Is the "Chemical Imbalance of the Brain" theory open to challenge?

I've been inspired to start this thread by a lively discussion that emerged on another thread dealing with a particular person's own challenges caused by long-term depression.

For a while, a few years ago, it seemed like it was becoming a settled issue that the "Chemical Imbalance" theory was close to being accepted as fact. Lately, it seems I'm finding articles that challenge that. Here is one that's a year old:
Does a brain chemical imbalance cause depression? Many find it hard to swallow
I'ld love to know what more members of PC think. I'll try to find more recent articles, if this topic turns out to be of interest here.

How is this imbalance measured? What type of scale is used? I want the physical proof. If we are imbalanced, why do these FDA approved chemicals not restore the balance for all that have tried them? And no, don't throw me that "we all have different chemistry" line, because I'm pretty sure all brains work the same, so if the meds were actually FOR treating the things they are treating, it would surely make a "solid" difference.

Take injectable contraceptives for example (synthetic hormones) women react differently to it, some gain / lose weight, some are weight neutral, some continue there cycle, some don't, some lose hair, others don't BUT 1 thing all these women have in common is that they are all being protected against unwanted pregnancy, even though their hormone levels are different and side effects of synthetic hormones differ.

Better yet, if chemical imbalance is factual, or even just very nearly so, why are we urged to take seizure meds as mood stabilizers for bipolar? Shouldn't there be a bp med by now if its as simple as "chemical imbalance", after all, who are more "imbalanced" than we? Seizure meds indeed WTH? I'm not having seizures I won't take flu medicine for a headache, so why am I expected to do that??

To me? Chemical Imbalance just sounds like a nice way for a dr to say "Something's really off about you, but heck if I know what exactly it is and how the hell to fix it, but here take these twice a day for forever"...

PLEASE NOTE: These are my views and opinions, this post is not meant to be judgemental toward anyone going the med route I tried it too, and just chose to change course.

It just plain never was a theory of the brain. It wasn't even a hypothesis but more an analogy. AD's can influence the outflow or retention of neurotransmitters (natural chemicals of the body, including the brain). It's metaphoric that the chemicals may be pushed into a better balance that helps the person cope with emotions and other things influenced by biochemistry - very complex things that are far from fully understood. Drugs were developed, but if you read about them, it's not even fully understood how they work!

The main problem with the over-reliance on the "chemical balance" concept is that so many people seem to assume that chemicals come first and everything else comes second. However, physical or behavioral things as well as emotions can all influence biochemistry and "chemical balance" just as much as in the opposite direction, but things don't work like clockwork on all people. People are not the same chemically, genetically, etc., and are very complex systems poorly understood.

Slow-witted creature that I am, it took me a while to figure out that "AD" means "antidepressant."

I am mentioning that in case anyone else gets stumped. (I'm actually on an AD. I have a long history of being obtuse. )

I'm pleased to see the spirited posts above. To be honest, I thought that PC members would, by and large, be in support of the "Chemical Imbalance" theory. I would encourage people who like the theory to post also. Here is a link that is supportive of the "Chemical Imbalance" theory:

Depression’s Chemical Imbalance Explained | Psych Central News

One of the things that I've found repeatedly in my reading is that this debate can become a case of "Which came first - the egg, or the chicken?" In other words, maybe becoming depressed makes the levels of serotonin and other neurotransmitters drop, rather than vice versa.

I think that the things we learn, or fail to learn, can affect out ability to deal with the tough breaks in life. That doesn't imply that brain chemicals can't also be factors, but I think the "Imbalance" theory caused a lot of people to believe that depression had more to do with physical causes than with anything else. That might have been leaping to more of a conclusion than the science supports.

I'm hardly an indifferent by-stander. I have bad depression, and I've become disillusioned with medication as a solution. Many years ago, amitriptyline dramatically improved my life, and I still take it. For two years, though, I've been getting more and more depressed. Pdocs have prescribed med after med after med. None of them helped, and I've stopped them all, except the amitriptyline.

I strongly believe there are a lot of causes for depression that have to do with the experiences you have in life. What say you?

I'm glad the other side is finally being heard. We have become a Prozac Nation.

Thanks for the article and posting.

