There is No Chemical Imbalance, if there was ...

People would be getting a "Chemical Imbalance test" for it before being given any psychiatric drugs, Right ?

Scientists are so good at chemical tests that if you bring them a bottle of wine ...

pasting time >>>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/mar/21/atom-bomb-wine-radioactive-tests
Harmless amounts of radioactive carbon have been found in wines made from grapes harvested since the last atmospheric atomic bomb tests were carried out in the 1960s.

But the "bomb pulse" of radioactive carbon lingering in the alcohol of wines produced since could be a good thing for wine dealers and collectors.

Scientists have been able to pinpoint a wine's vintage to within a year by analysing the levels of radioactive carbon in the wine, a technique they say could help detect fraudulent attempts to repackage cheap plonk as a high-end tipple.

When Ever I hear "Chemical Imbalance" I ask WHY IS THERE NO TEST if this exists ???

Ask for a "chemical imbalance test"next time you get a chance and watch the reaction !!

This can be very usefull if you encounter Coerced Psychiatry like I did once.

Has anyone ever had a "Chemical Imbalance Test" ? I could be wrong here I never got one.

The reason why people are not tested for chemical imbalances is because it costs money. Simple. On the other hand, selling drugs to people, makes money. Which do you think drug companies would rather do? Or hospitals? Or any kind of medical organisation? We live in a capitalist society, so that is basically the logical conclusion.

There are many chemicals that may be "imbalanced" and SHOULD be looked into, but are NOT. Examples are multiple hormones, B vitamins, vitamin D, essential fatty acids, too much metals and other toxins in our body (mercury, aluminum, gasoline additives, etc) and now, even possibly lacking sulfates: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/artic ... _DNL_art_1

I am not antipsychiatry... but I AM anti-the medical community not testing for all the problems that we can effectively TREAT rather than just giving the psych meds and not doing all the other medical workup that may be necessary.

I'd prefer that doctors didn't go poking around in my brain, checking how much of any chemical is released into it and how quickly the reuptake happens...

not willing to let doctors to poke around?

what ever happened to 'qualified professionals' and 'respected medical knowledge'? they supposedly know what they're talking about until it comes to testing chemical levels and that's where the line is drawn?

there ain't no testing levels because it's a bunk scapegoat theory to mask that they chemically 'correct' certain thoughts they've been delegated to quell.

they can pay ridiculous prescription costs each month that could go toward housing instead of a scapegoat science but they can't pay to test levels?

that's a copout and you know it. keep skirtin around the irrationality though. non-existant science has your back for amphetamine and thc (depakote) and barbituate usage.

mere interviews = chemical imbalance and that's what people get licenses for! what, they're qualified professionals right? why shouldn't they be able to snoop around in your brain? they're qualified enough to give ya dope but not for anything else?

...interesting topic and the points made here...it seems reasonable that if there was a chemical imbalance to address, and I'm not saying there isn't, it would be wise for a medical professional to assess the actual amount of chemical imbalance that is occurring within every individual patient. Medical professionals do that with Red Blood cell counts, white blood cell counts, sodium, potassium, CO2 in the blood, etc. its done with blood tests. But i guess a brain scan of some kind would be necessary to assess, for example, the level of Dopamine inside someone's troubled mind. it also stands to reason that this should be done so that as medical professionals they do not have to rely on a patient's unprofessional subjective interpretation of feelings and thoughts to assess the effectiveness of the chemical adjustments they're making and then this would allow them to address the issues at hand without having to deal with unknown variables like the chemical levels within the brain! They could put the chemical levels at the appropriate levels and then see what else is to be addressed...Psychiatry seems to be a whole of educated guessing! They're not able to base their conclusions on hard factual evidence.

There certainly are tests to measure for chemical imbalances. Most just are not practical or safe to implement- not yet at least. The brain is like any other body part. It can have diseases, chemical imbalances, physical alterations etc. Do you actually believe there is no such thing as a chemical imbalance?

