Science Depression is probably not caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain – new study


For three decades, people have been deluged with information suggesting that depression is caused by a “chemical imbalance” in the brain – namely an imbalance of a brain chemical called serotonin. However, our latest research review shows that the evidence does not support it.

Although first proposed in the 1960s, the serotonin theory of depression started to be widely promoted by the pharmaceutical industry in the 1990s in association with its efforts to market a new range of antidepressants, known as selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors or SSRIs. The idea was also endorsed by official institutions such as the American Psychiatric Association, which still tells the public that “differences in certain chemicals in the brain may contribute to symptoms of depression”.

Countless doctors have repeated the message all over the world, in their private surgeries and in the media. People accepted what they were told. And many started taking antidepressants because they believed they had something wrong with their brain that required an antidepressant to put right. In the period of this marketing push, antidepressant use climbed dramatically, and they are now prescribed to one in six of the adult population in England, for example.

For a long time, certain academics, including some leading psychiatrists, have suggested that there is no satisfactory evidence to support the idea that depression is a result of abnormally low or inactive serotonin. Others continue to endorse the theory. Until now, however, there has been no comprehensive review of the research on serotonin and depression that could enable firm conclusions either way.

At first sight, the fact that SSRI-type antidepressants act on the serotonin system appears to support the serotonin theory of depression. SSRIs temporarily increase the availability of serotonin in the brain, but this does not necessarily imply that depression is caused by the opposite of this effect.

There are other explanations for antidepressants’ effects. In fact, drug trials show that antidepressants are barely distinguishable from a placebo (dummy pill) when it comes to treating depression. Also, antidepressants appear to have a generalised emotion-numbing effect which may influence people’s moods, although we do not know how this effect is produced or much about it.

Doctor writing a prescription
Around one in six people in England are prescribed antidepressants. fizkes/Shutterstock
First comprehensive review
There has been extensive research on the serotonin system since the 1990s, but it has not been collected systematically before. We conducted an “umbrella” review that involved systematically identifying and collating existing overviews of the evidence from each of the main areas of research into serotonin and depression. Although there have been systematic reviews of individual areas in the past, none have combined the evidence from all the different areas taking this approach.

One area of research we included was research comparing levels of serotonin and its breakdown products in the blood or brain fluid. Overall, this research did not show a difference between people with depression and those without depression.

Another area of research has focused on serotonin receptors, which are proteins on the ends of the nerves that serotonin links up with and which can transmit or inhibit serotonin’s effects. Research on the most commonly investigated serotonin receptor suggested either no difference between people with depression and people without depression, or that serotonin activity was actually increased in people with depression – the opposite of the serotonin theory’s prediction.

Research on the serotonin “transporter”, that is the protein which helps to terminate the effect of serotonin (this is the protein that SSRIs act on), also suggested that, if anything, there was increased serotonin activity in people with depression. However, these findings may be explained by the fact that many participants in these studies had used or were currently using antidepressants.

We also looked at research that explored whether depression can be induced in volunteers by artificially lowering levels of serotonin. Two systematic reviews from 2006 and 2007 and a sample of the ten most recent studies (at the time the current research was conducted) found that lowering serotonin did not produce depression in hundreds of healthy volunteers. One of the reviews showed very weak evidence of an effect in a small subgroup of people with a family history of depression, but this only involved 75 participants.

Very large studies involving tens of thousands of patients looked at gene variation, including the gene that has the instructions for making the serotonin transporter. They found no difference in the frequency of varieties of this gene between people with depression and healthy controls.

Although a famous early study found a relationship between the serotonin transporter gene and stressful life events, larger, more comprehensive studies suggest no such relationship exists. Stressful life events in themselves, however, exerted a strong effect on people’s subsequent risk of developing depression.

Some of the studies in our overview that included people who were taking or had previously taken antidepressants showed evidence that antidepressants may actually lower the concentration or activity of serotonin.

Not supported by the evidence
The serotonin theory of depression has been one of the most influential and extensively researched biological theories of the origins of depression. Our study shows that this view is not supported by scientific evidence. It also calls into question the basis for the use of antidepressants.

Most antidepressants now in use are presumed to act via their effects on serotonin. Some also affect the brain chemical noradrenaline. But experts agree that the evidence for the involvement of noradrenaline in depression is weaker than that for serotonin.

There is no other accepted pharmacological mechanism for how antidepressants might affect depression. If antidepressants exert their effects as placebos, or by numbing emotions, then it is not clear that they do more good than harm.

