2 Answers

  1. Science is very difficult, as well as non-science, simply because you can't even guess which component will help. And it is usually not difficult for science, but it is difficult for doctors to listen very carefully to people. But science is also difficult. My girlfriend can't cure something that looks like a nail fungus. Then it's a fungus, then an allergy, then horseradish knows something difficult, but the doctor doesn't really rummage, probably. If you are allergic, then it is not clear which medicine to use — you have to sort out the available ones. There are a lot of antidepressants, a lot of people, it is difficult to maintain concentration, it is easier to write out what comes to mind and send it. And the person who came can explain everything incorrectly so much that he is generally diagnosed with something at the other end of the ICD. This is all VERY complicated. You'll be very lucky if you succeed the first time. Pills didn't help any of my clients, I had to treat depression with reflection. The benefit works.

  2. Given that the question contains an incorrect statement, does it make sense to answer it? And how deep do you need to dig in — do you need to prove that medicine has the right to exist at all, or allow the author to be treated with shamanism, occultism and love spells?

    Antidepressants are very effective in the maintenance therapy of depression. Just not any of them. And when being treated by a specialist, drugs are often prescribed in parallel. As with all medications, there are those that are not suitable for this particular case or suitable, more or less effective, with more or less side effects.

    By the way, what is the alternative? Electric shock? A lobotomy?

Leave a Reply