…..

It could be argued that all change is permanent, because time only moves in one direction. Even if a destructive change can indeed be sufficiently healed, the healing process itself takes time, and is yet another change.

You can’t really “reverse” an alteration in the brain; you can only allow and enhance the body’s natural regeneration capabilities, and hope that it can make enough repairs to regain any lost functionality. But those new pathways will not be identical to the old ones. That’s why people have to literally “relearn” things, when they suffer a traumatic brain injury, or even peripheral nerve damage. Meanwhile, time and previously possible opportunities pass, unavailable.

All of our bodies are constantly producing new cells, as well as killing off old or damaged or “mistake” cells. Altering that with chemicals can indeed have drastic consequences… but if you supplement the right things at the right times, it can be improved or enhanced. Do we really know enough about brain structure and chemistry, to make a pill that can just be indiscriminately issued to everyone who is deemed “depressed?” I rather doubt it. I personally believe that the vast majority of depression comes from an overwhelming series of unfortunate events, and Not a natural “brain imbalance.” And even so, when it is indeed the result of a brain imbalance, we should be looking at what we consume, and toxins in our environments, as a likely suspect, perhaps THE most likely suspect, of the cause.

Pharmaceuticals are a fairly recent practice in human history. How did all those scores of billions of our ancestors manage to survive well enough and long enough to reproduce, without all these relatively brand new designer chemicals? Did such problems even exist back then, prior to all the artificial substances we’ve been encouraged to consume? And all the byproducts of technology being, often literally, carelessly dumped into our ecosystems?

There are a lot of variables and unanswered questions, and that is a significant part, in addition to the greed and marketing factors, of why i tend to remain skeptical and cautious about whose information i deem valid. Even doctors can lie. And if they’re getting bonuses for prescribing experimental treatments, then it would seem that conflict of interest would indeed be a reasonably justifiable suspicion.

Think of a used car salesman, or even a new car salesman; s/he wants you to believe, to feel comfortable, that what s/he is showing you is indeed worthy of your purchase… even if it is a piece of crap… because s/he makes a commission when you buy it, and that is how s/he feeds him/herself and his/her family, and keeps a roof over their heads, and keeps the lights on, and pays insurance, and… you get the idea. It pays for them to hype any product.

Big ******, and all the doctors (often despite their Hippocratic Oath), are not much different, if at all… except that you’re not just trusting them to safely transport you and your family, you’re trusting them with your very cognitive function.

Now, i don’t personally know enough about prozac… but i’ve heard plenty of horror stories, and i know that salesmen want you to think good things about their products, so you will buy them, so they can continue supporting themselves… and there are innumerable examples of humans disregarding the well-being of others, in order to support themselves.

Your mind belongs to you and you alone, and if you want it bad enough, you can indeed control your own thoughts. I prefer this naturalistic “brute force” approach, especially to avoid experimental things, but also because it’s more rewarding to claim control of your own mind, if you do it yourself. Plus, pharmaceuticals are expensive, and you definitely don’t want to become dependent upon them.