As someone who has been seriously depressed from an early age, I can tell you that it looks exactly like the DSM/ICD criteria - a lack of energy, loss of appetite, loss of interest in all activities, insomnia, feelings of worthlessness, suicidal thoughts and pervasive sadness and hopelessness.
Some people would rather believe that pediatric depression isn't real, rather than confront the reality of a loved and cared-for child who is constantly tearful, severely underweight, sleeps for three or four hours a night, spends most of their time staring into space and frequently talks about wanting to die.
Depression is an utterly dreadful illness and should not be confused with normal sadness or unhappiness.
Probably something like Boy Interrupted[0]. Sad story and something I can sympathize with having some of the same feelings very early on despite having a rather normal upbringing and siblings not showing signs of it.
And several of your comments before that were upvoted. Are we to regard those as suspicious?
Of the recent downvoted comments, one was a complaint about moderation that anyone who has paid attention to dang's track record here over more than a decade knows is baseless. (And if you think the top comment on any thread is a bad one, you can always choose to be a helpful contributor to the community and email us to let us know).
Of the other two of your downvoted comments, none were downvoted by the same users.
The choice is yours to make an effort to observe the guidelines and be a positive contributor to HN, or alternatively to keep using HN for political/ideological battle and complain to the moderators when things don't go your way, but it's clear what others in the community want to see.
> or alternatively to keep using HN for political/ideological battle
Which ones? The one about ML and programming languages? Or the one about asking a genuine question about an experience with childhood depression? Or the one observing that you and dang unevenly apply moderation rules? Or the one commenting about how you can't say the word for the literal definition of fascism on this site without getting downvoted? Or the one about dishwashers?
Where's my ideological battle?
You have no credibility. You unlike dang, don't do a good job. Go ahead and ban me or put me on a cool down to prove my point.
I've scanned your full list of comments and can find plenty that have an ideological flavor to them, and others that are in the flamewar style, but are not so clearly related to politics/ideology. I'm not interested in getting into an argument about which of your comments are ideological or not. That's not the issue. What is the issue is the hostile and inflammatory style of commenting towards other community members and HN as a whole.
It's notable in this instance:
- You posted a series of comments about controversial topics, having established a history of participating on HN with this persona of being a brave combatant for, I don't know, some worldview or philosophy that you seem to be fighting for;
- When a handful of your comments receive even a solitary downvote, you call in "the cops" (dang) to come to your aid, with a claim of "brigading";
- When we investigated and found that, no, there's no "brigading", some of those comments are not even net-downvoted anymore, and that any downvotes you're getting are to be expected given your combative style of commenting, you've responded with these incoherent attacks on moderation/moderators.
Whether we all agree that many of your flamewar-style comments really are, in fact, political/ideological, is not the point and seems to be a way for you to deflect from being held to account for your conduct.
What I'm saying to you is that people who care about making HN better have all kinds of ways of showing it, and it begins with making an effort to observe the guidelines, and it also involves engaging respectfully with other community members and the moderation system. We are always, always working to make HN better and our moderation approaches better, and we always welcome and engage with feedback, as dang has been doing with you in another subthread today. But we've both been doing this job long enough to sense when someone isn't really wanting to help make HN better at all.
> What is the issue is the hostile and inflammatory style of commenting towards other community members and HN as a whole.
Please.
> having established a history of participating on HN with this persona of being a brave combatant for, I don't know, some worldview or philosophy that you seem to be fighting for;
What? Just because I have a different worldview than you, doesn't mean I am fighting for or am a brave combatant of anything. But it's extremely telling that you think that, and revealing about your own views. And furthermore troubling that you are a moderator here.
Maybe you should read up on the clustering phenomena wiki and understand your own personal biases a little more.
You don't know what my worldview is or what dang's worldview is and honestly I don't know what your worldview is and this is never relevant to how we moderate HN. We want HN to be a place where difficult topics can be discussed and all perspectives can be represented. That's what we optimise HN for, with the caveat that the guidelines foremost ask us all to "be kind" in comments. It's notable that you keep complaining about some kind of "bias" without being able to point to any evidence for your claims, and that all of your comments in this subthread ultimately resort to ad hominem. If there was any substance to your claims you would have presented it by now. The entire history of HN submissions and comments is available for anyone to download and analyse.
Let's be clear what's going on here: you've claimed to be a victim; you can't demonstrate exactly how you've been made a victim; when we investigate your claims, which we've taken time to do in good faith, we find that, no, there's no evidence for your claims of victimhood; when we tell you that, you respond with ad hominem attacks.
Please just observe the guidelines like everyone here is expected to do.
I've been here on this account for five years. Making me out to be some kind of serial complainer and self-proclaimed victim, of which I've done exactly twice across a litany of diverse and continued conversation and dialog on this website is ludicrous.
Your continued aggressive dismissal of milquetoast commentary against your moderation style is offensive.
