I mean... The reasoning goes a little like this:

- we gave drug x to people with disorder y and those people seemed to improve.
- drug x boosts serotonin
therefore - disorder y is caused by too little serotonin

Part of the trouble is that we don't know enough about what else the drug does. Just because SSRI'S selectively TARGET serotonin doesn't mean that the brain doesn't adjust other things as a DIRECT CONSEQUENCE of the drug. I mean... I have feet injuries. Those feet injuries result in me adjusting my posture to compensate. Now I get a sore back too. Similarly... one could raise serotonin and the result could be in the brain adjusting dopamine to compensate.

We don't know that the change in serotonin vs the change in dopamine is responsible for the benefits people find in anti-d's. And... Major tranquilisers (old generation anti-p's) USED to be prescribed (with reasonably good effect) for people with depression. They only stopped that because... The extra-pyramidal side effects.

That was meant to be the link between SSRI's and the extra-pyramidal side-effects.

Thats frigging horrifying... The extra-pyramidal side-effects. I really can't believe that the drug companies aren't required to more robustly test the effects of medications in animals. Neurodegeneration...

I've had a bit of a discussion about this before... But... Who should be responsible for setting the standards on what the drug companies have to do to gain FDA approval? I really... Well... The way things work currently... I really find it beyond belief.

Thalydomide... How have things changed to prevent that? Basically... They haven't... Have they?

And... Maybe... The psychotic / mood disorder distinction breaks down (YAY!) if you don't see that the evidence really does support that psychosis is to do with dopamine and mood is to do with serotonin...