Anti-depressant scandal

In later work, Nesse argued that depression is sometimes the brain’s evolved signal that something in a person’s life needs to change, such as a harmful relationship, an unrealistic career plan or a goal that needs to be re-evaluated. What that means in practice is that it’s not always best to bombard depression with medication.

I adopted that view very early on, before I was in need of any sort of remedy. In part I was influenced by reading the novel "One flew over the cuckoo's nest" and then later watched the film adaptation. Another influence was at least the title of this track from the Stranglers:
Something Better Change

It also happened to be one of the few songs from that era that I used to try to play on a mandolin

Incidentally the drummer with that band died a few days ago at the age of 84.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-63904248

Note: I think it's important to remember that anti-depressants do seem to work for some percentage of the population and apparently can be life-saving for at least some people and this is not necessarily easily predictable - certainly not across screens by lay persons!

All to say an internet message board shouldn't contradict the advice of medical professionals. Get a second opinion if need be.

Many Antidepressant Studies Found Tainted by Pharma Company Influence

A review of studies that assess clinical antidepressants shows hidden conflicts of interest and financial ties to corporate drugmakers

After many lawsuits and a 2012 U.S. Department of Justice settlement, last month an independent review found that antidepressant drug Paxil (paroxetine) is not safe for teenagers. The finding contradicts the conclusions of the initial 2001 drug trial, which the manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline had funded, then used its results to market Paxil as safe for adolescents.

The original trial, known as Study 329, is but one high-profile example of pharmaceutical industry influence known to pervade scientific research, including clinical trials the U.S. Food and Drug Administration requires pharma companies to fund in order to assess their products. For that reason, people who read scientific papers as part of their jobs have come to rely on meta-analyses, supposedly thorough reviews summarizing the evidence from multiple trials, rather than trust individual studies. But a new analysis casts doubt on that practice as well, finding that the vast majority of meta-analyses of antidepressants have some industry link, with a corresponding suppression of negative results.

The latest study, published in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, which evaluated 185 meta-analyses, found that one third of them were written by pharma industry employees. “We knew that the industry would fund studies to promote its products, but it’s very different to fund meta-analyses,” which “have traditionally been a bulwark of evidence-based medicine,” says John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at Stanford University School of Medicine and co-author of the study. “It’s really amazing that there is such a massive influx of influence in this field.”