Are Chemical Imbalances All in Our Heads?

It sounds a bit like the start of a science-fiction novel: chemical imbalances are nothing more than a figment of our imagination. But could it be true? In a piece she recently wrote for the BBC, Joanna Moncrieff of the University College, London states that it very well could be the case. She proposes that psychiatric drugs do not actually work by correcting chemical and balances in the brain, but rather place individuals into drug-induced states which simply mask feelings, hence rendering them it difficult for the individual to experience the symptoms of the illness. In other words, the only reason that an individual appears to react to the use of an antidepressant, for example, is because the drug itself is chemically altering the body, as opposed to actually correcting the hypothesized imbalances.

In her article she writes, “magazines, newspapers, patient’s organizations and Internet sites of all kinds publicize the idea that conditions like depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder can be treated by drugs that help to rectify an underlying brain problem… just like a diabetic needs to take insulin. The problem is, there is little justification for this view.” Most importantly, she points out that until the 1950s mental health workers used antidepressants and psychoactive drugs primarily for sedative purposes, dulling the senses to symptoms of depression, mania and anxiety without actually addressing the underlying cause. In many ways, this type of approach is analogous to over-the-counter drugs used for the common cold which alleviate symptoms such as sore throats and congestion without actually affecting the virus itself.

Somewhat archaic, this view was eventually replaced with the concept that depression and other types of mental health conditions resulted from some form of chemical imbalance in the brain that could be corrected with a simple pill. The problem? The transformation was not based upon compelling evidence, at least according to Moncrieff.

She notes that “drugs used in psychiatry are psychoactive drugs, such as alcohol and cannabis. They affect everyone regardless of whether they have a mental disorder or not.” Antipsychotics, for example simply mute a person's emotions and thought processes, reducing the effects of psychosis merely as a side effect of the sedative action. Anti-anxiety drugs work on the central nervous system in the same manner as alcohol. As Moncrieff suggests, “if you told people that we have no idea what is going on in their brain, but that they could take a drug that would make them feel different and might suppress their thoughts and feelings, then many people might choose to avoid taking drugs if they could. People need to make up their own minds.”

While just an opinion piece, her evidence is fairly compelling, and she writes with conviction as to the absence of conclusive studies. It certainly is food for thought-if most drugs used in the psychiatric field do not actually combat the underlying issue, but simply work in a similar fashion to over-the-counter drugs, merely dulling the senses of an individual to the symptoms, are we really doing ourselves a favor. While admittedly more work is involved, would it not be better, at least in certain instances, to pursue the root cause to eradicate same?

For more information and credible resources on health, please visit: UltraFitnessDynamics