CHEMICAL
IMBALANCES: Imagine for a moment that your car is not working correctly. You're having a hard time getting it to come to a complete stop at red lights, or perhaps it has a tendency to roll by itself when in "park". You take it to a mechanic, and after a 15-minute discussion, the mechanic determines the problem to be a lack of brake fluid. So, you spend $50 on a few bottles of brake fluid, but this doesn't solve the problem. Frustrated, you return to the mechanic, and tell him all this. The mechanic rubs his chin, and recommends you try a different brand of brake fluid, one that has a new additive he read an article about in Hot Rod Magazine. He also tells you that once you start using this brand, you won't be able to use any other brand of brake fluid until you completely flush this one out of your brake system. Oh, and this brand costs three times more than the first one. Well, he's the expert, you suppose, so sure enough, you buy the new brake fluid, try it out, and it solves the problem, but now your car is emitting noxious fumes through the dashboard. And it also seems that the problem comes back periodically, whenever you fail to re-fill the new fluid every two days. You go back to your mechanic and demand an explanation, and he recommends you try a new $300 air filter system that has to be changed every month. At no point has the mechanic actually opened the hood and checked the fluid levels. All of this is a metaphor for chemical imbalances, one of the most popular theories that psychiatry uses to justify their treatment methods. Now, I hate to come across as a Scientologist, but there is one point that they make which can't be ignored - blaming mental disorders on "chemical imbalances", and assigning drugs based on such a diagnosis, is irresponsible at best, unless a test can be performed. Contrary to popular belief, chemical imbalance diagnosis is still based on symptoms, and in many cases the patient is required to experiment on themselves, trying out various combinations of drugs (often at their own expense) until they find one that appears to treat the disorder. Let me give you an example. According to a Canadian study ("Acute Tryptophan Depletion Increases Relapse Susceptibility in Remitted Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD). Abstract 416.14"), lower serotonin levels in the brain can lead to behavioral problems such as OCD. Canadian researchers claim to have found evidence that increasing the serotonin levels in the brain can treat this. However, the experiment they used to find treatment methods based on this hypothesis is startling - patients outside of the control group were given "tryptophan drinks" and then subjected to "stressful situations" five hours afterward. No CAT scans, no blood or spinal fluid tests, no quantifiable analysis whatsover. Just good old fashioned "Does it bug you when I do this?" Hold on a second. In what way can you be certain that a tryptophan drink is doing ANYTHING to the brain's seratonin levels, unless you physically check the seratonin levels of the patient before and after ingestion? How do you know this pharma-cocktail isn't, y'know, calming (or not calming) the patient down, because of changes in some different chemical? The study goes on to say that the drink actually worsened the symptoms of OCD, instead of improving them, but again, no solid evidence as to why this is, or even what was "worse" about it. I imagine that being fed medicine-flavored Kool-Aid and harassed by a labcoat jockey for five hours would do little to calm a person down under ANY circumstances, but what does any of this have to do with seratonin levels, the supposed root of the problem? Another example: In 1998, The National Institute of Health held a Conference on ADHD. At the end of the conference, they issued this statement: “…We do not have an independent, valid test for ADHD, and there are no data to indicate that ADHD is due to a brain malfunction.” (source: adhdtesting.org). Yet parents will be instructed to feed their children Ritalin if they suspect the child has ADHD, despite the fact that, according to the US Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration Report on Methylphenidate, “stimulants like methylphenidate [Ritalin] will affect normal children and adults in the same manner that they affect ADHD children. Behavioral or attentional improvements with methylphenidate treatment therefore is not diagnostic of ADHD.” The chemical imbalance theory is just that: a THEORY. And not in the same sense as the "theory of evolution" either, I'm talking about a still-contested, widely unproveable THEORY. However, it is routinely presented as a "fact" so often, that people accept this explanation without so much as batting an eye. Drug companies have even been promoting their overpriced psychotropics on TV and in magazine ads for years, based on this "educated assumption" that chemical imbalances make people crazy. According to Dr. Jeanne Segal, a noted leader in the field of emotional intelligence, "The misconception the commercials foster is that the brain somehow develops a chemical imbalance and the result is depression, occurring in a single directional process. In fact, the relationship between brain chemistry and experience is a two-directional phenomenon: Life experience affects brain chemistry at least as much as brain chemistry affects life experience. The 'chemical imbalance' hypothesis is not wrong. It's just not entirely correct." But wait, you may be saying, what about all those people the drugs have actually helped? As stated before, many of the psychotropics used to treat chemical imbalances, also tend to have the same effects on people who don't. Using a post-medication behavioral change as evidence of mental illness, is like proving your child needs a nap by feeding them Nytol. The ramifications of using chemical imbalances to scare people into taking drugs "just in case" are serious. For one thing, many of the psychotropics used to treat these conditions "create a physical dependency and must be weaned off of gradually if discontinued", which is pharma-corp doublespeak for ADDICTIVE. Say what you will about Big Tobacco, at least they aren't leaning on half-baked theories to scare you into buying cigarettes. Secondly, we've all seen the horrendous list of side effects that accompany the ads for these drugs - imagine the added indignity of finding out you wasted 3 months and hundreds of dollars on diahrrea, sexual dysfunctions, nausea, and vomiting... and you still have depression, PLUS you have another month or so of withdrawl to look forward to. The next time a psychiatrist tries to treat your "chemical imbalance", ask him to prove that such an imbalance exists by running some tests. Then, after he hems and haws an explanation as to why this isn't possible, tell him you have your own untested theory you'd like to try out - drilling a hole in your head to let the demons out. Hey, if it doesn't work, at least the psychiatrist will have no problems getting into the brain and checking those chemicals for himself. |