Was Tom Cruise right about antidepressants? (Scientologist actor vindicated?)

[C C]

https://doctorbuzz.substack.com/p/was-to...epressants

EXCERPTS: 17 years ago, back when Tom Cruise was young and Matt Lauer still had a job, the two had an uncomfortable interview on the Today show. Really uncomfortable. After chummily discussing Cruise’s engagement to Katie Holmes, the conversation chilled when it pivoted to the topic of Brooke Shields and her use of antidepressants. This rankled Cruise and his Scientologist beliefs, and at one point he snarled, “There is no such thing as a chemical imbalance in the body.”

A paper published last week in Nature drew a remarkable amount of attention, with its assertion that there was very little evidence to support the so-called “serotonin theory” of depression, that a deficiency in brain serotonin transmission is a primary driver of depressive disorders...

[...] In other words… Tom Cruise was right. Well, at least about that. The review authors did not weigh in on Scientology or the wisdom of marrying Katie Holmes.

While I am very happy for Tom Cruise and his medical vindication, I am more interested in how the hype around this study affects our view and use of antidepressants. Is it time to fire our psychiatrist and toss out our selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) prescriptions? I think that’s a poor interpretation of this work. However, a critical appraisal of the value of antidepressant medications is worth our societal while, especially since approximately 15-20% of American adults have taken antidepressants in the past month, mostly SSRIs.

A first important point to make, well known to those who have followed psychiatry in the past decade, is that the “chemical imbalance” theory of depression largely has already been abandoned. After all, the Nature paper was an “umbrella review” — namely, a review of other reviews and meta-analyses — so everything they covered was old news... (MORE - missing details)

RELATED THREAD (Scivillage): No evidence depression is ‘caused by chemical imbalance’ finds comprehensive review
- - - - - -

Scientology and psychiatry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientolog...psychiatry

Why is scientology opposed to psychiatric abuses?
https://www.scientology.org/faq/scientol...buses.html

[Magical Realist]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[Syne]

Cruise was only repeating what neurosurgeons were acknowledging at the time...that there has never been any actual evidence for a chemical imbalance in the brain. You know, following the actual science.

[Yazata]

This rankled Cruise and his Scientologist beliefs, and at one point he snarled, “There is no such thing as a chemical imbalance in the body.”

A paper published last week in Nature drew a remarkable amount of attention, with its assertion that there was very little evidence to support the so-called “serotonin theory” of depression, that a deficiency in brain serotonin transmission is a primary driver of depressive disorders...

[...] In other words… Tom Cruise was right.

Casting doubt on the so-called "serotonin theory" doesn't come close to demonstrating that "there is no such thing as a chemical imbalance in the body". The "serotonin theory" is just one rather speculative account of what the underlying cause of clinical depression might be. Casting doubt on it doesn't even address other possible "chemical imbalances" that might be at fault.

It seems to me that whatever the cause of clinical depression is, it's likely neurophysiological. And neurophysiology is neurochemistry to some large extent. So something seems to me to be physiologically wrong in these psychiatric mood disorders, and whatever it is, I think that it's likely chemical in nature.

[Syne]

Where is the supposed evidence of 'other possible "chemical imbalances" that might be at fault'?

And how do you distinguish the causation from them to mental disorder, rather than being a symptom of the disorder?