[particulates]

It seems to me that the whole psychiatric model of therapy is dictated by the drug manufacturers. Doctors get their information on the drugs from the drug salespeople, who more or less bribe the doctors to prescribe their drug with attractive paybacks for even attending an 'information session'. The information on the effectiveness of the drug is entirely speculative, and has no long-term proof of it's effectiveness. So called side effects are brushed aside, when in truth, these are the effects of the drug, inclusive are the bad things.
I have heard that new anti-depressant research is on hold, maybe they know full well they do not work. There are other far safer and less addictive therapies that work just as well.

[still_crazy]

yeah. pro-publica has (or had, anyway) a searchable database, "dollars for docs." out of curiosity, I looked up a former shrink. oh man...he's raking in 10s of thousands per year from drug companies. awesome.

i think the very term "antidepressant" is misleading (at best). the same is true of the term "antipsychotic." Some "antidepressants" are stimulating, some are sedating, some can reduce frontal lobe activity by a whole lot at therapeutic doses...and the psychiatrists don't tell the people/patients what's going on with the drugs they're being prescribed.

"antipsychotics" are really better described as tranquilizers or neuroleptics, both of which were the going terms until the "atypicals" took over. Some people do well on tranquilizers, some don't, many are somewhere in between.

interesting post, btw.