• MDMA &
    Empathogenic
    Drugs

    Welcome Guest!

"Serotonin levels causing depression" bullshit

Where are they? Could you link me to the one you think makes the strongest case that low serotonin is responsible for depression?

A search at pubmed for serotonin and depression came up with 10998 results. Granted that not all of them linked serotonin to depression, a simple quick glance will tell you that 90% of them do.


I think you mean there are 10998 articles that might contain either of the words "depression" or "serotonin" somewhere in them. And are you really saying you've looked through 10998 articles and concluded 90% of them are proving low serotonin results in depression?
 
Last edited:
Incidentally the Irish medicines board recently banned GlaxoSmithKline from claiming depression was a result of "chemical imbalance". If there's so much evidence proving depression is chemical imbalance how did they get away with doing that?
 
Ismene said:
Where are they? Could you link me to the one you think makes the strongest case that low serotonin is responsible for depression?
Click to expand...
go to pubmed.com, in the search bar, search for serotonin,depression. I'm not gonna take my time to look through over 10000 articles for you, but you can easily tell that most of the papers linked serotonin to mood.

Ismene said:
A search at pubmed for serotonin and depression came up with 10998 results. Granted that not all of them linked serotonin to depression, a simple quick glance will tell you that 90% of them do.


I think you mean there are 10998 articles that might contain either of the words "depression" or "serotonin" somewhere in them. And are you really saying you've looked through 10998 articles and concluded 90% of them are proving low serotonin results in depression?
Click to expand...

No, 90% was an estimate. I dont have the time to look through almost 11000 articles for you to provide YOU with an accurate percentage. Are you saying you looked through 10,988 articles and concluded that 90% of them didnt prove low serotonin results in depression? But maybe if you took just a quick glance at the first five pages, which wont take you anymore than 15 minutes, you'll see in the abstracts that most of these articles did link serotonin to mood/depression.

Besides, all you had in the OP was TWO citations from 3 researchers? Are you saying that out of almost 11,000 articles, you doubt there are enough papers to disprove TWO of yours?
 
Last edited:
Ismene said:
Where are they? Could you link me to the one you think makes the strongest case that low serotonin is responsible for depression?
Click to expand...
I would love to do that, however, all the articles I accessed were password protected. I will however have a look to see if saving the pdfs and uploading them would breach copyright.
However, it was for that reason that I gave complete references. I think, if you're really interested in this topic (which seems to be the case) you should definitely go and check out some of the free online databases such as pubmed, or if you have access to a university library, they would almost certainly have the journals.
Here's another article I found just this morning within 5 minutes of searching.

Zhang L. Guadarrama L. Corona-Morales AA. Vega-Gonzalez A. Rocha L. Escobar ARats subjected to extended L-tryptophan restriction during early postnatal stage exhibit anxious-depressive features and structural changes. Journal of Neuropathology & Experimental Neurology. 65(6):562-70, 2006 Jun.

Here's the abstract, which alone should be enough to show that there is research being carried out to confirm the theory of low serotonin levels playing a role in mood disorders, particularly depression.
Serotonin transmission dysfunction has been suggested to play an important role in depression and anxiety. This study reports the results of a series of experiments in which rats were subjected to extended maize-based tortilla diets during early postnatal stages. This diet contains only approximately 20% of the L-tryptophan in normal diets of laboratory rodents. Compared with controls, experimental rats displayed a significant increase of immobility counts in the forced swimming test and exhibited anxiety-like behavior in the elevated plus maze test after 1 month of diet treatment. Low levels of serotonin contents were found in prefrontal cortex, striatum, hippocampus, and brainstem using high-performance liquid chromatography. Immunocytochemical reactions against 5-Bromo-2'-deoxyuridine revealed a significant decrease in the proliferation rate for the subgranular zone of dentate gyrus. c-Fos expression after the forced swimming test was found reduced in prefrontal cortex, dentate gyrus, CA1, and hilus of hippocampus and amygdala. Moreover, dendrite arbor atrophy and decreased spine density were evident in Golgi-Cox-impregnated CA1 pyramidal neurons. Abnormal dendrite swelling in dentate gyrus granule cells was also observed. These findings indicate an involvement of hyposerotoninergia in emotional disturbance produced by L-tryptophan restriction during critical developmental stages and suggest that neuroplasticity changes might underlie these changes.
Click to expand...