Although viewing depression as a biological disorder may seem like it would reduce stigma, in fact, research has shown the opposite, and also that people who believe their own depression is due to a chemical imbalance are more pessimistic about their chances of recovery.

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.

If you’re taking antidepressants, it’s very important you don’t stop doing so without speaking to your doctor first. But people need all this information to make informed decisions about whether or not to take these drugs.
 
Whatever it is caused by, I know someone with severe clinical depression, and antidepressants have probably saved his life.
He was extremely suicidal before then, and after he was able to live a somewhat normal life.
There's definitely something to be said for the results sometimes. As one of my friends explained, the meds don't make you "Happy", they make you feel normal and help you function.
 
Spoiler alert: anyone who generalizes it as "depression" and suggests there's one universal way it presents, cause, treatment etc, don't know what they're talking about or are lying.

There is no one true "depression." Depression itself is just an umbrella term. Forms of grief can present as depression. Forms of depression can present as forms of grief. Some people are depressed because some specific thing happened to them or in their lives. Others are just depressed because their brain renders them incapable of experiencing joy. It's a much more nuanced thing than "well this person's brain is low on serotonin" but you also need to consider there are cases where SSRIs are effective in treatment.

The issue isn't that SSRIs are completely ineffective garbage it's that for a long, long time psychiatrists have whored out the mental health field and raked in kickbacks from big Pharma to over prescribe SSRIs anytime someone even mentions feeling a bit down. There  are people who will benefit from this because they genuinely do have issues producing or balancing serotonin, something we  know has a profound impact on mood stability. For most people though SSRIs are just a bandaid, something to stop symptoms. Ideally while the symptoms are being managed, the root cause of the depression can be addressed without overwhelming the person with emotional response.
But if you don't treat what's actually causing the depressed mood, what the hell is the point?
Maintenance, because maintenance medicine is more profitable than actually helping people.
 
The primary symptom they are attempting to address is anhedonia. Depression causes a reduction in the capacity to enjoy things once found pleasurable as well as a reduced drive to do things they typically enjoy.
The goal is to get that drive back so that people can do the things which will improve their lives. The drugs are intended to make it easier to form positive habits and pull themselves out of the hole. The drug is not supposed to be the solution. It's a crutch.
do they? they have taken all the good drugs away from depressed people? why even bother faking one if they dont prescribe coke and meth anymore?

If not a chemical imbalance, then I would be interested in knowing what goes on during postpartum depression, especially in women who were not depressed prior to giving birth.
thats normal if the baby looks ugly.


this is also all BS, we know that we have a epidemie of depression in young men that is not like depression 20 years ago when it comes to brainchemistry.
we also know why we have seen this epidemie, its because of low T in the blood and no adrenaline rushes. you cant feed a human male soy, take away any type of competition, etc.
you cant be a healthy young male if you are part of mainstream society, everything you need to be healthy is bad and evil and cant be allowed.

I would be depressed too like all those poor guys if i didnt stopped caring about society a long time ago.
 
If not a chemical imbalance, then I would be interested in knowing what goes on during postpartum depression, especially in women who were not depressed prior to giving birth.

Still hormonal. I think it may be partially unavoidable as during pregnancy the woman's body is loaded up with an ungodly amount of progesterone only for that level to crash right after giving birth (and then on top of that have some non-hormone depression that comes with suddenly having a screaming pooping baby for the next few years). Current science is thinking progesterone drop is behind PMS also only on a smaller scale and there are some expensive experimental treatments nowadays based around tricking a woman's brain into thinking higher progesterone is still around in the body.
 
Thomas Harris was right:
“Simplistic is the word you want. In fact, most psychology is puerile, Officer Starling, and that practiced in Behavioral Science is on a level with phrenology. Psychology doesn’t get very good material to start with. Go to any college psychology department and look at the students and faculty: ham radio enthusiasts and other personality-deficient buffs. Hardly the best brains on campus. Organized and disorganized–a real bottom feeder thought of that.”

I really do not understand why anyone would trust the science that brought us lobotomies, electroshock therapy, The Satanic Panic, and Troons.

Hey, don't trash ham radio. It's actually pretty fucking cool, and ham radio geeks are responsible for shit like the ability of modern smartphones to operate without needing those stupid curly-q antennas that the first cell phones had to use. That said, people who are big into technology shouldn't be majoring in psychology but electrical engineering. Psychology today tends to attract party animals and bubble brained rich girls, along with a fair amount of literal psychopaths. (That said, just tune across the 75 meter ham radio band in the evenings US time and you'll find that there are a lot of psychopaths there too.)
 
