ug that disables him so severely that he can’t play the piano anymore. Would this prove his piano playing was caused by a biological abnormality that was cured by the drug? As senseless as this argument is, it is often made. Most if not all psychiatric drugs are neurotoxic, producing a greater or lesser degree of generalized neurological disability. So theyMany professional and lay people today think depression is caused by a biochemical imbalance in the brain even though none of the "imbalance" theories of depression have ever been verified. This theory of depression was derived from speculations on how and why medications sometimes seem to alleviate depression. There are no techniques for measuring the actual levels of neurotransmitters in the synapses between the cells. Thus all the talk about biochemical imbalances is pure guesswork.

Because some patients initially respond to antidepressant medications, they generally do appear, at least for a while, to be getting better. But like when drinking alcohol or smoking marijuana, it is because the brain is impaired. On antidepressants you feel less emotional suffering because you reach a state of relative anesthesia. A patient is sacrificing a certain level of brain function in return for a blunting of emotional suffering.

So doctors conclude that if a patient responds to a psychotropic medication, it “proves” the problem is a chemical imbalance or deficiency, probably inherent in nature. But in fact such improvement on medication says nothing about the cause of a person’s problems. If aspirin relieves a headache, we do not necessarily conclude that the headache was caused by an “aspirin deficiency.”

Suppose someone is playing the piano and you didn't like him doing that. Suppose you force him to take a drug that disables him so severely that he can’t play the piano anymore. Would this prove his piano playing was caused by a biological abnormality that was cured by the drug? As senseless as this argument is, it is often made. Most if not all psychiatric drugs are neurotoxic, producing a greater or lesser degree of generalized neurological disability. So they

l levels of neurotransmitters in the synapses between the cells. Thus all the talk about biochemical imbalances is pure guesswork.

Because some patients initially respond to antidepressant medications, they generally do appear, at least for a while, to be getting better. But like when drinking alcohol or smoking marijuana, it is because the brain is impaired. On antidepressants you feel less emotional suffering because you reach a state of relative anesthesia. A patient is sacrificing a certain level of brain function in return for a blunting of emotional suffering.

So doctors conclude that if a patient responds to a psychotropic medication, it “proves” the problem is a chemical imbalance or deficiency, probably inherent in nature. But in fact such improvement on medication says nothing about the cause of a person’s problems. If aspirin relieves a headache, we do not necessarily conclude that the headache was caused by an “aspirin deficiency.”

Suppose someone is playing the piano and you didn't like him doing that. Suppose you force him to take a drug that disables him so severely that he can’t play the piano anymore. Would this prove his piano playing was caused by a biological abnormality that was cured by the drug? As senseless as this argument is, it is often made. Most if not all psychiatric drugs are neurotoxic, producing a greater or lesser degree of generalized neurological disability. So they

aired. On antidepressants you feel less emotional suffering because you reach a state of relative anesthesia. A patient is sacrificing a certain level of brain function in return for a blunting of emotional suffering.

So doctors conclude that if a patient responds to a psychotropic medication, it “proves” the problem is a chemical imbalance or deficiency, probably inherent in nature. But in fact such improvement on medication says nothing about the cause of a person’s problems. If aspirin relieves a headache, we do not necessarily conclude that the headache was caused by an “aspirin deficiency.”

Suppose someone is playing the piano and you didn't like him doing that. Suppose you force him to take a drug that disables him so severely that he can’t play the piano anymore. Would this prove his piano playing was caused by a biological abnormality that was cured by the drug? As senseless as this argument is, it is often made. Most if not all psychiatric drugs are neurotoxic, producing a greater or lesser degree of generalized neurological disability. So they

y, probably inherent in nature. But in fact such improvement on medication says nothing about the cause of a person’s problems. If aspirin relieves a headache, we do not necessarily conclude that the headache was caused by an “aspirin deficiency.”

Suppose someone is playing the piano and you didn't like him doing that. Suppose you force him to take a drug that disables him so severely that he can’t play the piano anymore. Would this prove his piano playing was caused by a biological abnormality that was cured by the drug? As senseless as this argument is, it is often made. Most if not all psychiatric drugs are neurotoxic, producing a greater or lesser degree of generalized neurological disability. So they

ug that disables him so severely that he can’t play the piano anymore. Would this prove his piano playing was caused by a biological abnormality that was cured by the drug? As senseless as this argument is, it is often made. Most if not all psychiatric drugs are neurotoxic, producing a greater or lesser degree of generalized neurological disability. So they do stop disliked behavior and mentally disable a person enough so he can no longer feel angry or unhappy or depressed. But calling this a cure is absurd. Extrapolating from this that the drug must have cured an underlying biological abnormality that was causing the disliked emotions or behavior is equally absurd.

It’s a myth that a great deal of science is involved in the prescription of psychiatric drugs. Medical professionals simply do not understand the overall impact of drugs on the brain. Why would a biochemical imbalance be at the root of feeling very depressed any more than it would be at the root of feeling very happy? And if there were biochemical substrates for extreme sadness and extreme happiness, would that fact make them diseases?

The biochemical imbalances speculation is actually a drug company sponsored marketing campaign to sell drugs. The speculation has also been promoted as truth by biological psychiatrists to convince patients to come to them rather than to non-medical therapists.