What causes chemical imbalances?

You don't understand that every thing is caused by chemical reactions. Name one thing any thing that is not. So obviously mental illness is too. Imbalance is still a chemical reaction. Your error is too

exactly.

perception is our reality, but who's perception?

but is all there is?

After all it was never proven we don't have a soul

I was in patient where the Dr did a brain scan and said I had s chemical imbalance. A good friend just got out of rehab where they did a cat scan and mri. From these tests they gathered the info that her illness was not just alcoholism. I read a book called Beautiful Boy about a meth addict. When he was in withdrawal a Dr did a brain scan to prove that his symptoms were resulting from withdrawal. Those symptoms included severe depression.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

I think addiction issues is something different than naturally occuring "imbalance". Drugs, legal or illegal change your brain.

Everything in your brain part from the neuron impulses that are of electric nature, is chemistry. But when they say chemical imbalance, they do not at all talk about the chemical compounds that build up your brain cells (grey and white matter), when they say chemical, they are referring to transmitter substances ONLY.

I think this is part of why this "theory" is so pleasing to the masses, because they don't understand the basics of the brain so they think when they hear chemical, they think about everything that is of matter in the brain. It should be called the transmitter substance theory but then again that would confuse people.

Like I said, people need simplified explanations. Even when they are not true.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/18/he...anted=all&_r=0
http://ftp.nimh.nih.gov/health/publi...in/index.shtml

Here are the facts about brain scans. Your doctor can not see a chemical imbalance. He saw activity and determined you have "some sort of MI" and then spewed the myth. Did you start taking meds before or after the scan?

What's interesting about the cited studies is the patients with disorders have had them for a long time which means they were most likely already on medication. There is no question that meds alter the brain...how can anyone taking meds not believe this? I find this to be a fundamental flaw in the most publicized research. As the nyt article points out they need to follow people from childhood to adulthood for a good study. Not going to happen.

http://www.madinamerica.com/2013/06/...age-an-update/

Quote
"The trouble with this interpretation was that all the people in these studies were taking antipsychotic drugs. Peter Breggin suggested that the smaller brains and larger brain cavities observed in people diagnosed with schizophrenia in these and older studies using the less sensitive CT scans, were a consequence of antipsychotic drugs(3), but no one took him seriously. It was assumed that these findings revealed the brain abnormalities that were thought to constitute schizophrenia, and for a long time no one paid much attention to the effects of treatment. Where the effects of antipsychotics were explored, however, there were some indications that the drugs might have a negative impact on brain volume(4)."


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Well, that is not true. Chemical reactions involve only the low-energy stuff.

My objection to the "chemical imbalance" characterization of mental illness is not that chemicals (neurotransmitters) are not involved in every part of it, but that saying so is either trivial, or mischievous, since what people who use that idea are saying, is that the origins of mental illnesses are chemical. They deliberately ignore the fact that "chemical" changes in the brain are caused by experience too. So if you were to have an "imbalance" in the actions of neurotransmitter chemicals, those might have been caused by your experiences (interacting with your genetic makeup), not solely because of broken brain chemistry.

At best, "chemical imbalance" is a tremendous oversimplification of what is actually happening.

Are headaches caused by not enough aspirin in the brain?

Omg!!! I love all the science talk. I really needed to read this thread, put a smile on my face.

Like previously stated a chemical imbalance can cause MI but it's not the only factor. There are many variables at play including the uniqueness of each and every brain. No 2finger prints are the same, no 2 ppl are the same, and in conclusion no 2 brains are the same.

To answer the OP's question: Stress, early childhood environment, drug intake, diet, genetics, all effect the brain.
First question, its because certain AP's effect certain proteins that effect depression. Or they can decrease certain neurotransmitter receptor subtypes which allow for more neurotransmitters of the other receptor subtypes to be transmitted resulting in an antidepressant effect.

I can't answer the second question, but I would like to know, as I am one of those people who gets really bad effects off of certain psych meds, especially the serotonin ones. Like irritability, mania and suicidal behaviors. Those drugs almost killed me, they made me suicidal and I almost killed myself 4 times. The best explanation I have for why they cause such problems is that the person's brain is wired differently so it causes too much of these neurotransmitters to accumulate in the brain causing bad effects, or that person metabolizes the medication so fast it causes horrible side effects with little or no therapeutic benefit. Not only are our brains different, but the enzymes in our livers are different to. As many of you know, too much of a good thing is a bad thing. You are right the chemical imbalance theory doesn't totally add up, especially concerning theories of mood and anxiety disorders, and as others have stated its an oversimplification of the complex system known as the human brain. The most well studied are ADHD, Addiction and Schizophrenia. The dopamine theories are well respected in regards to these conditions.

