Jul 22, 2022 05:21 PM
(This post was last modified: Jul 22, 2022 05:42 PM by Yazata.)
How does this:
Supposedly imply this:
When the proper conclusion should probably be something along the lines of this:
My point is that this metastudy doesn't seem to suggest that "depression is not likely caused by a chemical imbalance", only that there's little evidence to support an over-simplistic association of depression with reduced levels of serotonin. The possibility still remains very much alive that more complex and as-yet unknown neurochemical events are what causes severe clinical depression (and other severe mood disorders such as mania).
What's in question here is one particular hypothesis about what the origin of severe clinical depression might be.
As for me, I would still place a high likelihood on the general thesis that severe clinical depression has a physiological cause. What this metastudy seems to tell us is merely that one probably over-simplistic account of the physiological cause is likely incorrect or at least woefully incomplete.
I'm not convinced that serotonin levels "have nothing to do with it". Something much more complex might be happening and serotonin might just be one small part of it. Serotonin might often influence other unknown things that are happening and those other things might be more directly associated with depression. So depression might be very resistant to altering serotonin levels when the unknown other things that cause it have been thrown out of wack for other as yet unknown reasons.
Which would suggest that a lot more research is needed, but that psychiatry continue to use whatever weapons it has in hopes that they work, as they seem to do in many (but clearly not all) cases.
I've long suspected that psychiatry is currently at the same sort of level of development that internal medicine was at when they used to bleed people to readjust their "humors". That kind of stuff continued until understanding of physiology advanced to the point that more effective treatments became possible. The brain/mind is still very poorly understood and if not a "black box", it's certainly a squishy spheroid.
Critics of bleeding patients centuries ago would have been drawing the wrong conclusion if they concluded from that criticism that all physiological accounts of disease should be rejected.
(Jul 20, 2022 06:48 AM)C C Wrote: INTRO: After decades of study, there remains no clear evidence that serotonin levels or serotonin activity are responsible for depression, according to a major review of prior research led by UCL scientists.
Supposedly imply this:
Quote:The new umbrella review – an overview of existing meta-analyses and systematic reviews – published in Molecular Psychiatry, suggests that depression is not likely caused by a chemical imbalance
When the proper conclusion should probably be something along the lines of this:
Quote:I think we can safely say that after a vast amount of research conducted over several decades, there is no convincing evidence that depression is caused by serotonin abnormalities, particularly by lower levels or reduced activity of serotonin.
My point is that this metastudy doesn't seem to suggest that "depression is not likely caused by a chemical imbalance", only that there's little evidence to support an over-simplistic association of depression with reduced levels of serotonin. The possibility still remains very much alive that more complex and as-yet unknown neurochemical events are what causes severe clinical depression (and other severe mood disorders such as mania).
What's in question here is one particular hypothesis about what the origin of severe clinical depression might be.
As for me, I would still place a high likelihood on the general thesis that severe clinical depression has a physiological cause. What this metastudy seems to tell us is merely that one probably over-simplistic account of the physiological cause is likely incorrect or at least woefully incomplete.
(Jul 20, 2022 06:54 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: I don't know why then antidepressants are known to work by increasing concentrations of serotonin in the brain. Why would they alleviate depression if serotonin levels have nothing to do with it?
I'm not convinced that serotonin levels "have nothing to do with it". Something much more complex might be happening and serotonin might just be one small part of it. Serotonin might often influence other unknown things that are happening and those other things might be more directly associated with depression. So depression might be very resistant to altering serotonin levels when the unknown other things that cause it have been thrown out of wack for other as yet unknown reasons.
Which would suggest that a lot more research is needed, but that psychiatry continue to use whatever weapons it has in hopes that they work, as they seem to do in many (but clearly not all) cases.
I've long suspected that psychiatry is currently at the same sort of level of development that internal medicine was at when they used to bleed people to readjust their "humors". That kind of stuff continued until understanding of physiology advanced to the point that more effective treatments became possible. The brain/mind is still very poorly understood and if not a "black box", it's certainly a squishy spheroid.
Critics of bleeding patients centuries ago would have been drawing the wrong conclusion if they concluded from that criticism that all physiological accounts of disease should be rejected.
