Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 1. they prescribe both boosters, and inhibitors, to treat the same symptoms. This suggests the aetiology of disease here, is not well defined by a single behaviour because the same symptom (depression, anxiety) is responsive in some people to suppressing of a chemical imbalance, and in others to boosting it. "Chemical imbalance" isn't actually taught as the root cause of depression. I suspect your psychologist migh…
> It doesn't make sense to make blanket statements about "the drugs" when psychiatric drugs differ widely in this regard. > I'd be cautious of taking advice from anyone who makes blanket statements about "the drugs". This is bordering on uninformed anti-psychiatry. Yeah, as someone who has been close to people who need antipsychotics, I sometimes feel the anti-antidepressant crowd extrapolates to all psychiatric drug…
From the medical side what's important is what risk/benefit which is independent.
Antidepressant as a term is really only for convenience which the medications themselves being quite broad in action.
Antipsychotics too are having a bit of a revolution, the first generation seemed to all be about D2 blockade, the second generation acting on 5HT-2a much more than D2. Finally, pimavaserin acting only on seratonin (5HT-2a) and not on dopamine at all [0] now there's SEP-363856 [1] which has action not at D2 or 5HT-2A but TAAR1 and 5HT-1A.
The point is that psychiatrists are not particularly married to any mode of action or mechanism. Only the results.