The APA Meeting: A Photo-Essay (opens in new tab)

This is like the seeds of 3/4 of all the bad HN threads all in one blog post. We can relitigate the concept of psychiatry, debate the implications of big pharma, yell at each other about wokeness versus PC culture, pretend not to understand how trade shows work or, I don't know, find some way to argue about how they should be run... and who knows what else. And virtually none of the comments will be from people who have studied in psychiatry, are seriously engaged (pro- or con-) with pharma, or have ever run a trade show.

If it survives on the front page, we should make a bingo card for the thread; for instance, I should score a point the first time an HN user psychoanalyzes another user over the Internet on it.

I'm not saying the post is bad (I'm not a fan of this blog, but whatever; I'm a fan of lots of things you probably hate, too). But there's a difference between a bad blog post and a bad HN submission and this, to me, seems like an archetypical example of that.

There's illumination here for those of us who've been prescribed shockingly expensive drugs with generic near-equivalents going for 1/40th the price (as I have):

>I asked the Lucemyra® representative why I might prescribe Lucemyra® instead of clonidine for opiate withdrawal. She said it was because Lucemyra® is FDA-approved for this indication, and clonidine isn’t. This is the same old story as Rozerem® vs. melatonin, Lovaza® vs. fish oil, and Spravato® vs. ketamine. ...

I think the thing that stands out to me about this whole thing is how nakedly corrupt it comes off as. I'm sure the legions will rush to rebut me and say "But Psychiatrists have ethical standards! They would never let ice cream influence their decision to prescribe a substandard drug!" That may be true, both philosophically and perhaps even in practice (though I doubt it...[0]) but even still, the bonanza of sleazy advertising is _so_ embarrassing to psychiatry, drug companies and the FDA.

Drugs should be prescribed on a clinical basis, full stop. Attempting to advertise your medication on any other basis should be a criminal offense. We as a society need to draw a bright moral line to stop this type of behavior. Though I laughed at Scott making light of it, this stuff isn't funny. This is a life and death issue.

It's kind of horrifying to consider that advertising has a statistically significant chance of influencing a psychiatrist away from prescribing based on what best suits the indication.

Looks like psychiatrists have a word for every disorder except the disorder they themselves are afflicted with.

It's either that or these preponderance of woke talks and problematizing anything and everything is a prime example of the Shirky Principle in action.

https://kk.org/thetechnium/the-shirky-prin/

Last I heard (three or four years ago), the APA was suffering from a fall-off in pharma advertising. If that is the case, and it hasn't rebounded, just think what the advertising must have been fifteen years ago.

this quote from the article was especially poignant:

> Second, psychiatry has always been the slave of the latest political fad. It is just scientific enough to be worth capturing, but not scientific enough to resist capture.