/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14693835
TROOST THE SCOIENCE!!!!!!!

they're not going to do anything, just say that this' an obvious advantage of science because it always corrects itself, that doctors are heroes who make the best decision based on the information available and that now they're more than happy to accept new scientific commandments

>>14693835
>How do science worshippers cope?
The neat thing about science is our views of it can change with new evidence.

>>14693835
Whats weird is that there was never evidence to support the serotonin/depression connection in the first place.
Its not like people did bad experiments or something, the idea was just assumed with zero proof.

>>14693835
Science and the so called scientific method don't really exist. The scientific method was common sense and everyone did it throughout history. Science as its come to be known is a meme and attracts cancerous frauds and academics who use the implicit trust that the common man has towards science to bullshit them and suck as much money as possible

>>14693835
Psychiatry is not science.

>>14694128
>The scientific method was common sense
Nope

>>14694093
It's not weird, it's perfectly understandable. The chemical imbalance idea was a marketing device, an extremely successful one. It gave psychiatrists something doctor-y to say, which made patients feel better, and writing prescriptions have psychiatrists something doctor-y to do, which made them feel better, and drug companies sold lots and lots of pills, which made their owners and stockholders feel better.

>give millions of people brain pills that don't do what they were claimed to do
What will the long-term consequences of this be?

>>14693835
Does anyone remember that thread (or threads) where the OP was vehemently anti-serotonin deficiency and all the commenters called him crazy, a schizo, etc?

>>14694181
>and drug companies sold lots and lots of pills
And SSRIs, when they do work, are probably not working due to increased serotonin. They may even deplete serotonin.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mad-in-america/201011/new-rat-study-ssris-markedly-deplete-brain-serotonin

>>14693835
There's literally nothing wrong with science claims changing

>>14693835
This was answered a while ago. The stupid take of "journalists" has no relationship to science. Scientists have known for a very long time it is not merely a case of "more serotonin". Case in point, different medications have different bonding profiles to receptors. You can have a deficiency in the receptors, a lack of receptors, and so on. That is, the causes are very heterogeneous (of many sources).

There's no "science worship", just public misunderstanding the media plays in to for clicks to the detriment of public understanding. Which you've apparently fallen for.

>>14693835
>>14694246
>>14694330
Ok so should I just fucking kill myself?
I've tried all the bullshit /polsci/-approved antidepressant treatments and none of them work
SSRIs were going to be my last choice but if they don't do anything then what can I do other than blow my head off?

>>14697197
>Scientists have known for a very long time it is not merely a case of "more serotonin".

that did stop big pharma from making misleading ads about depression being caused by a 'chemical imbalance' and selling billions of useless and possibly harmful pills to consumers.

This was known literally since the 70's

>>14697284
>that did stop big pharma from making misleading ads about depression being caused by a 'chemical imbalance' and selling billions of useless and possibly harmful pills to consumers.
There are chemical imbalances. This paper is not refuting that in the least. It is merely reiterating what scientists knew for ages already, in that mere quantity has nothing to do with it. The fact the medications target bonding profiles of different serotonin receptors, and by various methods, demonstrates this simple fact. We do not merely "dump serotonin in you" nor would that be especially helpful.

So you're taking one misunderstanding, transposing it onto another, and making ridiculous conspiracy conclusions. Your understanding is incorrect is the problem.

>>14693835
it's the gut bacteria
always has been
It's just bacteria all the way down
it's no surprise depression has been skyrocketing since the pyramid scheme of health advice bought and paid for by big corn

>>14697311
>There are chemical imbalances.
Unrelated to depression, yet medications are being pushed to correct those imbalances as a treatment for depression.

>>14697260
"Our results demonstrate that the usual clinical antidepressants are inhibitors of the cholinesterases on human serum and erythrocyte membrane. " (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12009429/))

LSD also does something like this, picrel.

Try LSD, or try eating 8 eggs a day, for sufficient choline. Almost everyone is choline deficient, and the amount we are "supposed" to get is only set to avoid muscle dysfunction and liver dysfunction.

Generally, people eat shit diets. You go to the (((witch doctor))) and say "doc, I feel sad all of the time," 99/100 times he does not refer to a dietician, and he certainly doesn't have you do a food journal yourself.

Generally, if you are at your wits end:

B50 Complex (e.g. 50mg thiamine, riboflavin, niacin, pyridoxine, pantothenate, 1mg folate, 50ug biotin or something like that a day)
Multivitamin (will give you a bit more B Vitamin + minerals)
8000 IU Vitamin D a day
500ug-1mg Vitamin K2/day


1g protein/lb of body weight from eggs, greek yogurt, meat. Get at least 200g red meat a day.
Lift weights, if you cant make strength gains (dont worry about muscle size) then you are obviously eating a shit diet.