Coffee does help balance things out, for the imbalance caused by the initiation of caffeine use. Dopamine isn't only involved in feel good stuff, its also involved in stress/anxiety, motor skills, cognition, attention span, and long-term memory. Its a complex neurotransmitter that has both inhibitory and "excitatory" properties depending on which part of the brain we are talking about and what receptor subtypes they are firing on.
Addiction issues are sometimes the result of a naturally occurring imbalance. Sometimes substances are the cause of imbalance. As was stated earlier nobody knows for sure. But the theories that make the most sense to me, deal with early childhood, early childhood experiences can cause "natural imbalances" caused by stress in early childhood when the inner parts of the brain involved in reward/reinforcement are still developing leading them to seek out things later in life that can fill that void, that emptiness. Including but not limited to substances that stimulate those same reward pathways (all addictive drugs effect the reward pathways of the inner brain). Use of such drugs reinforces those imbalances, studies show that just one time dosage of stimulants or opiates alters the reward pathways of the brain which reinforces their repeated use leading to addictions.

Food works in the same reward pathways, which is why a lot of addicts are underweight, because their brains feel a decreased need for food, as they are being bombarded with constant rewarding signalling. Food is not as pleasurable to them, because cocaine is way more pleasurable. On the contrary some people have food addictions, or are addicted to having sex, thrill seeking, or workaholics. In animal studies on these pathways, animals will repeatedly push the lever that stimulates dopamine or has a drug that stimulates dopamine, rather than eating or having sex, until they either die or collapse from fatigue.

Holy chemical schamolie!

To the chemical imbalance believers please read:

"The psychiatric profession has finally come clean and confessed on a national media outlet that there is no evidence to support the Serotonin Theory of Depression. Today, on NPR’s Morning Edition there is a segment about the chemical imbalance theory, and virtually all the psychiatrists who are interviewed acknowledge that the there was never any evidence in support of the idea that low serotonin causes depression. But then, amazingly, they go on to say that it is perfectly fine to tell patients that serotonin imbalance causes depression even though they know this isn’t the case."

>never any evidence<

Just to double emphasize…

But then, amazingly, they go on to say that it is perfectly fine to tell patients that serotonin imbalance causes depression even though they know this isn’t the case.

http://www.madinamerica.com/2012/01/...nd-confession/

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I know how the serotonin antidepressants work: indirectly by increasing serotonin levels in the brain, they increase steroid levels in the body, increasing hormone levels which causes the weight gain often accompanied by these medications. This in turn stimulates adrenalin release creating a stimulant effect similar to amphetamines which decreases some of the symptoms of depression like low energy and decreased interest in activities that used to be enjoyable. Even what I said there is a gross over-simplification of the full spectrum of actions by these drugs. But people who have been treated with antidepressants before, often have recurring depression down the road.

You can't see everything in black and white when it comes to psychiatry, otherwise you wont' get the full picture. Neurotransmitters do play a role in depression, but its not the full picture. I read the research papers, clinical trials and professional journals. I agree with the sum of this article that the advertisements are full of crap.

I also agree with what the psychiatrist says about it being perfectly fine to tell patients the serotonin chemical imbalance theory. Most of them are not going to spend a lot of time researching that theory at home, and having a good relationship, and respect for the higher education of their doctor creates a wonderful Placebo effect, which has been known for years to effectively treat depression. Even the APA admits that the placebo effect produces positive results in up to 40% of patients. Placebo alters brain function of people with depression

I'd imagine the more elaborate story behind a placebo, the better response to a placebo.

Another good point they are making in your article is about informed consent, I've never actually had a psychiatrist tell me my mental problems are due to some chemical imbalance, but I've seen the Zoloft commercials on TV decades ago (when I still watched television) and they told me that.

My psychiatrist after he did my psych evaluation (a really long, structured interview about my life) told me a lot of my problems are due to circumstances and the hardships I've endured in life. And my struggles with substance abuse and substance dependence certainly played a role as well. His #1 recommendation was CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy) but he also offered medications to provide symptomatic relief, which I declined to use at the time due to horrible past experiences with psychiatric medications. Plus I was effectively treating my depression with herbal remedies, which lack many of the life-changing side effects of antidepressants.

