"But I think Prozac is a lethal drug, I've several friends just haven't made it by taking Prozac"
About this Quote
Geldof’s line lands like an unfiltered shout from the witness stand: not a clinician’s claim, but a friend’s indictment. Coming from a public figure whose persona has long been built on outrage-as-moral-energy, the point isn’t pharmacology. It’s betrayal. Prozac, in his framing, isn’t a complicated tool with tradeoffs; it’s a “lethal drug” that took people he knew, and the bluntness is the message. Grief is doing the persuading.
The subtext is distrust of institutional calm. Prozac became a cultural shorthand in the 1990s for a sleek, medicalized fix to messy human suffering. Geldof pushes back against that era’s optimism with the oldest kind of evidence: bodies, names, absence. “I’ve several friends” is doing heavy lifting; it turns a policy debate about antidepressant safety into a loyalty test. If the system signed off on something that hurt my circle, why should I believe the system about anything?
It also reveals how celebrity testimony functions in health discourse: it’s compelling precisely because it’s partial. Geldof’s phrasing collapses correlation into causation, a move that would fail under peer review but succeeds in public conversation because it mirrors how people actually experience tragedy. The intent is protective and accusatory at once, a warning aimed at ordinary listeners who don’t have teams of doctors. Context matters: controversy over SSRIs, suicidality warnings, and the uneven way mental health care is delivered gives his anger a plausible stage, even when the claim is too absolute to be reliable.
The subtext is distrust of institutional calm. Prozac became a cultural shorthand in the 1990s for a sleek, medicalized fix to messy human suffering. Geldof pushes back against that era’s optimism with the oldest kind of evidence: bodies, names, absence. “I’ve several friends” is doing heavy lifting; it turns a policy debate about antidepressant safety into a loyalty test. If the system signed off on something that hurt my circle, why should I believe the system about anything?
It also reveals how celebrity testimony functions in health discourse: it’s compelling precisely because it’s partial. Geldof’s phrasing collapses correlation into causation, a move that would fail under peer review but succeeds in public conversation because it mirrors how people actually experience tragedy. The intent is protective and accusatory at once, a warning aimed at ordinary listeners who don’t have teams of doctors. Context matters: controversy over SSRIs, suicidality warnings, and the uneven way mental health care is delivered gives his anger a plausible stage, even when the claim is too absolute to be reliable.
Quote Details
| Topic | Mental Health |
|---|
More Quotes by Bob
Add to List