Finally, it may never conclusively be proven that low serotonin is the one and only cause of depression, however I have not come across any evidence that completely disproves the theory. It also seems that SSRI's really do help many people. If it aint broken, why try to fix it?

EDIT: Really, I should read over my posts before I hit that submit button...
 
Peruvian Cocaine said:
go to pubmed.com, in the search bar, search for serotonin,depression. I'm not gonna take my time to look through over 10000 articles for you, but you can easily tell that most of the papers linked serotonin to mood.
Click to expand...

You're surely not saying that because the search engine at pubmed brings back a lot of results containing the words serotonin or depression that's proof low serotonin causes depression?

Here's the abstract, which alone should be enough to show that there is research being carried out to confirm the theory of low serotonin levels playing a role in mood disorders, particularly depression.


I'm not convinced it proves anything remotely like that. Even they say low serotonin has only been "suggested" to play a role. That's about as vague as you can possibly get. If there were 10998 articles proving it then surely they could use firmer language than "suggested".

And as for whether you can compare "depression" in rats with "depression" in human beings...well that's a whole other issue. Can you really tell when a rat is depressed and exactly what is making him depressed? Maybe he's depressed cos he's in a cage being prodded by someone in a white coat?

however I have not come across any evidence that completely disproves the theory. It also seems that SSRI's really do help many people

Surely the onus is on the theory to be proved itself tho? And with depression being such a complex issue there's every reason that the placebo effect will play an enourmous part when you're giving someone a tablet and saying "This will cure your depression".

SSRI's only work in a third of people. That's a pretty low success rate. Going out for a pint someone once a week would probably give you a better success rate than that.
 
Last edited:
Ismene said:
You're surely not saying that because the search engine at pubmed brings back a lot of results containing the words serotonin or depression that's proof low serotonin causes depression?
Click to expand...

I'm not. But for the last time, read the abstracts before you speak. Yes, the search engine brings a lot of useless stuff too, but for christ sakes, read the abstracts. MOST of them are about depression/mood and it's relationship with serotonin. I'm really starting to believe you haven't even taken the effort to run the search yourself.

Ismene said:
Here's the abstract, which alone should be enough to show that there is research being carried out to confirm the theory of low serotonin levels playing a role in mood disorders, particularly depression.


I'm not convinced it proves anything remotely like that. Even they say low serotonin has only been "suggested" to play a role. That's about as vague as you can possibly get. If there were 10998 articles proving it then surely they could use firmer language than "suggested".

And as for whether you can compare "depression" in rats with "depression" in human beings...well that's a whole other issue. Can you really tell when a rat is depressed and exactly what is making him depressed? Maybe he's depressed cos he's in a cage being prodded by someone in a white coat?
Click to expand...
It's not a vague term at all. What it meant is that because incident "A" happened, "B" changed, it is suggested that "A" had something to do with "B." But there could be other factors involved that are unknown that could've interfered with "B" so we can't just say, "yes incident 'A' is the ONLY thing that could affect 'B'" You can't draw solid conclusions that quickly, especially when dealing with something as complex as our brain. You can only suggest that it has changed.

Ismene said:
however I have not come across any evidence that completely disproves the theory. It also seems that SSRI's really do help many people

Surely the onus is on the theory to be proved itself tho? And with depression being such a complex issue there's every reason that the placebo effect will play an enourmous part when you're giving someone a tablet and saying "This will cure your depression".

SSRI's only work in a third of people. That's a pretty low success rate. Going out for a pint someone once a week would probably give you a better success rate than that.
Click to expand...

