Jump to content
cinephile

Again, chemical imbalance is a myth. Stop the lies, please.

Recommended Posts

Altostrata
3 hours ago, Ather said:

Before prescribing medications, There should be Blood tests of all the major neurotransmitters, like a complete neurotransmitter profile, these tests are still not common and not available at many places and if they are then they are very expensive, they should be made common so a clear reference range in the general population comes out, doctors should prescribe after reading the data of different neurotransmitters and also listening to the patient very carefully, until this happens we cannot call it chemical imbalance.

 

These tests are not valid. There is no test to assess neurotransmitter status in the brain. There is no reference range.

 

"Chemical imbalance" has always been a hypothesis based on very little evidence, and was disproved long ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ather
On 11/12/2018 at 1:38 PM, Altostrata said:

  

These tests are not valid. There is no test to assess neurotransmitter status in the brain. There is no reference range.

  

"Chemical imbalance" has always been a hypothesis based on very little evidence, and was disproved long ago.

 

I think it is just a matter of time and effort, if the scientists and researchers can bring the whole long DNA sequence out, then they can do this too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Altostrata

You can believe and fantasize anything you like. We do not permit such speculation on this site, it's a waste of time and terribly misleading for those who want to go off psychiatric drugs. If you want to discuss the future of the "chemical imbalance" theory, there's a big wide Web outside where you can chat about anything.

 

In our current reality, there is no basis for the "chemical imbalance" theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ather

I would be the last person to advocate the present day antidepressants or any other psychiatric drugs specially the SSRIs, as myself am going through a tough period of withdrawal from them.

 

When we first started to fly, many would die, we found a safer craft we thought it was safe (just like the SSRIs) an Airship but it killed many people, so then in the end we settled down on Airplanes, 747 being one of the safest and now the Airbus A380,  500,000 flights and not a single being fatal?

this is not fantasy this is real.

 

There is a lot of work to be done in this field, human brain / mind,  just like any other organ of the body like heart or liver or kidneys or stomach can be genetically sick or it can get sick during our stay in this world and there must be better solutions out there, hidden from our eyes for now.

 

Seek Knowledge from the cradle to the grave.

 

Your's Ather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Altostrata

That's true, Ather, but what we know now is there's no basis for the "chemical imbalance" theory, so discussing whether it might be true some time in the future is not productive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papaloapan

 In response to the first post at the 1st page of this thread of Jemima: Indeed the whole high-cholestrol theory of heart disease is flawed, you can read that in the great book "Biology of belief" by Dr Bruce Lipton: "Cholesterol is a lipid molecule that plays a vital role in our day-to-day survival. Cholesterol is an essential component of the membrane whose function is required for the survival of our 50 trillion cells."

 

There was an experiment with rats with samples of blood from them, used to study human atherosclerosis, the hardening and narrowing of arteries that is the leading cause of death in the US. The animals had so much cholesterol that their blood was milky white. Despite their apparently toxic level of cholesterol, these rats did not form endothelial cell plaques typical of atherosclerotic blood vessels. The scientist added an over-the-counter antihistamine drug (for allergy) when he introduced the cholesterol. Because antihistamines could override cholesterol's apparent role in atherosclerotic plaque formation, his work showed that the mere presence of cholesterol was NOT the driving force behind a blood vessel's malfunction. The results of animal studies point to the role that chronic stress plays in the creation of histamine and in the onset and exacerbation of atherosclerosis and promotion of cardiovascular disease. Cardiovascular pathology may instead primarily result from environmental stressors rather than genetic dysfunctions or cholesterol. 

 

The rush to judgement of medical establishment against cholesterol, was fueled by the interests of the pharmaceutical industry, because big pharma came up with their magic bullet as statins, used for lowering levels of cholesterol. To make long story short, in the experiment, the discovery was that the atherosclerosis was caused by stress and not by high levels of cholesterol. Statin drugs help almost nothing only for preventing cardiovascular disease with very little success, but statins are much more toxic and harmful than helpful. The jupiter study was a study manipulated by Astra Zeneca with false information just to create the lie that statins and the lowering of cholesterol helps healing heart disease. 

