The Dangerous SSRI Experiment on Developing Brains

Part 1 of our 3-part investigation into the dangers of SSRIs for adolescents

Jonathan Nourok / Getty Images

Across the country, teens navigating the natural turbulence of growing up—transient struggles with identity, relationships, academic pressures, social media influence, and the hormonal shifts of rapid development—are being medicated with psychiatric drugs at alarming rates. What was once recognized as the normal emotional ebb and flow of adolescence is now treated as pathology, blurring the line between normal mood disturbance and true mental illness.

You're likely familiar with Prozac, Zoloft, and Lexapro—household names in the world of "antidepressants." Technically classified as Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs), these drugs have shown questionable effectiveness in adults and even less benefit for adolescents. Over the past decade, SSRI prescriptions for adolescents have surged by more than 60%, yet youth mental health has only worsened, with rising rates of depression and anxiety and a sharp increase in adolescent suicide.

Historically, clinical depression in teenagers was considered rare. But by redefining everyday struggles as a medical disorder, we have created a culture where a 15-minute doctor’s visit can result in a prescription for a powerful SSRI—a drug that has failed to produce any meaningful benefit for this age range and poses significant risks. What should be a cautious, thoughtful approach to adolescent distress has instead become a reckless pharmaceutical experiment, one that reshapes young brains with little regard for the long-term consequences.

SSRIs are known to cause a range of adverse side effects including worsened depression, sexual dysfunction, mania, psychosis, violence, and an increased suicide risk. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has already recognized young people's vulnerability to antidepressant side effects. In 2007, the FDA mandated a “black box” warning on antidepressants, citing increased risk of suicidal thoughts and behaviors in individuals under 25. This warning underscores the sensitive nature of brain chemistry during this critical developmental period.

Post-SSRI Sexual Dysfunction (PSSD), a devastating condition that can permanently alter sexual function even after discontinuation, is now a growing concern for millions impacted by SSRIs. But could these drugs have even more profound effects, potentially reshaping the core of adolescent identity and sexual development? The surge in SSRI prescriptions for adolescents coincides with an unprecedented rise in gender dysphoria cases, yet this potential link remains largely unexplored. How did we get here? And what are the irreversible consequences of conducting a mass experiment on an entire generation’s developing minds?

The Chemical Imbalance Myth

For decades, the popular explanation that depression results from a "chemical imbalance" – specifically, low serotonin levels – has dominated public understanding. When the FDA approved Prozac for adults in 1987, manufacturer Eli Lilly needed a straightforward, accessible explanation for their drug's mechanism of action. The "serotonin deficiency" narrative proved ideal: it simplified depression from a complex condition to a straightforward chemical problem with a convenient pharmaceutical solution.

This digestible storyline transformed psychiatry overnight. Medical schools taught it. Doctors internalized it. TV commercials promoted it. By the early 2000s, when pharmaceutical companies pushed to expand SSRI use from adults to teenagers, the groundwork was already laid. If depression was simply the result of a chemical imbalance, why wouldn't the same drugs work for adolescents?

Drug representatives flooded pediatricians' and psychiatrists' offices with branded merchandise, free lunches, and simplified educational materials that emphasized benefits while minimizing risks. Many physicians received their information about these medications not from independent research, but from company-sponsored continuing education—creating a closed system where critical voices are systematically excluded.

There's just one devastating problem: the premise of the entire chemical imbalance theory is fundamentally wrong. A comprehensive 2022 review in Molecular Psychiatry analyzed decades of research and found no evidence supporting the serotonin deficiency model of depression.

None.

This fundamentally flawed model poses unique dangers for adolescents. When young people internalize the belief that their emotional struggles stem from an innate chemical defect, they surrender agency at a critical developmental stage. By portraying depression as primarily a medical, not psychological, condition requiring pharmaceutical intervention, we divert attention from the environmental factors, trauma, and social pressures that typically underlie adolescent distress. This may create fertile ground for accepting beliefs about inherent misalignments between mind and body, such as 'being born in the wrong body'—a concept suggesting that despite consistent biological sex markers throughout one's entire physiology, the sense of self can fundamentally contradict this biological reality.

How Did These Drugs Get Approved for Kids?

Despite serious safety concerns, the FDA has steadily expanded SSRI use in children and teens. Prozac became the first SSRI approved for depression in kids as young as 8 in 2003, followed by Lexapro for adolescents in 2009. Most shockingly, in 2023, Lexapro was approved for anxiety in children as young as 7—the same drug linked to a six-fold increase in suicidality when compared to placebo groups.

While these are the only two SSRIs the FDA has “officially” approved for treatment of youth depression, their endorsement has paved the way for widespread off-label prescribing. Now, doctors routinely prescribe all SSRIs for virtually any emotional struggle that young people experience, without rigorous evaluation—and all based on the same debunked "chemical imbalance" theory.

The FDA’s approval process for SSRIs in adolescents stands as one of modern medicine’s most egregious regulatory failures. Prozac’s approval rested on just two short-term studies, both of which were funded, designed, and analyzed by the drug’s manufacturer, Eli Lilly. These trials lasted only eight weeks, even though teens are placed on these drugs for years, or even decades.

