Isitbullshit: There is no concrete evidence that depression is caused by a "chemical imbalance" and for that reason,we literally do not know why antidepressants sometimes work, and that placebos are almost equally effective?
Sometimes I see a post of somebody claiming they started taking an antidepressant and suddenly their whole life got so much better and I'm thinking man that's a placebo, any medical professional who deserves their degree will tell you they were never designed to be the sole treatment but rather an assistant to help therapy
But yeah, I remember seeing once that the whole chemical imbalance claim was literally just a marketing tactic created by Pfizer in the 70's or 80's and it just stuck around and people just assumed it was true, but as today there is zero concrete evidence of that being the case
Edit: Here is my first source, still waiting patiently for a counter-source that's not "You're wrong and I'm right"
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11752450/
In its essence, the chemical imbalance explanation states that depression is the result of a chemical imbalance– most often portrayed as a “deficiency in serotonin.” The simple hypothesis that irregularities in one or a subset of monoamines such as serotonin, dopamine, or norepinephrine is responsible for depression has been rejected as having no scientific basis for decades (France et al., 2007; Hindmarch, 2001; Moncrieff et al., 2022), and yet its endorsement is widespread
The popularity of the “chemical imbalance” term began its meteoric rise after the introduction of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in the mid-1980s. These products started with Prozac and extended to blockbuster medications including Lexapro, Celexa, Zoloft, and Paxil, all of which were approved for depression in the US between 1988 and 2002
The introduction of these medications was accompanied by an onslaught of advertisements in medical journals, magazines, and TV commercials that portrayed depression as the result of a chemical imbalance
Together, these data suggest that the popularity of the phrase chemical imbalance had more to do with marketing strategies than scientific discoveries of true chemical imbalances
Despite the lack of scientific credibility of the simple monoamine hypothesis, endorsement of the chemical imbalance belief abounds in many settings, particularly in the United States (Ang et al., 2022; France et al., 2007; Leo and Lacasse, 2008; Link et al., 1999).
So, just like I said, created and perpetuated by the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture them with zero medical backing