Chemical imbalance?

I came across some interesting info lately, and am glad to find that the ‘chemical imbalance’ notion as a cause for one’s depression, is a myth, as I always knew it was.  

Some people claim that antidepressants help them, and I can’t deny their testimony, but my theory is that it numbs the recipient, and they have less positive — and less negative — and less feelings in general.  Maybe that’s what they need to survive at a certain point in time. 

Many have become suddenly violent or suicidal while taking the drugs.

I want to share an excerpt from a book, which says that the chemical imbalance notion, and the notion that depression has a relationship to serotonin or other neurotransmitters, is bogus.  

Some people have low to zero markers for serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine as measured in the blood, yet they feel no depression.

Jefferey Jaxen wrote an excellent article on this topic:

Just published in the Journal Molecular Psychiatry, The serotonin theory of depression: a systematic umbrella review of the evidence looks at the principal relevant areas of research on the still influential serotonin hypothesis of depression. 

The researchers write, 

“The main areas of serotonin research provide no consistent evidence of there being an association between serotonin and depression, and no support for the hypothesis that depression is caused by lowered serotonin activity or concentrations. Some evidence was consistent with the possibility that long-term antidepressant use reduces serotonin concentration.”

The authors conclude: 

“Our comprehensive review of the major strands of research on serotonin shows there is no convincing evidence that depression is associated with, or caused by, lower serotonin concentrations or activity.”

The researchers leave readers with this final paragraph in their analysis: 

“This review suggests that the huge research effort based on the serotonin hypothesis has not produced convincing evidence of a biochemical basis to depression. This is consistent with research on many other biological markers. We suggest it is time to acknowledge that the serotonin theory of depression is not empirically substantiated.”

It is important to note that their study did not look at the effectiveness of antidepressants directly. Meanwhile, a companion article written by two of the study’s authors and published in The Conversation states,

It is important that people know that the idea that depression results from a “chemical imbalance” is hypothetical. And we do not understand what temporarily elevating serotonin or other biochemical changes produced by antidepressants do to the brain. We conclude that it is impossible to say that taking SSRI antidepressants is worthwhile, or even completely safe.”

The statement sent shockwaves through the egos and pocketbooks of SSRI cheerleaders everywhere causing The Conversation to take swift action publishing the article titled Depression: low serotonin may not be the cause – but antidepressants still work the very next day.

Despite grabbing worldwide headlines, many in the scientific community came out after the research was published to claim they already knew about the debunked serotonin hypothesis. 

Meanwhile, the public has been left to still belief the leftover ‘chemical imbalance’ propaganda never fully corrected or atoned to by the collective professional body of psychiatrists. To add more confusion to the mix, psychiatrists still regularly dole out large numbers of SSRI prescriptions and promote their use.

A patient’s informed consent in this pharmaceutical fog of war…not possible.

Research put the global antidepressants market size at $11.67B in 2019 – before the mental health crisis fallout from the lockdown pandemic response. 27.4% of that market share is from SSRI drugs while another 22.6% comes from serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs).  

One lesson here is when it comes to public health or mental health interventions, the public, to their detriment, will be the last to know of any true harms related to them. 

Perhaps the biggest lesson from the findings and public release of this recent systematic umbrella review debunking the serotonin hypothesis serves to show how so many have failed to understand the chokehold pharmaceutical money and influence has on the  media, government regulators, medicine, research and journals. 

For example, in 2000 Dr. David Healy was on his way to a faculty and clinical position at the University of Toronto’s Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) when he gave a lecture “criticized pharmaceutical companies for avoiding experiments that could demonstrate problems with their drugs, and for not publishing unfavorable results. He said the data show that Prozac, and other popular antidepressants in the same chemical family, may have been responsible for one suicide for every day they have been on the market.” wrote Science Reporter in 2001.

A week later, his position offer was rescinded by the University’s Centre.

Back then, destroying careers and pulling funding from professionals for giving well-deserved bad press to their product lines was still something the public thought was a conspiracy theory.

A slow drip of truth was allowed to reach the public over the last decade yet its effects were slow to change both the prevailing consciousness around the serotonin theory myth still influential – until now.

Mild to severe depression might be better treated with alternatives to antidepressant drugs, which do not help patients much more than an inactive placebo, researchers said Tuesday” Reuters 2010

Is depression caused by a chemical imbalance? There’s actually little evidence supporting this widespread belief, which was heavily promoted by the drug companies.” The Week 2015

“…depression isn’t caused by a chemical imbalance, we don’t know how Prozac works, and we don’t even know for sure if it’s an effective treatment for the majority of people with depression.” – 2017″

Dr. Malone suggests sun during a segment on the War Room:

“There’s some good news, everybody. Even though the data on the influence of serotonin and depression is basically junk. That’s what this umbrella analysis shows. The data on the linkage between sunlight, vitamin D, and depression is strong. There are multiple papers out; it is very clear. Increasing your vitamin D levels, what a shock, just the same as how you can prevent your own COVID, to a large extent — getting your vitamin D levels up really helps with depression, and it’s not good enough to sit behind glass.

My friends, you have to get out. You have to have direct sunlight. The more, the better. Sunscreens are actually not your friend in terms of vitamin D, and I just want to leave everybody with the understanding that we have options, and what a surprise, there are options which the pharmaceutical industry has done their best to suppress any awareness of. They trashed the likes of Dr. Mercola, but in fact, he’s [right] on this one, too.”

BOGUS you guys….there is no ‘chemical imbalance’.  …just wanted you to know.  Depression has a CAUSE, and that cause is not an IMBALANCE IN YOUR BRAIN.

“…no clear relationship of depression to serotonin or other neurotransmitters were ever established.  No chemical imbalance or other biological process that might explain drug action in a disease centered way has been substantiated for any psychiatric disorder.  Most authorities now admit that there is no evidence that depression is associated the abnormalities of serotonin or adrenaline, as used to be believed.  There is also little empirical support for the dpoamine hypothesis of schizophrenia.  The chemical imablance notion was always a kind of urban legend, never a theory propounded by well-informed psychiatrists.  It was a myth.  Despite this concensus nearly everyone believes this message and parrots the message: 1) your brain is damaged  2) the drugs fix something…”

Dr. Robert Yoho MD (ret), writes brilliantly on the role of SSRIs in the mass shootings; SSRI antidepressants are insidious, poisonous, often lethal, and are promoted by mobster Pharma companies.

During the 1950’s, and more intensively in the 1960s, a serious search for the molecule behind depression was ongoing. Despite no consensus on the antidepressant-like effects of the serotonergic theory, based on a deficit of serotonin in certain brain regions, several drugs were introduced on the market after 1957. 

One supercharging effect happened when the pharmaceutical company Eli Lily, eventually of Prozac fame and fortune, created their ‘serotonin-depression study team’ in the early 1970s. The results were predictable with the eventual creation of Prozac leading the world on a wild goose chase for the elusive serotonergic phantom.

A popular selling point of these newer class of drugs was a lower adverse event profile. However, since its approval, a laundry list of harms are now associated with SSRI drugs and particular, Prozac.  

The US Food and Drug Administration approved Prozac in 1987


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s