Here's the unconscionable reality: The FDA's approval standard required that only two trials yield "positive" results, regardless of how many trials ultimately demonstrated failure or harm. This meant that pharmaceutical companies could conduct dozens of failed experiments, bury those results, and still gain approval by selectively presenting their rare successes. Yet these trials did fail, repeatedly and dramatically.

In 2004, the FDA reviewed 15 clinical trials of antidepressants in youth—both published and unpublished. Only 3 showed any meaningful benefit over placebo.That’s an 80% failure rate.

By any logical standard, a treatment that fails 12 out of 15 rigorous tests should not be considered effective medicine. Yet the negative studies were buried, spun, or ignored, even while children were administered brain-altering drugs based on cherry-picked data.

The deception didn’t stop there. In 2023, the FDA approved Lexapro for children as young as 7 based on an 8-week study that showed just a 1.42-point improvement on a 30-point anxiety scale—barely better than the placebo group. Meanwhile, suicide risk skyrocketed from 1.5% to 9.5%. Yet researchers concluded that the drug was "well-tolerated."

Let that sink in: Childhood anxieties are now being "treated" with drugs that make kids six times more likely to become suicidal than to see meaningful improvement in anxiety, and these results are considered effective.

The Government's Own Study: A Betrayal of Public Trust

The most damning evidence comes from our own tax dollars. The National Institute of Mental Health's Treatment for Adolescents with Depression Study (TADS) has been trumpeted as a definitive justification for prescribing SSRIs to teenagers nationwide. Yet this federally-funded research has concealed catastrophic findings pointing to scientific sleight-of-hand.

While fluoxetine was celebrated for its effectiveness, TADS researchers buried the study's most alarming data until 2009 when a hidden table finally revealed the shocking truth: of 18 suicide attempts across all treatment groups, 17 occurred in youth taking fluoxetine, i.e.94% of all attempts. Not a single child on placebo attempted suicide. Yet this life-threatening signal was systematically concealed from doctors, parents, and patients for years.

What was the basis for the study's "effectiveness" claim? A mere 2.7-point difference between the drug and the placebo on a 113-point scale —statistically significant, but clinically meaningless. Even more devastating, a reanalysis of the study revealed that a subject’s belief that they were taking the medication predicted improvement better than actually receiving it. In other words, the placebo effect was responsible for the modest benefits, while the chemical drove the dangers.

Despite these damning flaws, TADS continues to shape clinical guidelines nationwide, a triumph of marketing over evidence that amounts to gambling with adolescent lives.

The Neglected Alternatives

While we medicate normal adolescent emotions with drugs that fail 80% of clinical trials, we systematically neglect proven alternatives that build lasting mental health. Evidence-based approaches—cognitive therapy, exercise, improved sleep, reduced screen time, family connection—match or exceed outcomes from medication without risking suicidality or sexual dysfunction.

Instead of teaching resilience by helping teens navigate emotional challenges, we offer chemical shortcuts that fundamentally misrepresent what emotions are: they’re not chemical malfunctions, but vital signals guiding us toward necessary change. Depression and anxiety serve a specific purpose because they often point directly to problems that require attention and resolution, not suppression through medication.

Before pharmaceutical companies rebranded teenage turbulence as "clinical depression," adolescents weathered emotional storms through supportive relationships and developing coping skills. They learned that difficult feelings are temporary, manageable, and often growth-promoting. Without these skills, it’s not surprising that increased medication use has been accompanied by teen suicide rates that have skyrocketed, not decreased.

The absence of these approaches from clinical guidelines isn't an evidence problem, but rather a profit problem. Pharmaceutical corporations don’t employ representatives to promote problem-solving skills or emotional intelligence when they visit doctors' offices. Billion-dollar campaigns don’t market the “evolutionary” concept of using non-medical means to support teens through developmental challenges. Instead, we've abandoned generational wisdom for a pill that transforms normal development into pathology requiring lifelong chemical management.

As millions of developing adolescent brains are subjected to profound neurochemical alterations during their most critical formative years, we face profound ethical and scientific questions that demand immediate scrutiny.

In Part 2 of our investigation, we'll explore the profound impacts these drugs have on adolescent sexual development, identity formation, and emotional processing. We'll examine the emerging science around Post-SSRI Sexual Dysfunction (PSSD), the emotional blunting that may alter personality development, and the concerning overlap between periods of increased SSRI prescribing and rising gender dysphoria diagnoses. These effects are extremely problematic because they may last long after the medications are stopped,potentially reshaping the very essence of who these young people become.

*If your teen is currently taking an SSRI, do not discontinue it without medical supervision. Withdrawal effects can be serious and require careful management.

We welcome you to share your thoughts on this piece in the comments below. Click here to view our comment section moderation policy.

The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism or its employees.

In keeping with our mission to promote a common culture of fairness, understanding, and humanity, we are committed to including a diversity of voices and encouraging compassionate and good-faith discourse.

We are actively seeking other perspectives on this topic and others. If you’d like to join the conversation, please send drafts to submissions@fairforall.org.