 

"Though statins accounted for $29 billion in US sales in 2013, their war against cholesterol has barely had an impact in cardiovascular disease. At best, statin drugs lower the actual risk of heart attack by around 0.3% while at the same time producing side effects in 15 to 40% of those using the drug. Recent independent studies have shown that statin use for primary prevention has minimal or no value in reducing heart attacks and mortality (Sultan and Hynes 2013)"

 

 

Edited by ChessieCat
added spacing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papaloapan

Just to clear up: the rats experiment is true and was done by a scientist who has nothing to do with a pharma company. The Jupiter study was done, funded and manipulated by the pharma company Astra Zeneca

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
btdt

Statins look up spacedoc.com

22 hours ago, papaloapan said:

 In response to the first post at the 1st page of this thread of Jemima: Indeed the whole high-cholestrol theory of heart disease is flawed, you can read that in the great book "Biology of belief" by Dr Bruce Lipton: "Cholesterol is a lipid molecule that plays a vital role in our day-to-day survival. Cholesterol is an essential component of the membrane whose function is required for the survival of our 50 trillion cells."

 

There was an experiment with rats with samples of blood from them, used to study human atherosclerosis, the hardening and narrowing of arteries that is the leading cause of death in the US. The animals had so much cholesterol that their blood was milky white. Despite their apparently toxic level of cholesterol, these rats did not form endothelial cell plaques typical of atherosclerotic blood vessels. The scientist added an over-the-counter antihistamine drug (for allergy) when he introduced the cholesterol. Because antihistamines could override cholesterol's apparent role in atherosclerotic plaque formation, his work showed that the mere presence of cholesterol was NOT the driving force behind a blood vessel's malfunction. The results of animal studies point to the role that chronic stress plays in the creation of histamine and in the onset and exacerbation of atherosclerosis and promotion of cardiovascular disease. Cardiovascular pathology may instead primarily result from environmental stressors rather than genetic dysfunctions or cholesterol. 

 

The rush to judgement of medical establishment against cholesterol, was fueled by the interests of the pharmaceutical industry, because big pharma came up with their magic bullet as statins, used for lowering levels of cholesterol. To make long story short, in the experiment, the discovery was that the atherosclerosis was caused by stress and not by high levels of cholesterol. Statin drugs help almost nothing only for preventing cardiovascular disease with very little success, but statins are much more toxic and harmful than helpful. The jupiter study was a study manipulated by Astra Zeneca with false information just to create the lie that statins and the lowering of cholesterol helps healing heart disease. 

 

"Though statins accounted for $29 billion in US sales in 2013, their war against cholesterol has barely had an impact in cardiovascular disease. At best, statin drugs lower the actual risk of heart attack by around 0.3% while at the same time producing side effects in 15 to 40% of those using the drug. Recent independent studies have shown that statin use for primary prevention has minimal or no value in reducing heart attacks and mortality (Sultan and Hynes 2013)"

 

 

 

 

Anyone interested in this should check out spacedoc.com 

A NASA  doctor who was put on a statin drug with horrid effects... his first page covers heart and cholesterol too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChessieCat
4 hours ago, Shep said:

With diabetes, you can measure the levels of glucose and then you take a certain measured amount of insulin. But with a so-called "anxiety disorder", you can't measure your serotonin or your levels of GABA.  There are no objective tests for any type of so-called "mental illness". On many levels, the "diabetes analogy" that many of us have been subjected to falls apart. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
marconyc

I'm not sure why I'm jumping in here--probably just procrastinating at work--but I'd like to point out that studies purporting to prove the chemical imbalance theory of depression seem unable to show that changes in neurotransmitters (or hippocampal size, etc) are the cause of depression and not the consequence. 

 

I have seen some studies suggesting that up to about 40% of a person's depression risk may be genetic. However, even in people who have the suspected genes that predispose to depression, environment plays an enormous role. This article on "orchid genes" is interesting: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/12/the-science-of-success/307761/ The article states that "Most of us have genes that make us as hardy as dandelions: able to take root and survive almost anywhere. A few of us, however, are more like the orchid: fragile and fickle, but capable of blooming spectacularly if given greenhouse care. So holds a provocative new theory of genetics, which asserts that the very genes that give us the most trouble as a species, causing behaviors that are self-destructive and antisocial, also underlie humankind’s phenomenal adaptability and evolutionary success. With a bad environment and poor parenting, orchid children can end up depressed, drug-addicted, or in jail—but with the right environment and good parenting, they can grow up to be society’s most creative, successful, and happy people."

