge emotions like "tax-exempt vehicles", "Pharma", guerilla marketers... Non sequitor, just something anyone even modestly informed already knows and agrees with. Another grab at an inarguable position, just like accusing someone of being a shill. I refuse to play this game.

I don't call everyone who disagrees with me a shill. Where on earth are you getting that?

Anyway, as an edit - after thinking about your long and hand-wringing response for a few minutes - you're derailing and changing the subject - can we at least agree that people who do go on web sites pretending to be regular people claiming drugs that are dangerous and addictive are not dangerous and addictive for a paycheck deserve to be prosecuted for misrepresenting the truth and being responsible for the deaths of these victims who believed this stealth marketing was shared by real people, though?

Because that absolutely should happen. Blood on their hands and their bosses' hands. Should be public, unlike all of the actual cases against pharmaceutical companies that get settled quietly, cost of doing business - these should be made public, too. And all clinical trial data.

I think we should all agree that corporations misrepresenting themselves, illegal in the UK, should also be illegal in the US and we should be papering our Congress-critters' offices over this shit.

No, you just called everyone who posts positively about anti-depressants on reddit shills. An unsubstantiated accusation in order to validate your point that anti-depressants are bad by discrediting anyone that supports the other side, while just as uncritically accepting the narrative that you already believe in. You will never be convinced otherwise, because the other side is always going to be shills, always going to be paid off universities or corrupt bureaucrats. It's easy. It's inarguable to you. There is no evidence you cannot just ignore.

The fact that nearly any thread about corporations has a top comment about "shills" is the problem. You are just one more example in one more case. Maybe you don't do it in every instance, but here you are, top comment on this thread with nothing substantive to back your opinion and still calling the other side shills. This happens every thread, even if you only do it here. It is why this sub is funny, rather than informative. You all just start with your own implicit biases, what makes it funny is how convinced you all are that you are being rational and clear-sighted with your views.

No, I did not.

It's weird that you've commented twice in this sub ever, and now you're in here trying to change the subject and accuse me of things I never did.

But keep on, don't care.

The pharma industry has the best shills for SSRIs and anti-psychotics. They're not combative, they're not rude, they rarely copy pasta, and they rarely lie. They merely say, "They worked for me, my life's so much better now. YMMV. If it doesn't work for you, try a different pill." You can usually only detect them because they'll pop in your thread, having never ever been on /r/conspiracy ever, to say this.

This is what you said. Based on this quote that you wrote, you are now in the clear to disregard the opinions of anyone expressing support of anti-depressants on the internet. Because money is "funneled from corporations into non-profit vehicles that then pay PR agencies to engage in "stealth marketing" and "opinion management." you can disregard any research you choose.

now you're in here trying to change the subject and accuse me of things I never did.

Funny, you both changed the subject by making it about the existence of shills (not my point), and are now reneging on a comment you made only a few above this one where you labelled anyone who believes the other side "shills".

I never labelled anyone who believes the "other side" shills. Seriously, you have got some kind of reading comprehension issues. This is what I said:

The pharma industry has the best shills for SSRIs and anti-psychotics. They're not combative, they're not rude, they rarely copy pasta, and they rarely lie. They merely say, "They worked for me, my life's so much better now. YMMV. If it doesn't work for you, try a different pill." You can usually only detect them because they'll pop in your thread, having never ever been on /r/conspiracy ever, to say this.

Oh - and after any news story where someone on or withdrawing from meds kills themselves or others, they will pop in to say, "You can't blame the drugs, they had a problem that caused them to get on the drugs in the first place. They were just crazy."

There's a special place in hell for these workers and their bosses.

Shills exist. They're all over. Me saying they exist (and that pharma shills are way better than big ag shills, that's for damned sure, haha - wish they'd give lessons or share agencies) isn't saying everyone who agrees with them (or disagrees with me) are shills.

But can we agree that this practice should be illegal? And that those who engage in it should be prosecuted?

Oh, of course we can agree on that. Obviously. But that has literally nothing to do with what I was saying.