I think the 'chemical imbalance' thing is just pop psychiatry. My psychiatrist never mentioned a chemical imbalance to me. And from all the literature I've read it's to do with a lack of serotonin which is a neurotransmitter, not a chemical.

I've questioned how doctors can say we're imbalanced, if they don't know what the correct levels are. When I bring this up, I'm treated like I don't want to get better (even though I'm taking my meds, and they do help somewhat), and how can I question the experts? (So-called experts, that is.) I'm open to other possibilities and theories, and maybe if more people were, we might find out what's really going on so we can fix it!

I question everything. I hurt 24/7 seen every type doctor possible tests were run ,, doctors mumbled and said ... well you have Fibromyalgia.. fine whatever i have found no effective treatment for it so slap a ragtag unproveable name to it.

Bipolar , no test to prove or disprove , fling a bunch of random drugs at it see what sticks. Altho I think medications can benefit some people, I think lifestyle changes, coping tools and just living your life instead of freaking out "what mood might hit and when and what if this happens or that happens"

Be safe live your life and remember there is no point in being worried about what may or may not happen.

Just my opinion

everything is open to challenge

where is George? surely he has something to say

I'm a George Some very interesting and thoughtful replies here. Mine is simple... we are a collection of chemicals acting and reacting so yeah when something isn't working it has to be chemically related. IT, your seratonin is a chemical and your brain is just a chemical reaction machine.
Synapses firing? Electricity through chemical reactions.
I'm not sure it's an "either or" question. I don't think researchers or doctors are even close to knowing what is going on here... but I believe chemical imbalance is just a hypothesis. It may be a good one but saying it's a chemical imbalance is not much better than saying I think I sort of understand part of the problem but not how or why it has the effect that it does.
If that doesn't make sense don't blame me... it shouldn't make sense and I think doctors who want us to believe they have it figured out are not just wrong... they are incredibly arrogant
I don't think doctors even understand why cancers form from previously normal cells so I'm not surprised that they haven't figured out how some minds go haywire or how to fix them.
I just read about a study that compared the effectiveness of St Johns wort, Zoloft, and a placebo in treating depression.
The St John's wort had a 24% success rate. Zoloft was 25%. The placebo had a 32% success rate... and it's much cheaper
me when I read this post tomorrow --->

I agree with George. Our thoughts and emotions all come from the brain. The brain is so complex and there are so many things that can go wrong with it. No one really understands it (yet?). But I think when they say "chemical imbalance" it is a vague catch all phrase that means "somethings wrong, don't exactly know what."

I also don't see this as an all or nothing issue. I KNOW I have psychological issues related to "environment" that have responded well to therapy. I also KNOW that without medical help in the form of mood stabilizers, etc., I fall into SEVERE manic and depressive episodes that are beyond the scope of psychotherapy. The COMBINATION of medication and therapy, along with exercise, diet, etc. has served me best in maintaining some semblance of stability. I DO believe there is something in me -- call it "chemistry" or "misfiring" or genetics or whatever (what you call it doesn't really mean crap to me) -- that requires medication treatment FOR ME to maintain stability. Does every person need medication? Probably not.

There is a strong genetic component to my illness which tells me that a good portion of my illness comes to me through heredity. Do they have that pegged down yet? No. But I suspect it will come in my lifetime. This is a very "young" field of research in the scheme of things. I suspect these questions will be answered in time.

Thanks muchly for this.

I personally HATE the theory. My brain is not broken! I'd scream that from rooftops, if I were not afraid of being forcibly commited and doped with something that they believe corrects my imbalances.

I find this theory highly dehumanizing. "You're imbalanced, nothing wrong here, take your pills and STFU". I find it said when people who been through traumas in their life claim there's something wrong with their brains, it's all serotonin and whatnot... I guess it may be easier than to adress issues of the past, or maybe it is that "there's something wrong with you" was instilled deep into their minds...

And in the end, I don't think it matters. Yes, brain research is progress new and new drugs are made... but we aren't more and more happy or satisfied. Maybe industrialization has something to do with it, maybe the hypercompetitive society, maybe lack of real social relations people have... we gotta be open to that possibility.

was adopted as a baby in large fam and only one DXd w MI. Years later, found birth family and saw a lot of similar MI probs throughout, so yes, tho not the only factor or determinant, there is a genetic component at work here, at times.