 

Furthermore, just because a condition has genetic roots doesn't mean it requires a pharmaceutical solution. Type 2 diabetes is a good example. There are clearly some genetic factors at play, but lifestyle seems to be more powerful an influence, and lifestyle modification can reverse it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
elbee
22 hours ago, ChessieCat said:
  On 3/10/2019 at 10:12 AM, Shep said:

With diabetes, you can measure the levels of glucose and then you take a certain measured amount of insulin. But with a so-called "anxiety disorder", you can't measure your serotonin or your levels of GABA.  There are no objective tests for any type of so-called "mental illness". On many levels, the "diabetes analogy" that many of us have been subjected to falls apart. 

 

That sums things up perfectly in three short sentences. If my "mental illness" is due to low serotonin levels, then show me the test to measure my serotonin levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
marconyc

The latest issue of the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences features several prominent researchers debunking the notion that mental health concerns are “brain disorders.” https://www.madinamerica.com/2019/03/mental-health-concerns-not-brain-disorders-say-researchers/

 

One of the points made in the review of the journal issue echoes what I wrote earlier in this thread: "Additionally, because correlation cannot prove causation, it is just as likely that any neurobiological changes detected are the result of a mental state, rather than the cause. That is, changes in a person’s neurotransmitter levels would actually be expected after drastic changes in sleep, eating, and mood states—biological changes could be caused by routine changes such as this, or they could both be part of some other process."

 

And here is a statement by the authors/researchers, which echoes @Shep: "“In the current scheme of things, explanatory reductionism is a remote possibility, not a realistic research target. We do not have biomarkers that are sufficiently reliable and predictive for diagnostic use. We have not identified genes that are specific to disorders and explain an appreciable amount of variance. We have not obtained insight into pathogenetic pathways in the brain that are sufficiently secure to inform treatment. If anything, we should wonder why the massive investments in research, that should have uncovered these factors, have not pushed back the prevalence of common mental disorders by a single percentage point.”

 

The authors state that reductionistic biological explanations of mental health “should not be understood as science but as science fiction.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sass

That is exactly what I was told 23 years ago that I had a chemical imbalance in my brain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChessieCat

I was told it about 6 years ago so not much has changed unfortunately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WakeMeUp

Is it possible to add this to the links on the very first page?  This talks about why the chemical imbalance theory is a lie, how many leading experts in the field say it's a lie, and why it continues to be such a wide-spread belief? 

 

In addition to the links already available (thank you for those!), I also found this very valuable for digging deeper into all of these issues. 

It helps when having those "difficult discussions" that there are significant pieces of literature that might be shorter than Anatomy of an Epidemic (Whitaker), but still have detailed information with multiple credible sources. .    
Thanks!

-------

The biomedical model of mental disorder: A critical analysis of its validity, utility, and effects on psychotherapy research - Brett J. Deacon

http://jonabram.web.unc.edu/files/2013/09/Deacon_biomedical_model_2013.pdf (16 page paper)

  • See specific quotes and sources on pg 851 - "Limitations of the biomedical model"
    • “What we are missing is an understanding of the biology of the disorders and what is really going wrong.”
      “In truth, we still do not know how to define a [brain] circuit. Where does a circuit begin or end? How do the patterns of “activity” on imaging scans actually translate to what is happening in the brain? What is the direction of information flow? In fact, the metaphor of a circuit in the sense of flow of electricity may be woefully inadequate for describing how mental activity emerges from neuronal activity in the brain.”
      “Despite high expectations, neither genomics nor imaging has yet impacted the diagnosis or treatment of the 45 million Americans with serious or moderate mental illness each year….the gap between the surge in basic biological knowledge and the state of mental health care in this country has not narrowed and may be getting wider.”
      “Medications developed over the past five decades have been prescribed widely but have not been sufficient for reducing the morbidity and mortality of mental disorders.”
      ~ Thomas Insel, M.D., NIMH Director
       