>>14697368
how long does it take for the vita gummies to hit?

>>14697352
>Unrelated to depression
Nope. You're trolling or retarded. Already corrected you on this.

>>14697339
Doesn't that sound too easy to fix?

>>14697418
>Fooling your brain fixes the problem
That's what happens when you let retards with duct tape solutions be responsible for things way above their competence

>>14697418
You corrected someone else. Here's a quote directly from the study.

>"The main areas of serotonin research provide no consistent evidence of there being an association between serotonin and depression, and no support for the hypothesis that depression is caused by lowered serotonin activity or concentrations. Some evidence was consistent with the possibility that long-term antidepressant use reduces serotonin concentration."

>>14697311
>There are chemical imbalances. This paper is not refuting that in the least.
Right.

>It is merely reiterating what scientists knew for ages already, in that mere quantity has nothing to do with it.
Right.

>The fact the medications target bonding profiles of different serotonin receptors, and by various methods, demonstrates this simple fact.
They dismissed serotonin activity entirely, which would also include the receptors.

>>14697197
>You can have a deficiency in the receptors, a lack of receptors, and so on.
The paper said nothing of the sort. They looked at receptor activity and found a lack of evidence to support it, along with the chemical imbalance theory. Another quote:

>"This review suggests that the huge research effort based on the serotonin hypothesis has not produced convincing evidence of a biochemical basis to depression. This is consistent with research on many other biological markers [21]. We suggest it is time to acknowledge that the serotonin theory of depression is not empirically substantiated."

>>14697503
Read about cats and people using meds for flushing bacteria out of their body to fix their cats mental behavior and well being

>>14693835
Schizos were right again, mental illness doesn't exist

>>14697260
Everytime you get suicidal thoughts, do 1 push up.

>>14697525
I already work out
I started doing it cuz pol and sci said it would cure my depression
I'm buff now and I still want to blow my head off with a shotgun
I fucking hate being alive fuck this gay bullshit earth

>>14697260
Keep reading the picture Anon.
Key Points:
* [...]
* [...]
* Antidepressants, including SSRIs, remain an effective treatment. We just need to better understand why and how they work.

>14697197
Kys pseud.

I was always under the impression that it is due to a dysfunction of the dopamine system and there are studies on this.

>>14697649
They're as good as placebo

>>14697518
>They dismissed serotonin activity entirely, which would also include the receptors.
Nope.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-
022-01661-0
You did not read the study. The receptor, SINGULAR, in focus was 5HT_1A due to the fact it's an "auto-receptor" and related to release of serotonin. As the aim of the meta-analysis concerned quantity of serotonin, that is why it found A RECEPTOR to be unrelated. Again, this is just repeating what most people already accept (that serotonin quantity is insufficient and unrelated by itself).
>The paper said nothing of the sort.
Because the paper wasn't about what I mentioned, hence everyone getting it wrong by transposing misunderstandings onto something unrelated.
>They looked at receptor activity and found a lack of evidence to support it, along with the chemical imbalance theory.
They looked at A RECEPTOR related to pre-synaptic inhibition. That has nothing to do with what I said because it is, again, focused on serotonin quantity not bonding profiles in medications.

It is always hysterical to me how incompetent you morons are while accusing others of "not reading" things you plainly did not read, and if read did not even begin to understand. The serotonin hypothesis in question is about serotonin levels, so serum quantity, not specific activity of receptors and other mediating factors. Again, depression is very heterogeneous, something everyone knows about but you morons.

>>14693835
we already had this thread and you got raped. why have you come back for more?

>>14694181
yeah basically. "chemical imbalance" was a marketing term that got lodged into public perception. now /pol/tards (who have probably used the term dozens of times in their lives) are wanking themselves silly over the idea that "The Science has been debunked" rather than "evidence has been found against a bullshit marketing term with no basis in reality"

>>14697368
He already said he tried all the bullshit /polsci/ treatments.

>>14697518
Before you start hammering on your keyboard with more retardation at least read a high school level overview of the biology of depression. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_of_depression

What every idiot who takes five minutes to read can easily discern is that a dysfunctional brain in and of itself would continue to attempt regulation upstream, downstream, and intermedially, in the same flawed way that reinforces the same depression. That is, merely level of serum serotonin has long been known to not be related to depression. What you will find on that page, and many others related, is how medications targeting various bonding profiles can throw off that dysregulation and how they work in other ways to stabilize somebody's brain.

I repeat: Nobody but a bunch of ignorant dipshits online, namely you lot, thought depression was related merely to levels of serotonin in the blood. That is what this review was about, and what your misunderstandings are about.
>>14697675
>"chemical imbalance" was a marketing term that got lodged into public perception.
Except there are "imbalances", more like runaway homeostasis focused on keeping somebody depressed. It still involves monoamines, it still involves receptors and chemicals, but it does not involve serum concentration. Serum concentration is a macro level statistic that tells you nothing about what the receptors are doing, whether they're taking in proper quantities or not, and so on.