A placebo would be far safer than the antidepressants on the market.

For me any t or Pdoc that violated the "trust" that is supposed to be inherent in therapy by feeling it is ok to lie about this issue and push drugs would be an epic fail. Without honesty in a therapeutic relationship there can be no forward movement. Therapy doesn't take place in a vacuum and sooner or later a person is going to hear about this issue and question being lied to, any progress is then threatened. I have had therapists who disagreed with me on an issue like this and we just agree to disagree and go forward with respect for each other.

and yet some get bent out of shape when the other side is mentioned. Because you know, somebody might go off their meds, so it's dangerous to talk about alternatives or the dangers of psychdrugs.

don't even get my started on forced treatment.... which many of the proponents push through outright lies or very selective reading.

There are lots of drugs of all types that make you feel better. Most of us discovered that in high school or college. It doesn't alter the fact that MI is not caused by a chemical imbalance.

Why is this harmful?

The myth is harmful because it takes the ability to control a MI away from the patient and puts it in the hands of the medical community or worse... Big pharma. As your first doctor recommended there are alternatives to meds. In fact all meds do is help your symptoms. They don't cure anything and they probably harm you. They might even kill you. Saying your MI is caused by a chemical imbalance and then telling you meds effect the chemicals in your brain... How could the newbie NOT interpret that as a cure? It doesn't have to be clearly stated. I believe the brain scan article had a doctor that did brain scans to reduce anxiety about taking meds and encourage compliance. Sorry but that guy is a snake oil salesman.

The Zoloft commercial can be easily found on YouTube. If you watch it again carefully you can see how clever it is. They use phrases like "although not proven" and "may". They never actually state chemical imbalance is a cause. Watch any AD or AP direct to consumer ad and you can pick it apart the same way. They are designed to get you to think "yeah, I think I am depressed" and get you to say "I need Zoloft" to the doctor. Nobody actually hears "not proven" or "may". EXCEPT when it comes to herbal or natural treatments. That's another discussion.

The stigma everyone complains about is reinforced by the idea that we >need< drugs due to an imbalance we can control on our own. You are somehow abnormal and need "fixing". So now we have bills being introduced (by politicians getting money from big pharma) that force people to take meds or be institutionalized instead of getting them into group or community based environments that are cheaper and work. This is perhaps the saddest thing of all.

In reality there are lots of things you can do for major depression and bipolar that don't involve meds. What meds REALLY achieve is getting you to fit in to the environment around you called "normal". But as I have mentioned before disorders are determined by the culture. I wrote an earlier post about an example of depression. Disorders tend to reflect the values of the culture. Depression violates our idea that we should achieve happiness for example. I can provide examples where people use depression to their advantage if you want.

We hardly ever hear of people succeeding without meds. That is because you can't get help from the medical community (barely starting to change). People are forced to drop out as a consequence. They never end up in studies by organizations that can afford it and get it out to the press. The people "returning" do which further reinforces the stigma and pseudoscience.

I have said it in one way or another before: Our brains and bodies (not really separate) act like ecosystems. They can adapt and change throughout our lives and generationally. No jungle develops the same way. Jungles are a complicated mashup of plants and animals and parasites and microorganisms. It is able to adapt effectively on its own to changing environmental conditions. It is humans that actually capable of killing the entire ecosystem of a jungle. Your brain works the similarly. The whole "are you right brained or left brain?" is bs too. You are both. If one goes the other takes over.

Doctors are not trained to treat ecosystems. They are trained to treat machines. They are trained to look for and treat disabilities. They aren't trained to help you adapt to your world. They do not study Anthropology or sociology or art history which would teach diversity and the ability to adapt naturally. It might be comforting to believe there is a magic bullet but it is NEVER going to cure you. On the other hand people with disorders are adapting their environments, adapting their brains and living satisfying lives without meds all the time. So yeah, if you want to "fit in" believe the myth and take the pills without question. I'm doing it except I am questioning it. I wouldn't apologize for taking the meds or questioning it. The meds help me earn money so I can get out and adapt my life and I don't have to chemically force myself to fit in. This really shouldn't be radical thinking. It is very much easier and less complicated to comply. Luckily I have access to resources that will help me do this. 5 years ago I would not have been able to find any (I looked).



