That Paxil is loosely prescribed is true; that this is dangerous is also true; but you do not draw the lines necessary to reach those conclusions. Instead you say that many people are on Paxil, quite a surprising amount. You then note that one of the symptoms for which Paxil is described seems flimsy, which is also fair game. But then you launch into a discussion on how dangerous Paxil is. You leave out, entirely, the method by which the Paxil makes it into the hands of the patients. So while you tell me here that those physicians are hucksters, your article really sounds like â€œour insaneâ€ as you put it are at fault.
The omission means youâ€™re attacking the patients, some of whom we can imagine really need it, others who might not themselves know whether itâ€™s necessary, and others who are getting screwed because what they need is a combination of pharmaceuticals and therapy. Youâ€™ve also attacked the medicine, which is chic, considering that Tom Cruise has been sporting that argument absurdly for quite some time. You really don't criticize the doctors. By this token, you need to mention any involvement an HMO would have in this. And Paxil, with all of its side effects (how are these relevant to what you say next?) does not itself lower the bar for disorderliness, and given this email, I doubt very much you have an idea what has lowered the bar.
I can tell you that itâ€™s a combination of physicians and the unnatural way in which HMOs have been allowed to control the market.