I'll add my voice to those against the chemical imbalance theory. Others here have already made my points, so I'll just mention a paper I read last week: The Media and the Chemical Imbalance Theory or Depression. It's written by a professor of neuroanatomy and a lecturer in social work.

Here's the abstract:

The whole article is available here: The Media and the Chemical Imbalance Theory of Depression - Springer# I found it to be a good read, and I'm reassured that there are people out there pushing back against this unproved theory which seems to be so pervasive.

I for one believe in both chemical/messed up neurotransmitters based depression and situational depression. It's just sometimes hard to tell which one you are in. I know that if I am in the mood to take a lot of naps, I am in chemical depression . Whereas if I am just plain sad, its situational. It's different for everyone though.

there another interesting article

The "chemical imbalance" myth

First I would argue that issue of genetics and the chemical imbalance theory aren't necessarily the same thing. Mental illness could be genetic but not be a chemical imbalance. Or it could be a chemical imbalance which doesn't have a genetic cause.

I've given a lot of thought to genetics too. My father was adopted. My family is full of depressives, suicides, and alcoholics in my mom's family and my dad's bio family - but not his adoptive family. That might argue for some kind of genetic mechanism. Or it could be that unhappy people raise unhappy children. The act of giving a child up for adoption is usually a sign that something has gone wrong in the family giving up the child. People who are giving up their children are usually in a lot of pain. And babies do feel the pain of being separated from their birth families - even tiny infants.

IMO there's a lot of evidence that we're born with certain characteristics that can form the core of our personality - excitable vs. placid, bold vs. timid, etc. Then those characteristics interact with our environment to shape us. Some of what we're born with may be genetic but some is environmental. If our mother is stressed while she's pregnant for example, that can effect us.

I think it's so complex it would be hard to tease out what's strictly genetic and what's environment.

Sorry, no, it is nowhere near a testable scientific hypothesis. Perhaps you mean "hypothesis" (And Rose, above, "theory") loosely in the vernacular, but these are technical terms in science as well.

ADs shut down reactive response mechanisms, classically by keeping more serotonin in the synapses. It's analogous to a painkiller shutting down pain signals. Some people like this squelching of irritating reactivity, while some people feel it erased part of their personality and identity. Other ADs have an amphetamine component, giving some people motivation to round out the flatness. There is a basic understanding that neurotransmitters and synapses are being targeted by the chemicals, but this is hardly a theory of the brain. It's clinical trial and error for the most part. It's a clinical approach.

I wish people would stop throwing around high-powered scientific terms, because it just confuses people who have a tendency to then become dogmatic. I admit this is a pet peeve because I know someone who believes in The Secret, and argues for it based on a "scientist" who supports it (trained in social science, actually) without having a single clue what any actual science is about.

I don't think there is a single cause of depression or even a single type; is bipolar depression the same as Major depression? How can dysthymia possibly be similar to depression that responds more quickly to medication? If it is only chemical, how come therapy can work as well as medication and the two, together, the best?

I believe there is depression caused by having a "lousy" life, either through happenstance or one's own accidental agency or personal failure. Chemical depression to me sounds like someone who drinks too much, liquor being a depressant.

I think there appears to be more depression these days because there's both more awareness but also because humanity and life/change is moving a bit faster than the majority can deal with; our "hull" has gotten a crack in it on deck 9 :-)

i think it's kind of simple. Our emotions affect our body. It's one system. If you guys can remember, you know that feeling happy, you know you can feel that in your body too. If you're anxious you feel that in your body. Chemicals in our body make us feel certain ways, but real life events trigger these emotions/chemicals. Depression in my opinion is when your inner, "real" self is under oppression. If you can express yourself even to yourself, you will not become depressed. But it might just be my case, I don't want to generalize my theory. Based on a half-hungarian psychologist and psychiatrist, Andrew Feldmar, there shouldn't be diagnoses made such as "bipolar" or "depression". Because there is no physical cause for it. it's emotional. And he says doctors can only cure the body. Your soul can only be cured by yourself, perhaps by expressing yourself. It can't be cured by doctors. that's why he doesn't call it a disease or an illness. I agree with this theory.