The state of psychiatry today:

>My life is shit and I want to die!
>"OK, take these pills and call me in the morning."
>6 months later
>"He seemed like such a nice boy, I have no idea why he took a Bushmaster and killed everybody in that Walmart Supercenter." -the next door neighbor

Instead of addressing why so many people have shit lives, we simply feed them dope.

A week ago I was reading the wiki page for Elizabeth Wurtzel, the whiny rich Jewess from NYC who wrote Prozac Nation (not sure how I wound up there, but whatever), and as she got older and her appearance was trashed from decades of legal and illegal drugs, she realized that she'd pissed away all the opportunities she had to improve her life. All the royalties from Prozac Nation had been pissed away on expensive clothes and handbags, she had been too busy riding the cock carousel to settle down and start a family, and now she was all alone and looked like an old bag lady at 40 and all the dope she'd fed herself hadn't done jackshit to stop her from being her own worst enemy. Then she got breast cancer and died at 52.

The point is that if you are stupid and blame everything for your problems other than yourself, no drug can fix your life, despite the exhortations of Pharma and their MD drug pushers. The fact is that modern civilization is good at mass producing worthless baubles, telling people that baubles = happiness, then when that is proven false it becomes drugs = happiness, then either they shoot up a church or they OD on fentanyl.

Fuck, I understand why Uncle Ted went into the woods, and why when that didn't work he lashed out. I really need to reread Industrial Society And Its Future, there is so much excellent shit in there.
 
they hardly get enough sun.
Look I'm not saying you shouldn't splurge on the pure stuff and touch grass every now and again, but you didn't mention an obvious solution:
1658431639948.png
A USB-driven full-spectrum grow light is going to be enough you can still make enough Vitamin D to function even if you stay indoors until you're printer-paper white. Also you'll be far less likely to become as pale as a ghost. Keeping the light timed with the sun is also going to keep you in a good rhythm for your sleep schedule. You can also do red-only for those uber-1337 late night hacking sessions. The downside is it looks like you're working under a lighting rig for a troon stream.
 
It's probably minor brain damage. The theory of chemical imbalances has to hold some validity just because of countless studies implicating hormonal effects on mood.
It starts to seem like psychology doesn't actually understand human psychology very well and that what we believe to be a biological illness is one of socially and individually created issues.
I agree with this. My dad is getting very depressed but he’s also had a bunch of concussions over his life and I think it’s catching up with him.
I saw someone once describe psychiatric medications as "They work great if your baseline is 'fucked' but not if you're otherwise healthy." and I agree with that.
If you've had something going on since you were born (e.g. genetics, babies whose mothers did drugs, birth complications, etc.) or that turned on a result of how you're built (e.g. Schitzophrenia) then yeah, meds are worth a try if you're otherwise physically healthy.
That said, they're often prescribed as a first-response sort of thing, rather than "This is what we try when we've exhausted all other options."

If not a chemical imbalance, then I would be interested in knowing what goes on during postpartum depression, especially in women who were not depressed prior to giving birth.
Their baselines have become "fucked", and the mother needs help to get healthy and well again.

I bet if they ran some tests on these people looking for vitamin deficiencies some of them would come back as vitamin D deficient.
People in the west have such shitty diets of processed carbs with little to no actual nutritional content and they hardly get enough sun. Not to mention most ag land has been depleted of micronutrients. Most people are malnourished nutritionally.
This also causes depleted and poorly balanced gut microflora, which in turn causes all sorts of inflammatory and other conditions. It'll probably turn out that depression is the result of an imbalanced microbiome.
This is part of what I was talking about above.
  • Check the diet: Maybe you're nutrient-deprived
  • Check the supplements: Maybe even with enough shit in your diet, you can't actually make enough of something you need from dietary sources alone
  • Check the body: Maybe you have some kind of untreated infection or parasite going on
  • Check the weight: Maybe you're just fat. Fat causes systemic inflammation (that includes the brain)
If the patient is SUPER-fucked up, like "Presenting to the ER", then sure, skip the line. Put them in SSRIs to stabilize them, but at that point the goal should then be to get those other things taken care of and have a plan in place to get back off the drugs once they've been fixed.

Fuck you, I'm not letting you take away my myosin protein animation from me.
View attachment 3512344
View attachment 3512343
0f77e9b2343a920fad0367883d9513ce.gif
 
Dude, just smoke weed, lmao
Funny how a lot of the modern mental issues only showed up after a strong push for outlawing the use of weed.

Biggest opponents for the legalizing and destigmatizing the use of cannabis
1. Big Pharma
2. District Attorney Unions
3. Cop Unions
4 Private prisons
5 correction officer unions.
 
Back