Your characterization of my posts here as a warrior championing some cause is similarly offensive.
Your words, not mine:
> ... having established a history of participating on HN with this persona of being a brave combatant ...
How kind, and full of good faith.
You clearly feel something towards my worldview. Your language is charged, you have opinions directed at me. To be clear: I don't care about you at all. But I do find it amusing to watch such a visceral reaction to a general commentary, "the mods are biased, and shape the bias of this website."
You initiated all this. We've investigated and considered all your claims, established them to be unfounded or baseless, and still you keep going.
Your worldview is irrelevant to this discussion. This place’s entire worth is built on the fact that a broad range of worldviews and discussion styles is represented, and our moderation philosophy is intended to allow everyone’s worldview to be fairly represented.
We're responding to your claims only because if there is any basis to them we want to know so we can address any issues and reform the way we operate. We’re actively working to do that continually. But it’s increasingly clear that none of your claims hold up to any scrutiny and every additional comment just generates more noise and still no signal.
My advice as a long time participant here: pay no attention to upvotes or downvotes. Sometimes they seem to be completely unrelated to whatever you said. Stay curious.
Absolutely. These random namedrops of drugs are irritating. People respond to different psychiatric medications in wilddly different ways. And actually, the majority do not respond at all. Throwing a random name of some random medication helps absolutely nobody. It will just make some desperate people seek "this one drug" that they heard about on the internet.
Nocebo can too. Apropos the featured article, I wonder if we should worry about that when we report in the popular media that antidepressants trigger suicides.
> It's too early to say. Obviously the idea is to get her off it if possible.
You understand that the people who sold you that drug have a vested interest in making sure it's not possible and/or that you & she think it's not possible, right?
I'm big on medications for brain stuff but uh yes, in the US, doctors get lots of kickbacks for prescribing drugs.
Usually this takes the form of "I'm prescribing you with <Brand> instead of generic" or "I'm prescribing you this specific drug from this class of drug"
> doctors get lots of kickbacks for prescribing drugs.
From your own source: "In 2024: $172 or more in general payments have been received by half of physicians."
Even if all of those payments count as kickbacks, a median of $172 in a year (significantly less than 0.1% of the median physician's annual pay) is not "a lot of kickbacks".
> > SSRIs never help because of boosting serotonin.
> That's a hell of a claim, which could use some evidence.
My experience with the chatbots is that they start with the conventional marketing tropes, but if you ask pointed questions they'll dig into the actual research.
This thread started with a generic question about why ECT seemed to help some patients. It had a really good reasoning about why SSRIs are still the first-line treatment for depression, even though the MAOIs were much better drugs.
The Big Picture
SSRIs flood serotonin globally, which can suppress
dopamine/norepinephrine and blunt mood.
Anti-serotonin strategies (receptor-specific antagonism,
reuptake enhancement, or targeted modulation) often
result in cleaner antidepressant effects with fewer
side effects.
This supports the criticism you mentioned: SSRIs may
“work” only because the brain adapts to the serotonin
disruption, whereas directly reducing or modulating
serotonin is more therapeutic.
The whole 'conversation' is pretty good, and would provide plenty of search terms for helping you figure out what science has actually figured out about depression.
There's a supplement seller that said his pregnenolone powder was made with a newer, cleaner process than is used by most of the pregnenolone supplement vendors, but I don't know if he's still using that supplier. The powders are a much better value than the capsules.
The chatbot is great as a first-line of research for many things, but something like this needs to be backed up by actual research to make a concrete claim. It will absolutely fabricate falsehoods or misrepresent truths based on an unknown number of stochastic factors behind any response. Shame on your for propagating a bunch of mumbo-jumbo that every reader must go verify for themselves if they want to substantiate or refute your claim - in response to a request for substantiation!
The SSRI's have always been terrible drugs. Apparently the trials before their approval found increased suicidality. Another response to this thread shared how his/her mother was given a "murderous impulse" with Prozac in 1989 [0].
Because this class of drugs was so heavily promoted for such a long time, the side effects have always been swept under the rug.
My comment above proposed that the 11yo girl's depression could actually be caused by precocious puberty. Another possibility is that she's a poor methylator (#MTHFR) who's poisoned by fortified flour and other sources of shelf-stable provitamins.
I haven't yet found a comprehensive SSRI-truth resource that makes SSRI advocates pause their advocacy, so I just shared the chatbot link. This was supposed to provide the father enough of the background terms and anti-SSRI thinking for him to search for his own resources.
Someone else posted a link to "The serotonin theory of depression: a systematic umbrella review of the evidence" [2022] at Nature [1]. This is okay, but it still dances around the core issue: whether ECT and Serotonin-enhancers sometimes benefit people because of how the brain responds to brain damage.
Puberty in general can be rough. I (a dude) had all kinds of bad thoughts and moods going through puberty and then one year it was just gone, grades improved dramatically, started making friends again, etc