    • “The disorders contained [in the DSM] are heuristics that have proven extremely useful in clinical practice and research, especially by creating a common language that can be applied with reasonably good interrater reliability. Unfortunately, the disorders within these classifications are not generally treated as heuristic, but to a great degree have become reified. Disorders within the DSM-IV or ICD-10 are often treated as if they were natural kinds, real entities that exist independently
      of any particular rater.”
      ~ Steven Hyman, M.D., former NIMH Director (1996–2001)
       
    • “Although the past two decades have produced a great deal of progress in neurobiological investigations, the field has thus far failed to identify a single neurobiological phenotypic marker or gene that is useful in making a diagnosis of a major
      psychiatric disorder or for predicting response to psychopharmacological treatment.”
      ~ Michael First, M.D., Editor of DSM-IV
       
    • “The incredible recent advances in neuroscience, molecular biology, and brain imaging…are still not relevant to the clinical practicalities of everyday psychiatric diagnosis. The clearest evidence supporting this disappointing fact is that not even one
      biological test is ready for inclusion in the criteria sets for DSM‐V.”
      ~ Allen Frances, M.D., Chair of DSM-IV Task Force
       
    • “…brain science has not advanced to the point where scientists or clinicians can point to readily discernible pathologic lesions or genetic abnormalities that in and of themselves serve as reliable or predictive biomarkers of a given mental
      disorder or mental disorders as a group.”
      ~ American Psychiatric Association
       
    • “Few lesions or physiological abnormalities define the mental disorders, and for the most part their causes are unknown.”
      ~ Surgeon General's Report on Mental Health
       
    • “Psychopharmacology is in crisis. The data are in, and it is clear that a massive experiment has failed: despite decades of research and billions of dollars invested, not a single mechanistically novel drug has reached the psychiatric market
      in more than 30 years.”
      ~ Christian Fibiger, Ph.D., former vice president of neuroscience at Eli Lilly and Amgen
       
    • “What the field lacks is sufficient basic knowledge about normal brain function and how its disturbance underlies the pathophysiology of psychiatric disease. Because of this, as the record now clearly shows, it remains too early to attempt
      rational drug design for psychiatric diseases as currently conceived.”
      “Chemical imbalance is sort of last-century thinking. It's much more complicated than that. It's really an outmoded way of thinking.”
      ~ Joseph Coyle, M.D., Editor of Archives of General Psychiatry
       
    • “In truth, the ‘chemical imbalance’ notion was always a kind of urban legend — never a theory seriously propounded by well-informed psychiatrists.”
      ~ Ronald Pies, M.D., Editor of Psychiatric Times
       
  • See critical questions on pg 857 - Quality of Care, and credibility of professionals will remain at risk until an honest and public dialog occurs that include these questions.
    • How can mental disorders be considered biologically-based brain diseases, or valid medical conditions, when researchers have not identified biological variables capable of reliably diagnosing any mental disorder, distinguishing between individuals with or without a mental disorder, or distinguishing different mental disorders from each other?
    • How can mental disorders be caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain when scientists lack a baseline standard of what constitutes a chemical balance with which to discern an imbalance, and do not possess a direct measure of neurotransmitter levels in the brain that possesses diagnostic validity or clinical utility?
    • Given the historical lack of scientific evidence for the chemical imbalance theory of mental disorder, why have biomedical advocates promoted this story? Why have the APA, NIMH, and NAMI (among others, see Table 1) failed to publicly acknowledge that this story is unfounded? What have been the historical consequences of these actions? How have these actions been influenced by these organizations' involvement with the pharmaceutical industry?
    • If decades of biomedical research have not resulted in the development of clinically useful biological tests, innovative psychotropic medications, or improved mental health outcomes, should billions of dollars of taxpayer money continue to be preferentially allocated to biomedical research? Should zealous advocates of the biomedical model continue to head governmental agencies that determine national research and policy agendas?
    • If psychotropic medications are safe and effective, why has the rate of mental health disability risen in close temporal association with their increased use? Shouldn't the widespread use of safe and effective psychotropic medications lead to less severe, chronic, and disabling mental disorders, as opposed to the opposite?
    • If attributing mental disorder to biologically-based brain disease reduces mental health stigma, why has stigma not improved in the context of widespread promotion and increased public acceptance of the biomedical model?
    • If the biomedical model of mental disorder is less valid and psychotropic medications are less safe and effective than is commonly acknowledged, on what basis should psychiatrists be granted the legal authority to involuntarily hospitalize and forcibly treat individuals with mental disorders?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Altostrata

Thank you for such an insightful post, WakeMeUp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shep
On 11/12/2018 at 3:38 AM, Altostrata said:

"Chemical imbalance" has always been a hypothesis based on very little evidence, and was disproved long ago.

