They aren't isolated incidents, just as the testimonials from people who were really helped by the exact same drug aren't isolated incidents, and the testimonials from people who have experienced side-effects that were not discovered by the original qualification study are not isolated incidents.

Psychiatric medications, in many cases, do genuinely affect different people differently. This has been well known for a long time. It also contributes to the contrast between anecdotal clinical experience and what are often dismal statistical performances.

The difficulty is with people who feel that they have a grievance with the pharmaceutical companies and the medications themselves, when they actually have a grievance with the doctors who directed their care.

> brushing this aside as "just a bunch of individuals" isn't useful

If it gets one person like me who was under the impression that SSRIs make you a zombie, to try them, then it’s useful.

Not if they do make you a zombie (either in general or as an individual exception that's not covered for)

Yes, it does. Some individuals react differently. Some individuals cannot take aspirin daily for heart benefits, some cannot take ibuprofen for pain relief. Both these drugs can have reactions with other medications. It isn't an insignificant portion of the population, but we shouldn't allow those individuals create a dialogue that scares others away from trying the drug.

If anything, we just need to spend a bit more time talking to folks about the possible side effects of the medications.

It's my understanding that with any particular drug used to treat depression the proportion of sufferers who can't take it is high - certainly IME the proportions are not at all insignificant.

Aside: my understanding is that aspirin is no longer recommended (in mainstream medecine [in the UK]) to be used in a preventative way.

Yes that's very much my point.