Jump to content

Again, chemical imbalance is a myth. Stop the lies, please.

Recommended Posts


sadly we cant control what we are born into ,but we can learn about our behaviour and were it stems from ,that's why the chemical imbalance theory  is rubbish and when i finally stopped listening to it i started to learn ,and i love researching my past and everything about my behaviour when i was a child until now .


at the beginning i  resented my father for not being the Alfa male role model i think i deserved but i realised with all my research that he had he's own  struggles and he did he's best with what he had .Eckhart tolle and gabor mate really helped me understand ,i really recommend listening to them .gabor is a genius  at describing the family environment and dynamic . 


it took me a while to admit to myself that i grew up with terrible low self-esteem and when i was 15 years of age alcohol filled that void for a long time and gave me the illusion of confidence ,I've got countless memories of set backs and not being allowed participate in activities for what ever reasons as a kid that really affected me ,i only allowed myself  to delve into these painful memories when i did the research on the ego and everything else that comes with it .


we really need to learn serious compassion for ourselves i reckon and i welcome that for all of us


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally, the article I've been waiting for:


What to say to your friends who love their "meds:"




Effectively - if you are doing well on your meds - you are an outlier, not in the aggregate.


You may not be doing well and not even know it due to withdrawal vs. relapse, and may find you are taking the drugs just to prevent withdrawal.

Point #5 is worth quoting in full:



5. “Well, you should support my CHOICES.”

Then there is this other misunderstanding of aggregate. People who say, “You are pro-choice for mental health, so you should support my choice to use psych drugs.”


My response: Well, it’s hard to support an uninformed choice that has been made on false assumptions. IF:

  1. The drugs don’t beat placebo (see Irving Kirsh’s info on this),
  2. And the drugs hurt more people than they help (you can compare NNH to NNT for most drugs, this is the best way to communicate tradeoffs),
  3. And the drugs expose people to serious risks of agitation-induced suicide and violence and horrible withdrawal syndromes,
  4. And the disease labels connected to the drugs increase stigma and make people lose hope,

And you are not told this BEFORE you choose drugs and labels, then how valid was your ability to make that choice? We support people whose choices disagree with ours, but we do try to help people figure out where those choices may have been misinformed.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting JC

Had to laugh when i read this as it is exactly what happens in these public debates we have seen when the performing pro  drug seals get wheeled out


And you say, “We should have more people with lived experience at the table,” and they say “Oh, we do.”

Meaning: “We are going to count the long term admin people who now feel safe enough to come out with their recovery story.” Meaning this admin person is a novice advocate who has not been an advocate before and has not interacted with the advocate community and does not know the perspectives and viewpoints of the advocates.

Or: “We are going to grab some random patients off the clinic floor and say that they are the voice of the ‘consumer.'”


Look at the scatterplot ..(couldnt paste image)


See that cluster around what appears to be some regression line of best fit in which it is labelled 'average responders little benefit or harm'.

Well i would like to push back against that and say you could well be looking at those deeply harmed and trapped spell bound and addicted, caught in the revolving door of psych drugs. These are the 70%of people on psych drugs who dont even have psych issues but what they have is an iatrogenic  drug addiction but stealth.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2014 at 5:43 PM, Lilu said:

FINALLY!!!   I have been looking for an explanation as to why repeated and/or chronic stress reduces one's ability to cope with stressful events or triggers.  Since the "chemical imbalance" theory has been disproven or not proven, this at least provides an alternate explanation.


I do believe that brain shrinkage might not be completely erroneous but not being able to cope with stress is a complex issue I dont think it has one explanation only. I also believe the brain can grow back justbthe same way as it shrunk altho Im not a doctor neuroplasticity works both ways. Exercising confirms neurogenesison the long run. Exercising also naturally blocks certain chemicals that relate to cortisol. I personally am a completely different person without exercise it does correct your moods thought patterns and stress response. Its also as natural as it can get provided youre not takibg in anything to suppress anxiety, your body rewards you on its own. Exercise is underestimated and forgotten now a days and its essential to well beingness. Regards

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

A question about this forum's stance. I understand the basis for the general hostility towards the "chemical imbalance" theory, and I also understand (and share) the anger that many feel about how this theory is used by clinicians to justify handing out psych drugs like candy. What I have a slightly harder time following is the path from "chemical imbalance is a load of BS" to "depression is a mood." As the many threads on managing cortisol levels, gut flora, diet, exercise etc on this website attest, mood is profoundly chemical. Since joining this forum a couple of weeks ago, I've also found new physical concepts such as "neuro-emotions" and "limbic kindling" to be extremely useful in understanding my own emotional states.


I suppose my question is this: does the rejection of "chemical imbalance" also mean a wider rejection of physiological explanations for mood-related phenomena? Or is the issue more about how this specific theory is being used?


I'm asking this partially out of personal interest - I'm currently completing a PhD thesis on pre-modern bodily experiences of emotional suffering - but also so that I can calibrate my own place in this community going forward. I'm here because I want to get off this drug, and because I share this forum's view that the current pharmacological paradigm is broken, corrupt, and dangerous. I'm also largely convinced that the chemical imbalance theory is either totally wrong, or that the reality is so much more complex as to render the term meaningless - so please don't think I'm here trying to defend it.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.