Having just read the book review you linked, it pretty much seems to validate the point I’ve been trying to make. It’s all at best, circumstantial evidence for rather large claims that he makes.
Also, one case is an anecdote. As tragic as that is, unless that’s put into context of how many people didn’t develop psychotic symptoms, it doesn’t give us full merit in debating whether or not the cases of withdrawing said drug from the market.
Careful, you started with a genetic fallacy by attacking the source. It makes one look like a liberal... Don’t do that. That book report and the referenced book were both submitted for peer review.
The scientific method /inductive method is nothing without circumstantial evidence. Observation, hypothesis, test.
Boy on ssri dreams intesly about killing his parents, school children, then self. Boy removed from the ssri and the dreams stop. Boy is later put back on the ssri, dreams return. Boy removed front ssri treatment.... Dreams stop.
A couple years later actual shootings start.... All buy kids on ssri.
That alone is more empirical data then was available indicating ssri were safe for adolesence.
Now ther is research showing placebos are more effective. What exactly is the risk reward balance for ssri use?