You made a blanket accusation about a very common type of comment and sentiment on reddit. A specific description of a type of statement that both fits how a subtle and effective shill would operate, but also happens to fit the exact same type of statement that someone who was genuinely helped by anti-depressants would make.

So what's the point? How does this enlighten anyone? What is your point here? Why would you level this accusation? You don't have any proof that these comments are usually, or even occasionally the product of shills. You have literally no clue whether 99% of the polite comments advocating anti-depressants are shills, or totally honest, real people with valid opinions.

Which makes your statement disingenuous. It both sets the standard that people advocating a position "might" just be shills, implicitly validating your point without any actual evidence, and feeds into the same suspicion that everyone here already has that they are surrounded by them to begin with.

It is a meaningless rhetorical device that preys on the existing biases and the default positions of everyone here allowing them to ignore "alternative" (in this case mainstream) views because they "might" be lies. It is pervasive in this sub. It is groundless, all it does is feed into your worldview, the same as everyone who calls into infomercials buys into the advertising worldview.

Also, how do you know that "pharma shills are way better than big ag shills" and that pharma isn't just generally a more legit industry when it comes to the validity of their results? I'm not calling them clean by any standard, but by calling them "better" without any explanation as to how you know this just makes the bar for proving that their claims are true higher, even though they already have to jump enormous bars as it is. Why should it be higher? Because it is your opinion that their shills are "good"?

Thanks for the derail, it inspired me to add more info to this post. Very much appreciated.

Derail? This was literally the entire point I was making about your comment.

https://projects.propublica.org/docdollars/

What an excellent concept and implementation.

This is gold.

to be honest, it could have just been removed because you talked about anecdotal evidence.

If that was the case, half the comments would have been deleted - that thread is full of anecdotal evidence: "It worked for me!"

Fair enough, I didn't slog through the comments. Anecdote that confirm the narrative are of course ok!

Looks like this thread is getting derailed - there's so much information out there if you spend a few minutes digging:

https://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/features/drugs-medical/ssri-suicide-akathisia.html

https://www.drugwatch.com/ssri/suicide/

And here's just one example of why clinical data should always be made available and peer review is not enough:

• Restoring Study 329: efficacy and harms of paroxetine and imipramine in treatment of major depression in adolescence

• The Troubled Life of Study 329: Consequences of Failure to Retract

• Wikipedia's article on Study 329

And along those lines of why clinical data should be made available and peer review being broken, check out Huffington Post's Highline coverage of the antipsychotic Risperdal - where J&J fucked up the math to erase the magnitude of gynomastia in a way so basic that the paralegal programmer working on a lawsuit against them found it - when multiple levels of peer review did not.

General PSA, hopefully your doctor has already shared this, but it bears repeating: If you or someone you love takes medications that have in these types of side effects (SSRIs, antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, antiepileptics, Lyrica, -- anything with suicidal ideation, hallucinations, aural hallucinations, etc warnings on the label). DO NOT GO COLD TURKEY OFF OF THEM. You have to wean off. Get your doctor to help. If your insurance raises your rates and you consider going cold turkey - don't fucking do it, call your doctor and ask for help. That's the least they can do. If you take these medications, check to find if they are metabolized via your liver or kidneys. If liver, don't drink alcohol. If kidney, no grapefruit juice. Ask your doctor for more info if they haven't given you this info already. Shit's nothing to mess with. If you start feeling violent or paranoid, it's not you, it's the med, get help ASAP.

Yeah, that is especially bothersome - why should patients be denied the knowledge that their doc has a conflict of interest? Why delete information about a tool created in the public interest like that from the discussion?

I don't know if Dollars for Docs gets everything, though - my grandparents' and husband's docs always have a Rep in the lobby (though they always get sent back faster than the patients!) and not much shows up in the database. A lunch or two. I wonder if sample meds are not divulged. Research university donations are not divulged in that data set, either, which I think is also a huge problem.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

I think OP could benefit from some psychiatric medication.

Derail? This was literally the entire point I was making about your comment.