It's so strange how people are looking to truly foreign substances / drugs (from ivermectin to bleach to SSRIs now) compared to a vaccine, which is basically just a bunch of mRNA and a few preservatives.
That is, a bunch of stuff that is basically already floating around in our bodies / cells.
mRNA vaccines are not really new [0]. This article [1] specifically shows that we've used the mechanisms of mRNA vaccines since the 70s, and at least modern iterations of mRNA vaccines since ~10 years ago.
Even if they were new, they're just a bunch of the same sort of genetic material that is already floating around in our bodies, not some external foreign substance that interacts with our cells.
I posted this w/r/r SSRIs below, but it’s also true for Ivermectin: the development timeline aligns largely with that of mRNA vaccines.
Vaccinated diseases, more so than other medical ailments, are subject to existing technology being “good enough” until it suddenly isn’t anymore. But that doesn’t mean new entries are untested; it means the economic envelope in which it makes sense to test them is just a different shape.
i guess it's just natural distrust of anything that's new (mrna vaccines are most certainly a first time here). And tbh i find this suspicion quite reasonable.
As a bit of historical trivia: the historical development timeline for SSRIs runs roughly parallel with that with the development timeline for mRNA vaccines. They’re roughly the same age.
Are they really? As someone who takes SSRIs after trying out more 'serious' alternatives for ADHD-related depression (e.g. slow release stims which are bona-fide narcotics), SSRIs are treated like candy and the first treatment option it seems to me.
Stopping the use of SSRIs is definetly not a joke and that part unfortunately in my experience doesn't get explained or taught enough for patients in my opinion.
I've used them my whole life and try to talk about it as much as I can to parents of especially teens who take them.