Lol, you're now gonna say the placebo effect plays an "enormous part" in ssris? I'm sure the pharacutical companies run double blind radomised controled tests before they release any drug into the market. Pharamceutical companies are aware of the placebo effect. To say ssris work through placebo is an absurd argument.
 
Last edited:
Yes, the search engine brings a lot of useless stuff too, but for christ sakes, read the abstracts. MOST of them are about depression/mood and it's relationship with serotonin.

Come off it. I can't find ANY that even begin to say "low serotonin has been proven to cause depression". If you can, be my guest.

I'm sure the pharacutical companies run double blind radomised controled tests before they release any drug into the market.

I wouldn't put too much faith in giant pharmaceutical companies. They are in the business of making money. It is directly in their interests to promote the idea that their little pills will cure your depression. They will tell you whatever makes them the most money.

GM companies will tell you eating they have "research" that GM food is safe and harmless to the environment. I wouldn't believe them either.

Pharamceutical companies are aware of the placebo effect. To say ssris work through placebo is an absurd argument.

SSRI's only work in a third of people. That means they don't work in two-thirds. That's a pretty low success rate for something that you believe is "proved" to work.
 
And here's some more info:

Studies that were performed to evaluate the effect of depleting serotonin levels in humans in order to induce depression, reaped no consistent results. Low serotonin levels did NOT produce an increase in clinical depression in healthy humans. (click to observe study). In fact, researchers found that huge increases in brain serotonin, arrived at by administering high-dose L-tryptophan, were ineffective at relieving depression. (click to observe study)

Since we now know that low serotonin levels do not have any scientifically proven causal relationship with depression, one could ask if it is worth taking any risks with one's system by ingesting an agent that can drastically alter and damage your entire personal system in ways that medical science doesn't even understand?

Are "chemical imbalances" real? Psychiatrist David Kaiser commented on psychiatry’s promotion of such imbalances to the public in the December, 1996 Psychiatric Times. "Unfortunately what I also see these days are the casualties of this new biologic psychiatry, as patients often come to me with many years of past treatment. Patients having been diagnosed with "chemical imbalances" despite the fact that no test exists to support such a claim, and that there is no real conception of what a correct chemical balance would look like."

Kaiser is not alone in his opinion. Psychiatrist Loren Mosher resigned from the APA after 35 years of membership stating that "what we are dealing with here is fashion, politics, and money. This level of intellectual/scientific dishonesty is just too egregious for me to continue to support by my membership".

In psychology and psychiatry there is a phenomenon called "theory begging" which can explain the notion of "chemical imbalances." Theory begging is the reporting of a scientific theory as "fact" so often that it becomes accepted as fact within the profession despite having never been proven. For example, it is taken for granted by psychiatry that patients said to have "mental illness" have a "chemical imbalance" in their brain. The "chemical imbalance" is taken for granted, not actually found and verified by medical test. As Nathan Klien had said, psychiatry had "accepted the position" of "chemical imbalances," a position that has yet to be verified.

http://www.antidepressantsfacts.com/Biochemical-Imbalance.htm
 
Ismene said:
Yes, the search engine brings a lot of useless stuff too, but for christ sakes, read the abstracts. MOST of them are about depression/mood and it's relationship with serotonin.

Come off it. I can't find ANY that even begin to say "low serotonin has been proven to cause depression". If you can, be my guest.
Click to expand...

It's funny how you praise and cherish every article you find supporting yourself but regard anything danni cites as inconclusive or "vague."

Ismene said:
I'm sure the pharacutical companies run double blind radomised controled tests before they release any drug into the market.

I wouldn't put too much faith in giant pharmaceutical companies. They are in the business of making money. It is directly in their interests to promote the idea that their little pills will cure your depression. They will tell you whatever makes them the most money.

GM companies will tell you eating they have "research" that GM food is safe and harmless to the environment. I wouldn't believe them either.

Pharamceutical companies are aware of the placebo effect. To say ssris work through placebo is an absurd argument.

SSRI's only work in a third of people. That means they don't work in two-thirds. That's a pretty low success rate for something that you believe is "proved" to work.
Click to expand...

