The reason I make the connection to sugar which is more of analogy is that 99% of seratonin is in the gut. When I did a cleanse which cleaned out the gut I was immediately able to drop the ssri afterwards. I had been reducing it for several months a couple time having to go back up because it was too fast. I also experienced the symptoms of serotonin syndrome. Is that scientific? NO! But listening to my body seems to be as valuable as reading the research. And I read a lot of research

I am very suspicious of reasons why they would spend so much time selling seratonin for the brain and NOT research what is in the gut. If anyone has said I have not seen it yet. But you know... Ssri's are cheap so why bother?

On the Harvard article. I can not determine if the dr gets paid by pharma. There's a database for it ... On politico? What makes me suspicious is how many speaking engagements and public appearances he does. Pharma does pay doctors to speak on their behalf. Harvard press is not Harvard university so this is not a research based paper. He basically compiled the info but there are no sources listed.

McClean is where the depression research is for Harvard. If you look at a sample of projects they do not deal with chemical imbalances. I did see a publication about the future of AD. Ssri was mentioned on the first page as ineffective for some percent of patients. The paper is way over my head but it is clear they are going in a completely different direction.

http://cdasr.mclean.harvard.edu/index.php/research

EDIT:
The idea that we are guinea pigs is unacceptable to me in this day and age. Take the marketing and profit peace out of big pharma and you might soften my position. But when I look at projects that indies are doing I see things that look much more promising and invasive. It just needs to come to mainstream.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk