Sometimes it seems like depression is everywhere. But for how common it is, it’s still not all that well-understood. Maybe it’s because different people can experience it in vastly different ways, making there no one stereotype that fits everyone. What we do know is that our friends, family members, and maybe even ourselves experience mood symptoms so strong they often have the power to bring our lives to a complete halt. Occasionally, we reach a breaking point and do what we know we’re supposed to: we “seek help.”  When we do, we often end up in our doctor’s office, on the couch of a therapist, or across a psychiatrist’s desk. And usually, we end up with a prescription for antidepressants.

Reports from 2013 found that one in six Americans aged twelve and up is on a psychiatric drug, mostly antidepressants, a 65% increase from 1999. 1,2  One survey found that 38% of these people experience side effects while on the drugs, though other studies have found an incidence of sexual side effects as high as 40-93% depending on the drug in question. 3,4 Meanwhile, a war rages among academics over whether antidepressants are more effective than placebo and multiple studies have found that those on antidepressants actually fair worse in the long-run than those with clinical depression who were never treated at all. 5,6

Talk to those who have taken or are currently taking these meds, and you’ll find serious dissatisfaction. Many of those who were quickly offered psych meds by their doctors find themselves on drugs that don’t seem to be working or which have created whole new problems that are often brushed off by their providers. They may start to wonder if they’re destined to go from one medication to another for the rest of their lives, if the least severe side effects are as good as it gets. If and when they try to stop, they may find that even this is not always as easy as they thought, with an under-studied “withdrawal syndrome” which many doctors still dismiss as exaggeration on the part of patients recently beginning to draw media attention.

What About Chemical Imbalances?

People take antidepressants for many reasons, including wanting to feel better and being led to believe by providers that these medications will fix an underlying biological problem which is causing their depression. If this were true, this narrative would be understandable. As it is, our chemical imbalance narrative is more a powerful myth that has captured the public imagination than a supported scientific fact.  It’s so burned into our collective psyche that if you asked a room full of people what causes depression, the answers you’re most likely to get are “chemical imbalance” or “serotonin deficiency.” But neither of these is right.

We know that medical research takes an average of  seventeen years to reach the practices of our medical providers, so the natural place to look for the science that our healthcare ideally should be based on is research. 7 And when you move from everyday mental healthcare to academia, you find a very different picture. You find less trite comparisons to diabetes with antidepressants likened to insulin. Instead, you find more critiques of the very idea that science ever supported that a chemical imbalance caused depression to begin with. And you find refutations of the hypothesis, born in the sixties, that perhaps low serotonin causes depression. 8

Most people don’t realize that we don’t currently have technology which would allow us to measure levels of neurotransmitters in the brains of living humans. And of all the hundreds of types of neurotransmitters which have been identified, we don’t fully understand all of their roles  and continue to discover new types altogether. This means that a simple picture of “dopamine for this, serotonin for that” is sure to be so absurdly simplistic as to be outright inaccurate when compared with the actual workings of neurotransmitters in a human brain. It also means we would have no idea what a “balance” of these chemicals would look like, with some researchers arguing there is actually no such thing as a “normal” brain.

False Assumptions

Even if we could measure neurotransmitters more readily, assuming an association of one type of neurotransmitter with one emotional state means that the neurotransmitter caused that emotional state is bad logic and bad science. Frequently taught in college classes as “Correlation does not equal causation,” the maxim reminds us that finding something existing at the same time as something else doesn’t imply that one of those things caused the other. When someone points to brain imaging of depressed individuals (common in pharmaceutical ads), what they’re essentially saying is “Something is going on in the brain chemistry of depressed people!” And of course it is; our brain chemistry is intimately connected with everything we do, feel, and think. If we are living, our brain chemistry is moving alongside (or more accurately, inside) us.

But what we’re learning about the brain is that we can’t break associations down this simply and that it’s at least as likely that experiencing a prolonged emotional state changes the chemistry of the brain as the other way around. With the vast complexity of the brain in mind, it’s fascinating to realize that research has actually found an association of high serotonin with depressed states. 9 Of course, this doesn’t mean that high serotonin causes depression either. It’s just an interesting stepping stone in our constantly evolving understanding of neurology.

Treatment, Or Metaphor?

We know that many people believe that chemical imbalances cause psychiatric disorders and that antidepressants resolve these chemical imbalances. And arguably, many people believe this because they are told this by prescribers or have read it in literature published by mental health advocacy organizations. While you’d be hard-pressed to find a scientist who’d say that a chemical imbalance causes depression, you will find professionals saying something along the following lines: “Sure, it’s not really a chemical imbalance. Nobody thinks that. But it’s a helpful metaphor.”’ 10

The problem is that, if asked, most patients wouldn’t be able to tell you that the chemical imbalance they’re treating with antidepressants is a metaphor. They understandably  assume professionals speak to them in scientific terms, not literary ones. If a metaphor of imbalance is helpful in thinking about antidepressants, patients would need to understand that it is a metaphor. Otherwise, it’s just an unethical breach of informed consent, as no one can  give “informed” consent to something they are being misled about the mechanism behind.

If antidepressants work, it’s because they have a variety of biological effects (some of which we understand and some of which we don’t) which affect a variety of factors including our moods. Using a drug to take advantage of possibly useful but vaguely understood effects is vastly different than taking a drug to fix an underlying causative mechanism. There is no doubt that therewould still be people who would willingly choose a medication with a handful of effects including a possibility of feeling better. But communicating what we do and don’t know about depression, and what we do and don’t know about antidepressants (and even their effectiveness), allows everyone to make an informed decision about their own healthcare. It creates an ethical and empowering environment of choice, rather than an assumed paternalism of doctors and other mental health professionals over patients.

Dogmatism and ideologies aside, isn’t this what all of us, patients and professionals alike, really want?



1.How Many Adults in the United States Are Taking Psychiatric Drugs? – For The Media – JAMA Network. (2016, December 12). Retrieved from

2. National Center for Health Statistics. (2017, August 15). Retrieved from

3. Cascade, E., Kalali, A. H., MD, & Kennedy, S. H., MD. (2009). Real-World Data on SSRI Side Effects. Psychiatry (Edgmont), 6(2). Retrieved from

4. Higgins, A., Nash, M., & Lynch, A. M. (2010). Antidepressant-Associated Sexual Dysfunction: Impact, effects, and treatment. Drug, Healthcare and Patient Safety, 2. Retrieved from

5. Hengartner, M., Angst, J., & Rossler, W. (2018). Antidepressant Use Prospectively Relates to a Poorer Long-Term Outcome of Depression: Results from a Prospective Community Cohort Study over 30 Years. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 87(3). doi:10.1159/000488802

6. El-Mallakh, R. S., Gao, Y., & Roberts, R. (2011). Tardive dysphoria: The role of long term antidepressant use in-inducing chronic depression. Medical Hypotheses, 76(6). Retrieved from El-Mallakh-tardivedysphoriadarticle1.pdf?token=iSkEnu9nUge/UZbgKyUnFO6B/KE=

7. Brownson, R. C., PhD, Kreuter, M. W., PhD, MPH, Arrington, B. A., PhD, & True, W. R., PhD, MPH. (2006). Translating Scientific Discoveries Into Public Health Action: How Can Schools Of Public Health Move Us Forward? Public Health Reports, 121(1). Retrieved from

8. Lacasse, J. R., & Leo, J. (2005). Serotonin and Depression: A Disconnect between the Advertisements and the Scientific Literature. PLOS Medicine, 2(12). Retrieved from

9. Andrews, P. W., Bharwani, A., Lee, K. R., Fox, M., & Thomson, J., Jr. (2015). Is serotonin an upper or a downer? The evolution of the serotonergic system and its role in depression and the antidepressant response. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 51. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.01.018

10. Lacasse, J. R., & Leo, J. (2015). Antidepressants and the Chemical Imbalance Theory of Depression: A Reflection and Update on the Discourse (with Responses from Ronald Pies and Daniel Carlat). The Behavior Therapist. Retrieved from

2 thoughts on “

  1. A tremendously articulate article.

    I read it twice. I participated in your query.
    I appreciated the true perspective ; however your last thought ” ideologies and dogmatism aside ; isn t thst what we all want. “. ?
    I beg to differ sir. ( unfortunately). The vast majority of health professionals are cookie cutters from the same fundamental lies that are taught to them in med school. ( via big pharma and their bible the dsm ). This so called truth is then psssed down to the distressed people who are inherientantly taught to trust blindly in the societally accepted norm ” of trust your doctor “. But in reality . It is big pharma $$$$ that perpetuates it all. It is a perfect system ( on their part ). As a famous drug dealer once said ” the money is on the come back “.
    I truly like the direction you are taking. Might i suggest you delve further ; at the origin. Most is emotional or other trauma or life circumstances.
    Also pure greed. Ex. Prozac was passed in 1987 . Then half the world went mentally unwell. ??and billions was made. Did the world go mad in a decade ; Or were we made mad by mind altering drugs and lies.
    Plus . No matter what you say to a doc; it is altered and used against you.not to aid you. Its perfect legal drug dealing and societally systemically protected and reinforced.
    The fundamental question ( asides from adding more of the true human element). What is a psychiatrist ; without big pharma and a prescription pad. and unprovable drugs. ( useless and unemployed is the answer for about 89% of the time). I live this end of it. I am half way through my own book. Screaming in the dark. I think i write it to remind me that it did not happen to just someone else ( awful to harm anyone). I write it to remind me happened to me.
    I truly look fwd to your further writings. ( my comment is not meant to be a critique ).


    1. I can’t really disagree with the gist of your point. While I think that professionals would say they wanted those things, I also think that dogmatism and paternalism is such an ingrained part of our mental health system that it’s difficult to find professionals who actually appreciate the power they hold over the clients they see everyday and who acknowledge how damaging it can be.

      The origin of the chemical imbalance hypothesis is really interesting, largely because of what a huge role the pharmaceutical industry did play in popularizing it and pushing it into the public eye. Of course the difference between “a pill that fixes you” and “a pill that might help or hurt you” is a big deal to those companies, and it would do them well to not have us embracing the more accurate, nuanced view.

      How exciting that you’re writing a book! Writing can be such a good way of processing what we’ve experienced, and of getting important ideas out to others who may be experiencing similar things. I’m so passionate about informed consent and respectful care because I’ve experienced “care” that felt incredibly disempowering and demeaning, especially in the mental health sector. I’m not sure exactly what change looks like, but I think it starts with people demanding better. When we refuse to see clinicians who don’t respect us, I think such treatment gradually and necessarily becomes less acceptable. Thanks so much for the thoughtful comment, and I do hope you keep reading. 🙂

      P.S. I’ve learned so much about psychosocial contributors to emotional distress in the last couple years. The Facebook group Drop The Disorder is great for that topic if you’re not already a member.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s