It's also hard to talk about depression as a state that could be "inherited" from our parents. As far as I'm concerned, anxiety can be genetically in us. We can be more anxious. and anxiety triggers depression, and makes it much worse.

But it's always hard to tell whether you actually "biologically" or "genetically" inherited something, or you just learned it as a behaviour from your mom and dad who you see being totally anxious about little things too.

In my opinion the most you can do in fighting depression, is to get to know yourself as much as you can. And after you're done with that (which is probably an entire life learning process) you can try and blame it on biology and genetics.

Depression is a vicious cycle, and maybe that's why we need chemicals, because the depressed state itself triggers depression. For me, AD helps with only that, I guess. That's the only thing that it's doing for me, is that I don't feel that this is gonna last forever, I feel if I work hard, I will get out of it. So it gives me hope. But I do go to therapy and maybe that's what's giving me hope.
Hope is really really important.

Below is a link to a video that provides a very gripping critique of the "Chemical Imbalance" theory:

Depression is not a Chemical Imbalance in Your Brain - Here's Proof

This video expresses very controversial criticism of psychiatry. It condemns psychiatry as being allied with the drug industry in the relentless search for profit. There is some very compelling argument in this presentation. I learned a lot that I found interesting.

However, I found myself wondering what motivated the production of this video. The website is Mercola.com. It seems Dr. Joseph Mercola, himself, takes more than a passing interest in making money. He sells a lot of stuff.

Below is a link critical of Dr. Mercola:

Dr. Mercola: Visionary or Quack?

It seems that the biggest voices on both sides of this issue have a lot of money riding on their ability to get us to believe them. I guess we owe it to ourselves to hear from both perspectives. Ultimately, we got to look out for ourselves.

For some reason, there is not a "Thanks" option at the end of every post. I do heartily thank every single poster.

The system in the brain is extremely complex. First, scientists have only isolated a handful of neurotransmitters (chemicals that carry electric signals from one brain cell to another) and there are many more neurotransmitters that exist that have not been isolated. Scientists have discovered that there's a correlation between neurotransmitters and mood. And there's also a genetic component (chromosome mutations) that makes some people more predisposed to depression or manic-depression than other people. These chromosome mutations result in certain proteins and/or enzymes not being metabolized correctly. (Region of chromosome 22 linked to bipolar disorder, again)

The only way Scientists can postulate that a drug does something specific in the brain (relieve mania, anxiety, depression, etc.) is to test it in controlled studies in animals or humans. (That's how the effect of lithium was first discovered, ie. by accident on a guinea pig). And these Studies are how the FDA makes its decision on whether or not a certain drug has been proven to be effective for a specific condition.

Serotonin is a molecule that is made up of chemicals just like dopamine, norepinephrine (noradrenaline) and epinephrine are. Proteins, enzymes are molecules that are also made up of chemicals. Every molecule in your body is made up of chemicals like water, carbon, salt, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, potassium, zinc, etc.

Just a story I heard on NPR this week: There is a group of neurons that decipher sound and music so that our brains can understand it. When Stravinsky debuted the "Rite of Spring" in 1913 in Paris the audience had never heard anything like it before. He had placed dissonant music overtop of melodies. The NPR guests said that when this specific group of neurons have trouble decoding sound/music they emit excess dopamine. (And excess dopamine has been found to be associated with schizophrenia along with other factors.) They said the audience that night went completely mad and experienced schizophrenia. In 1914, the "Rite of Spring" was performed again and people had heard it before and had learned to like it (and love it) and that night Stravinsky was hailed as a genius and was carried out of the theater on peoples' shoulders. (The Rite of Spring - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Milestones of the Millennium: The Rite of Spring)

"Monteux believed that the trouble began when the two factions in the audience began attacking each other, but their mutual anger was soon diverted towards the orchestra: "Everything available was tossed in our direction, but we continued to play on". Around forty of the worst offenders were ejected—possibly with the intervention of the police, although this is uncorroborated. Through all the disturbances the performance continued without interruption."

This shows you how complex the brain can behave.