I don't know where you live, but in America, the FDA requires this to be done before letting a new drug into the market. After reading the above, I've given up on trying to convince you. You're obviously obsessed with your conspiracy theory. So whats next? The FDA is in this as well? Yes they must be, they're a federal agency and the FDA will approve of whatever allows America to collect more tax money. 8)
 
It's funny how you praise and cherish every article you find supporting yourself but regard anything danni cites as inconclusive or "vague."


I've never done anything of the sort. You claimed "10998" articles supported your position because they contained the words serotonin and depression. You surely arn't trying to say that's a reliable way of proving something?

After your failure to find an article at pubmed supporting your position I find you one that states in simple language the exact opposite of what you are claiming. Then you dismiss this out of hand because it doesn't agree with your theory.

Incidentally you do realise that this very same article would have appeared in your "10998" articles? That's why you should never go on vague searches of articles that may contain certain words to prove your case.

After reading the above, I've given up on trying to convince you.

You don't sound interested in the truth. I asked you several posts to find a single article at pubmed supporting your position. You failed to do so. I've just provided you with a pubmed article stating:

Low serotonin levels did NOT produce an increase in clinical depression in healthy humans. (click to observe study).

It doesn't get any clearer than that.

Untill you can find any evidence supporting your position there's nothing more to say.
 
Ismene said:
It's funny how you praise and cherish every article you find supporting yourself but regard anything danni cites as inconclusive or "vague."


I've never done anything of the sort.
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced it proves anything remotely like that. Even they say low serotonin has only been "suggested" to play a role. That's about as vague as you can possibly get. If there were 10998 articles proving it then surely they could use firmer language than "suggested".
Click to expand...
^Thats you, post #45 page 2 of this thread.


Ismene said:
You claimed "10998" articles supported your position because they contained the words serotonin and depression. You surely arn't trying to say that's a reliable way of proving something?

After your failure to find an article at pubmed supporting your position I find you one that states in simple language the exact opposite of what you are claiming. Then you dismiss this out of hand because it doesn't agree with your theory.

Incidentally you do realise that this very same article would have appeared in your "10998" articles? That's why you should never go on vague searches of articles that may contain certain words to prove your case.
Click to expand...

No, never in this thread did I claim all 10998 articles supported my position. Thats just straight up putting words in my mouth. I did say most of them linked serotonin to depression. You can read over the whole thread again. Yes, I did realize that some articles going against my position could've came up through the same search, which was the reason why I never claimed all 10998 articles supported my position in the first place.

No, I didnt fail to find an article supporting my position. I thought danni did a very good job of doing so already, and you've dismissed his citations as "vague." There are already more articles in this thread supporting my position than yours. I don't see any reason to waste my time searching for any more since I doubt it'll change your delusional thoughts of some conspiracy theory with big pharmaceutical companies and anti depressents.

Ismene said:
After reading the above, I've given up on trying to convince you.

You don't sound interested in the truth. I asked you several posts to find a single article at pubmed supporting your position. You failed to do so. I've just provided you with a pubmed article stating:

Low serotonin levels did NOT produce an increase in clinical depression in healthy humans. (click to observe study).

It doesn't get any clearer than that.

Untill you can find any evidence supporting your position there's nothing more to say.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you've missed all of danni's posts?
 
Thats you, post #45 page 2 of this thread

Come off it. That's not regarding "all articles as vague". That's pointing out that an article saying "It has been suggested serotonin might play a role" is far from conclusive proof that serotonin DOES play a role. Surely you agree with that?

I did say most of them linked serotonin to depression.

No, most of the articles might CONTAIN the words serotonin and depression. That doesn't LINK them. Big difference.

There are already more articles in this thread supporting my position than yours.

Where are they? Find me a single article that says "low serotonin is the cause of depression". The only article from pubmed that states a position on low serotonin and depression says there is no link.

Perhaps you've missed all of danni's posts?

No, I havn't missed them but it seems you have. None of them said "low serotonin causes depression". Read them again and you'll realise that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top