Last month:

  128 files changed, 39663 insertions(+), 4439 deletions(-)
  Range: 8eb4f6a..HEAD
  Non-merge commits: 174
  Date range (non-merge): 2025-12-04 → 2026-01-04 (UTC)
  Active days (non-merge): 30

  59 files changed, 19412 insertions(+), 857 deletions(-)
  Range: c8df64e..HEAD
  Non-merge commits: 67
  Date range (non-merge): 2025-12-28 → 2026-01-04 (UTC)
  Active days (non-merge): 8

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46020555

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

On the other hand, I watched family members take these drugs, and their lives seem somehow dulled-- filled with banal tragedy, like staying in a bad marriage, or not being particularly interested in their grandchildren. I have a theory that the drugs make palatable that which otherwise wouldn't be, hence they stay in the bad marriage, the bad job, and they watch their bad TV and eat their bad food and everything is fine. I've also seen one of them go off the drugs, and for a couple months they were a much more vibrant person. I saw them express joy. I feel a low grade rage toward the industry that I've been deprived of this version of them. I do entertain the possibility that I'm imagining it all. Maybe things really would have been worse without the drugs. But I am glad no one ever insisted, or even strongly advocated I take them myself.

'AstraZeneca LP and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP will pay $520 million to resolve allegations that AstraZeneca illegally marketed the anti-psychotic drug Seroquel for uses not approved as safe and effective by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services’ Health Care Fraud Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) announced today. Such unapproved uses are also known as "off-label" uses because they are not included in the drug’s FDA approved product label.

[..]

The United States alleges that AstraZeneca illegally marketed Seroquel for uses never approved by the FDA. Specifically, between January 2001 through December 2006, AstraZeneca promoted Seroquel to psychiatrists and other physicians for certain uses that were not approved by the FDA as safe and effective (including aggression, Alzheimer’s disease, anger management, anxiety, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, bipolar maintenance, dementia, depression, mood disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and sleeplessness). These unapproved uses were not medically accepted indications for which the United States and the state Medicaid programs provided coverage for Seroquel.

According to the settlement agreement, AstraZeneca targeted its illegal marketing of the anti-psychotic Seroquel towards doctors who do not typically treat schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, such as physicians who treat the elderly, primary care physicians, pediatric and adolescent physicians, and in long-term care facilities and prisons.

[..]

The United States contends that AstraZeneca promoted the unapproved uses by improperly and unduly influencing the content of, and speakers, in company-sponsored continuing medical education programs. The company also engaged doctors to give promotional speaker programs on unapproved uses for Seroquel and to conduct studies on unapproved uses of Seroquel. In addition, the company recruited doctors to serve as authors of articles that were ghostwritten by medical literature companies and about studies the doctors in question did not conduct. AstraZeneca then used those studies and articles as the basis for promotional messages about unapproved uses of Seroquel.

"Illegal acts by pharmaceutical companies and false claims against Medicare and Medicaid can put the public health at risk, corrupt medical decisions by health care providers, and take billions of dollars directly out of taxpayers’ pockets," said Attorney General Eric Holder. "This Administration is committed to recovering taxpayer money lost to health care fraud, whether it’s by bringing cases against common criminals operating out of vacant storefronts or executives at some of the nation’s biggest companies."

The United States also contends that AstraZeneca violated the federal Anti-Kickback Statute by offering and paying illegal remuneration to doctors it recruited to serve as authors of articles written by AstraZeneca and its agents about the unapproved uses of Seroquel. AstraZeneca also offered and paid illegal remuneration to doctors to travel to resort locations to "advise" AstraZeneca about marketing messages for unapproved uses of Seroquel, and paid doctors to give promotional lectures to other health care professionals about unapproved and unaccepted uses of Seroquel. The United States contends that these payments were intended to induce the doctors to prescribe Seroquel for unapproved uses in violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. '

The takeaway is that anytime a physician prescribes you a drug, at the very least you have to check that there hasn't been a gigantic fine levied against the drug maker for illegally tricking your doctor into prescribing it to you.

Lower bone mineral density, increased risk of fractures, osteoporosis

Sexual dysfunction / PSSD (Post-SSRI Sexual Dysfunction)

extra pyramidal symptoms (akathisia, Parkinsonism, dystonia, tardive dyskinesia)

emotional blunting / apathy

slowed thinking, brain fog

increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding

QT prolongation

Edit: in case the OP is reading, I should say also that the package insert won’t mention many other potential long term effects addressed in the literature, like extra pyramidal symptoms (akathisia, Parkinsonism, dystonia, tardive dyskinesia).

Another edit: ask GPT-5 ‘What are the long term side effects of Prozac use which aren’t addressed in the package insert?’ for a list.

So should I not have done my own research?

‘Highlights

• Antidepressant withdrawal can be severe and protracted.

• It produces characteristic physical and emotional symptoms.

• All symptoms were more severe after stopping than before starting antidepressants.

