As you're so insisting, could you explain to us what actually IS a "biochemical imbalance"?

Jun 19, 2012 -- 6:52PM, CharikIeia wrote:

As you're so insisting, could you explain to us what actually IS a "biochemical imbalance"?

Thank you for noticing that I insist.  I do insist.  

Well known examples of biochemical imbalances are hyper- and hypothyroidism, diabetes, hypoglycemia, Grave’s Disease, Addison’s Disease, hypercalcemia, etc. These are deficiencies or excesses (or otherwise the malfunctioning) of compounds involved in normal biological processes, leading to detriments in a person’s health, i.e., disease. Note that these known biochemical imbalances are defined and diagnosed on the basis of objective measurements.

In fact, it is well known that, for example, severe hypothyroidism causes depressed mood and lethargy, and perhaps other psychological effects, in almost (if not) everyone. Knowing the functioning of the thyroid hormones, it is entirely understandable why hypothyroidism would cause depressed mood and lethargy. But, assuming these psychological symptoms met the diagnostic criteria for a depressive episode (and they undoubtedly would), this would not be an example of what the DSM-IV calls a “primary mental disorder,” but, rather, would be a “[mental disorder] due to a general medical condition,” which, according to the DSM-IV, is to be distinguished from a “primary mental disorder”. The DSM never defines what qualifies as “a general medical condition”; it isn’t a term or concept used in any (actual) medical specialty, and the DSM never explains why a depressive episode due to, e.g., hypothyroidism should be distinguished from a depressive episode supposedly caused by some “imbalance” in serotonin or norepinephrine. The APA’s current conceptual scheme here (which is different from the conceptual scheme in the DSM-III-R) implies that a “primary mental disorder” is something that can never be confirmed or ruled out by objective biological measurements. This is just part and parcel of the anti-scientific illogic of psychiatry.

In any case, except for the purpose of correcting a biochemical imbalance, there is no medical justification for prescribing or taking drugs that are prescribed for mental disorders. Not one of the drugs prescribed for mental disorders has ever been shown to correct any biochemical imbalance. In the case of amphetamines prescribed for ADHD, there isn’t even a hypothesis about what amphetamines are supposed to be doing biochemically in relation to “attention deficiency” and “hyperactivity”. It’s utter nonsense from beginning to end. The kids admit that they’re snorting their addies recreationally--and, as seen on this thread, the scientific evidence does not suggest that amphetamines produce any real or sustained improvement in students’ grades. Why can’t the adults admit these facts?

Jun 20, 2012 -- 6:18PM, REteach wrote:

Research is showing that only about 30% of kids with ADHD turn into adults that don't need meds. 

You haven’t been able to provide any evidence that anyone ever needed to take amphetamines in the first place.  

You haven’t been able to defend any claim you’ve made here. I suppose it never hurts to be reminded of the fact that we can’t trust the drug-pushers.