 

This from Wendy Burn, dated August 9, 2019, regarding the chemical imbalance: 

 

Wendy Burn - Twitter
 

Quote

It hasn’t actually been disproven, we won’t know until we can actually measure the chemicals in the brain.

 

 

I'm afraid to ask exactly how Psychiatry Inc. plans on doing this or how high the body count will be during their experiments. 

 

Very disappointed to see this coming from the president of the Royal College of Psychiatry in 2019, although I'm not really surprised. Psychiatry is social control, not medicine. 

 

For a more honest take on it: 

 

History We Can’t Overlook Anymore: Details Before the Anti-Depressant Era

 

  • Jonathan Cole, NIMH, 1964: “Depression is, on the whole, one of the psychiatric conditions with the best prognosis for eventual recovery with or without treatment. Most depressions are self-limited.”
  • Nathan Kline, Journal of the American Medical Association, 1964: “In the treatment of depression, one always has an ally the fact that most depressions terminate in spontaneous remissions. This means that in many cases regardless of what one does the patient eventually will begin to get better.”
  • Dean Schuyler, head of the depression section at the NIMH, 1974: Most depressive episodes “will run their course and terminate with virtually complete recovery without specific intervention.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AlexRussia

90% of doctors I visited said depression and anxiety caused by chemical imbalance. Then I read some books they used as guidance , some quotes: "Diazepam use are safe and don't lead to addiction until u use it more then 9 month", "Withdrawal stops  after drug leaves the body" ,  "Z-drugs are not addicyive", "Antidepressants and neuroleptics do not cause withdrawal" and etc...    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Altostrata

That was not a very smart comment by Wendy Burn. Technically accurate that a theory based on nothing might accidentally be found to be true. Evil spirits might be involved, as well --since nobody has managed to investigate living brains for the presence of evil spirits, why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bubbles

I keep hearing this myth in the community (ie, it isn't doctors saying it, though in the past I've certainly heard it or a version of it from doctors) including just a few days ago.

 

It's very frustrating. I'm afraid I don't go into it with them - my experience with these drugs is too private and too painful - so I guess I'm not doing anything to counter it. I make certain that my kids know the reality of these drugs. But I don't have it in me to go on a public crusade to stop this dangerous myth from circulating so I guess I'm part of the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChessieCat
32 minutes ago, bubbles said:

my experience with these drugs is too private and too painful - so I guess I'm not doing anything to counter it.

 

I haven't had the emotional energy to follow up with the psychologist who started me on Pristiq and told me that I needed an AD like a diabetic needs insulin.  I've been meaning to do it for at least 2 years but just haven't been able to.  I do feel bad about it, because I think of all the other people who may have been started/kept on drug/s through me not doing anything about it.

 

However, I need to look after me first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shep
13 hours ago, bubbles said:

But I don't have it in me to go on a public crusade to stop this dangerous myth from circulating so I guess I'm part of the problem.

 

12 hours ago, ChessieCat said:

I do feel bad about it, because I think of all the other people who may have been started/kept on drug/s through me not doing anything about it.

 

None of us on this forum are part of the problem and no one here should feel bad about it.  Your participation on this forum is an important part of the solution. 

 

Keep in mind that SA is used by researchers doing great work. 

 

SurvivingAntidepressants.org mentions and honors

 

Psychiatric Times: Online Communities for Drug Withdrawal: What Can We Learn?

 

And everyone coming off these drugs is a major disruption to power because we are leaving this system of oppression. When enough people boycott the system by coming off these drugs and enough doctors become dissenters (especially those who use forced treatment), the system will lose power. 

 

We all play a role and for that, we should all be very proud of our individual and collective accomplishments. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...