• We identified the 15 most discriminatory withdrawal symptoms in our sample.

• Withdrawal did not differ between people with physical or mental health diagnoses.’

‘Warning: Suicidality and Antidepressant Drugs

Increased risk of suicidal thinking and behavior in children, adolescents, and young adults taking antidepressants for Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and other psychiatric disorders’

Read the package insert: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2011/01...

The fact that you were not informed about this should serve as proof that you cannot blindly trust what doctors tell you. They will absolutely kill you out of ignorance or incompetence, and never even realize their responsibility.

'Annual reports of immigration statistics for FY1995 through FY2003 published by the former INS and then DHS contained “Parolee” sections with data on parole grants.88 DHS’s 2003 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, the last to include such data, contained annual data for FY1998 through FY2003 on several categories of parolees.89 During this six-year period, the annual total number of persons paroled into the United States ranged from about 235,000 to about 300,000, with port-of-entry parolees accounting for more than half of each annual total.90 Only limited data on DHS’s use of parole since then are publicly available. Among the available data are statistics covering FY2022 and FY2023 that were published by DHS in response to congressional mandates.91 The DHS reports for FY202292 and FY202393 included quarterly data on parole grants by CBP, the DHS component responsible for determining whether or not to grant parole in the majority of cases. The FY2023 reports also included parole grant data for ICE and USCIS as well as data on parole requests received and approved by ICE and USCIS. As DHS explained in its FY2023 report for the fourth quarter with respect to ICE and USCIS parole data, requests, approvals, and grants each represent a “stage in the parole process,” with requests being “the number of applications and petitions for parole submitted,” approvals being “the number of parole requests authorized,” and grants being “the number of paroles given.”94 The parole grant data in the FY2022 and FY2023 DHS reports reflect numbers of grants, not unique individuals. For FY2022, DHS reported 795,561 parole grants by CBP (417,326 by OFO and 378,235 by USBP).95 For FY2023, DHS reported 1,244,348 parole grants by CBP (940,348 by OFO and 304,000 by USBP) as well as 85,608 parole grants by ICE and 10,046 parole grants by USCIS. 96 For both years, the quarterly OFO data were reported by what DHS termed “parole classes of admission.” 97 In addition, from October 2022 to November 2024, DHS’s Office of Homeland Security Statistics (OHSS) published monthly tables on CHNV parole. It reported a total of 532,110 parole grants during the October 2022-November 2024 period.98'

  class Solution:
    def trap(self, height: List[int]) -> int:
      l,r,s = [*accumulate(height,max),[*accumulate(height[::-1],max)],len(height)
      return sum(max(0, min(l[i], r[s-i-1])-height[i]) for i in range(s))

  Singapore: 5.6%, 82.9
  Israel: 7.2%, 83.2
  Estonia: 6.9%, 78.5
  Poland: 6.7, 78.5
  Luxembourg: 5.7%, 83.4
  Czech Republic: 8.1%, 79.9

  France: 11.9%, 82.9
  Japan: 11.5%, 84
  Portugal: 10.5%, 82.3
  Spain: 10.7%, 83.9

I don't understand what you're saying here. We know that Kristian Andersen and Robert Garry were concerned that the virus was not of natural origin because Andersen wrote to Fauci and Collins on January 31 that “some of the features [of SARS-CoV-2] … look engineered” and that he, Robert Garry and others found the genome “inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.”

The next day they joined Fauci's emergency teleconference and 11 days later they submitted The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2 to Nature. Five weeks after the paper appeared in Nature, Fauci's institute (NIAID) awarded Andersen and Garry a new $8.9 million grant, naming them co-principal investigators of the West African Emerging Infectious Disease Research Center.

One might argue that each link in this chain of events is in principle explainable in perfectly innocent terms, and that's true. But to do so would be ironically concordant with the sort of reasoning and argumentation exhibited in the Proximal Origins paper. Specifically, at each turn the original concerns of Andersen and Garry are addressed in a manner emphasizing that in principle the anomaly could be explained in innocent terms. So for example, the poly-basic (RRAR) cleavage site could arise by ordinary insertion or recombination because similar sites appear in other coronaviruses and even evolve during serial passage of influenza, so its presence is “compatible with natural evolution,” and the codon context and flanking O-linked glycans would be an odd choice for a genetic engineer but fit with immuno-evasion seen in naturally evolving viruses, and the genome is “not derived from any previously used virus backbone”, and so on.

What they don't do is adduce any evidence that these theoretical natural pathways actually obtained, they don't systematically weigh their joint probability, and they don't seriously address the possibility of inadvertent lab adaptation and escape (they label the scenario as "improbable" in a single paragraph).

All of which is to say that it seems implausible that they themselves were actually convinced by their arguments. And if they weren't convinced by their arguments, then it seems likely they didn't actually change their view, just publicly voiced the opposite view. Why would they do that? I can think of 8.9 million reasons.