Serotonin cannot be measured in the blood- since it cannot pass the blood brain barrier. Blood tests would be useless unless you are deficient in some sort of vitamin/or pre-cursor. That still doesn't tell you how well your body is making serotonin or any other neurotransmitter in the brain. It may be possible to measure levels in Cerebral Spinal Fluid? Urine testing also shows some promise, but still isn't as accurate.

Here is a way to measure neurotransmitters. Although I'm not sure how many people would want an electrode implanted in their brain.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/news2008-rst/4956.html

Maybe one day they will have testing for chemical imbalances. The technology just isn't there yet. It takes millions of dollars to perform research into this sort of thing. That doesn't mean that chemical imbalances aren't real. Look at Parkinson's for example. Research shows that chemical imbalances do exist. When a doctor see's a patient, they have no way of knowing what the chemical imbalance is, thus they experiment with different meds until they find one that actually works. It all depends on whether the risks make taking meds worth it.

Have you looked into brain mapping? http://www.northeastcenter.com/informat ... apping.htm

They can also do PET scans or fMRI. Again those tests are expensive.

I don't really doubt that chemical imbalances can cause mental illness. But the drugs that are used right now are not effective. Why would I say that (I'll talk mostly about anti-depressants since I know them the best)?

1. Give a 'normal' person anti-depressants and they will only experience the side effects. This seems strange when you consider that you just chemically-imbalanced that person by increasing the concentrations of neurotransmitters that don't need to be increased.
2. The dosage needs to be increased if there is no response. This is odd, since if the chemical imbalance was being corrected, there would be a response proportional to the level of imbalance. 60 mg of Paxil would always show some improvement, right?
3. The drugs need to be swapped around to find the right type. It is not as if the chemistry of how the drugs work is not understood. They are flushing the brain with the preferred neurotransmitter. In fact, the neurotransmitters are increased within hours of taking the drug, which leads me to the next item.
4. The drugs take weeks to work, but the chemical response in the brain is almost immediate.

Here's the secret: there are chemical imbalances, but they are probably localized. And these localized imbalances don't account for all aspects of illness with a device like the brain that can learn. The response is to flood the brain with the deficient neurotransmitters while ignoring the fact that places that don't need these neurotransmitters are being drenched. It is like raising the Atlantic Ocean to fight off a drought in Spain.

I don't think current psychiatric medications actually treat the illness they are fighting. I think they alter the chemical structure of the entire brain until the clinician is lucky and finds a magical mix where the patient claims they are no longer depressed. This is why they take so long to work and why they are so random in success. It is chemically induced brain damage.

I think the perception that psychiatric medications are meant to treat the "underlying problem" of the psychiatric disorder is a common misconception. I agree that they are, at best a "band-aid" for the disorders they "treat", but, in that way, they are very much like over-the-counter multi-symptom cold preparations: they ameliorate the symptoms but don't alleviate the pathology.. However, I am not aware of many people who would refuse to take Ny-Quil because it doesn't cure their cold.

When I talked about chemicals which can be tested, I am NOT talking about serotonin, dopamine, norepinephrine, etc. I am talking about going DEEPER than that, to the SOURCES of the imbalances of brain chemicals. For instance there are many tests involved in thyroid hormones, not just TSH, and then there is the hormone (chemical) vitamin D which actually is involved in that functioning, and essential fats, and whether the person is affected by casomorphins and gliadorphins, and how the adrenals are working, such as what the cortisol level is. Is there Lyme disease affecting the person's brain? And all the brain chemicals are produced through nutrients. Does the person have enough B vitamins to produce what they need? Can they methylate those vitamins? Can they transport those vitamins (vitamin D as well) INTO the cells where they are needed? A person can have problems at any step, and a HUGE amount of the body's processes go into producing the chemicals and energy (which is in the form of yet more chemicals) for the BRAIN. There are plenty of chemicals to test that affect the functioning of the brain! Even anemia can cause severe symptoms in the brain. Look at Hyman's book and Wolfson's book!

Take a look at this list of possible medical (testable) causes! Medical Causes-Partial List Better yet, look at these topics.