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yep. I can attest to getting out of shape. People have literally told me to shut up. It doesn't matter how I deliver it. Unlike sidestepper I can't agree to disagree with my care givers anymore. I take meds with eyes open but I see meds as encouraging an inauthentic life. I want something more.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I love the way you put this, it is what I believe also.

I do not ever believe there will be a one size fits all medication for mental illness. It needs to be individualized to each person. They have finally came out and said that there is differences in the way men and women metabolize drugs, I believe it goes further and there are differences from individual to individual. But big Pharm is going to put up a fight they have a good racket going. Why should they upset the applecart be looking into expensive options that will make all the drugs for side effects and the constant switch from one drug to another in the search for what works obsolete.

I think the need for "chemical imbalances" and psychmeds as "vitamins for the brain" comes from the way we view drugs as a society. As something evil. And then when we go for our mood altering fix, we gotta find excuses (I drink it cause I enjoy the taste, I have chemical imbalance in my brain and this medicine that corrects the imbalance...). Why not admit we put stuff in our bodies to make ourselves feel better? Humanity done that for ages. Animals do it.

Better doesn't necesarily mean high... just better. If your drugs work for you, whatever it is and you are aware of the risks, why not?

(as for what is legal or illegal and if it's for "reason". I don't believe it. EU tries hard to regulate herbs. Let me tell you that where I live melatonin is illegal. Apparently our law regulators don't lose sleep or they have access to much better dope. If you buy OTC medicine usually the Czech and Slovak instructions about max daily doses say something else... it will never cease to baffle me)

You might have seen this already. It is advertisements for Thorazine in the late 50s-60s. I don't remember if "magic bullet" was the phrase but they brilliantly advertised it that way. What's remarkable is how they stigmatize schizophrenia and other illnesses. Some of the ads look more like horror movie advertisements. So much for compassionate care. Side note is by the end of the 60s they had to make a liquid form so they could force it down patients throats.

http://www.whale.to/a/chlorpromazine_ads.html

I love the alcohol analogy... I drink like a fish and can't understand why i am depressed and not motivated. I actually know somebody like this.

I thought EU was better. Seems like I read about studies from time to time, the most recent approval for a derivative of lavender for depression in Germany. Of course natural doesn't necessarily mean safer either. Recently I had a jerk of a T tell me he didn't want to talk about chamomile because there are no double blind studies. Hundreds if not thousands of years of documented (via aruyvedic medicine) and experiential evidence is apparently not enough. 5 years is plenty for brain altering drugs however. I was thrilled to tell him there are in fact double blind studies and they are summarized on national institute of health . Of course it changed nothing. I'm just another noncompliant patient. That was our last meeting.

The FDA doesn't help. Instead of regulating the industry which has pluses and minuses, the plus being that safety information would be more readily available, they require the following disclaimer:

"This statement has not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease"

I guess this is overlapping that thread about why to hate big pharma but I did make sure to mention "brain altering". In case anybody is watching

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Egads! Those ads read like a Sci Fi book touting a pills to turn everyone into zombies. Your child being normal and testing boundaries, give them a shot of this, mom or pop finding themselves disagreeing with status qoe? Make them agreeable. Mania? Calm them, lethargic? Revive them.
Today's ads for the chemical balance myth are a bit more sutle but no less dangerous, you need to fall in line, it's you that's out of wack. The ads always bring to my mind the movie Metropolis. Shuffle right up, no thinking or questioning allowed.

Agreed. They should have never allowed direct to consumer ads.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

\
so you think you have found a substance that has no chemistry? You should write about it in the Science Journal!

(transmitter substances is not a chemical reaction wow!)

I have a 8 book herbary at home by a modern day herbalist. He experimented with lot of stuff himself and taught czechs how to use Aloe vera... he wrote in his book about how there was some "testing" done to proof Basil is evil and can kill you. They fed cows basil and basil only till they died.

Right now you can sell herbs here, but you cannot make any "unproven" claims. Yet, there is so much advertisemt for OTC painkillers on the TV, eventhough there's periodical reports about how people, especially women are getting addicted to them.

All matter is chemistry of course. But the chemical imbalance theory means the transmitter substance theory. The theory of chemical imbalance causing mental illness is about transmitter substances, for instance serotonin, dopamine, noradrenalin and so on. The THEORY does not include the other matter. If you have an issue with the chemical imbalance theory not including the chemical processes in other systems of the brain, maybe talk to the people behind the theory since I didn't come up with the theory.