It isn't even a bullshit marketing term, it's just a bullshit interpretation of a legitimate term cynically oversimplified because people refuse to understand how complex hormonal systems are. Rather than thinking in networked gates and switches and thresholds, a lot of people idiotically just go "Muh blood level". Either way one can still legitimately describe it as a hormonal imbalance, or a disordered homeostasis.

>>14697683
yeah, fair enough

>>14693835
>psychology / medicine "research"
one study as worthless as any other
one asspull more in a sea of piss

>hurr btfo xDD
no, wrong
research in these fields is pure fiction

>>14697197
I see you doubling down with "serotonin receptors", I call BS again.

>>14693835
Modern science is a big fucking fraud designed to sell, to package a product to put on shelves and into hospitals, to appeal to the masses, to create petty entertainment, to deliberately mislead people.
I know plenty of doctors and they're amazed at how strong censorship is in scientific fields. You're not allowed to question certain data, even if said data appear made up.
Just recently a 40-years old colossal fraud was discovered related to Alzheimer's treatment. Basically two pupil researchers falsified animal tests to get big bucks and they got away with it for four decades leaving millions of people to die while they got filthy fucking rich.
You think this is not the norm? It's the same in a shitton of disease research fields, starting with cancer. I've been telling chemo is whack for 20 years, now the first "peer-reviewed LE SCIENCE approved" articles about chemo being an inadequate, low tier treatement are just NOW going mainstream.
The scientific method is dead. The scientistic method is the new normal.
People don't question science anymore which is the cornerstone to any healthy, intelligent individual. Why questioning science you may ask, well to find out more of course.
Science isn't some kind of static truth, it's just literally what we know about a certain subject. What we understand, or assume to understand, about the universe. Science can NEVER be settled.
Even the most basic of shit gets turned around often, like pathogenic reactions we didn't think about, or decades-old pharmaceutical products having unforseen side effects.
Men of science in the past would beg on their knees to be debunked. Because by being debunked they would learn more.
Todays "men" of "science" would silence you over questioning the narrative because this is not about learning anymore.
This is about enstablishing a new reality.
About enstablishing a false truth.
It's a big fucking mafia. A mafia that controls what morally should be everyone's right to know.
Shameful.

>>14693835
>How do science worshippers cope?

Coping for what ? you not reading correctly or not understanding the information ?
Virtually no scientist believed that depression was solely about serotonin imbalance, this study is just showing what we already suspected.
it doesn't change anything about the fact that antidepressants work.

>>14697675
>The Science has been debunked
It's always the same pattern.
> Scientific consensus: we have no proof, but a hypothesis
> /pol/tards you're lying!!!
> New scientific data drops
> Scientists: huh, well look at that, guess our hypothesis was wrong, let's find a better one
> /pol/ HAHAHA YOURE DEBUNKED YOU JEWISH LIARS COPE AND SEETHE SOIENCE FAGS

Like... always. With climate, with Covid, with depression now

>>14697768
my ancestors are smiling at me anon,
can you say the same posting a pic of a guy sucking his own dick on a kyrgystani coy fish breeding forum?

>>14697790
you ancestors are dirt.
nobody is looking at you from some schizo afterlife, buddy

>>14697260
They still work you fucking dumbass, we just don't know why

>>14697678
Except it's not. Choline was only declared essential in 1998. So when all of these serotonin reuptake Inhibitors were becoming popular in the late 1980s and early 1990s and there's a bit of History before that but, people were walking around as malnourished Space Cadets and the government dietary recommendations didn't even contain an essential substance which is more like a proteinaceous substance because it's structural and also serves to generate neurotransmission because it produces acetylcholine. Well over 70% of the population is still deficient in choline and the whole pharmaceutical model says Everybody Eats well enough it couldn't be your diet that's making you feel bad. Chemical imbalance theory is probably right it's just that the chemical imbalance is that people are not getting sufficient nutrition for the organism to express a healthy phenotype.

>>14697720
This is always been my personal experience. Years of cortisone creams for eczema when all I needed to do is eat sufficient protein and other nutrients. Like literally over a decade of that horse shit. The doctor making jokes about hello you just need to go on a vacation to Hawaii in the humidity will fix your dry skin. Well doctor somehow not everybody here has dry skin so I think you're a fucking quack. Then when I turn 18 and take control of my own diet and weight lifting and so forth it all fixes up within 6 months. So how many more of these chronic conditions are things that could fix in 6 months with proper nutrition but the doctor doesn't do that? Have a buddy who's wife works in cancer research and it pays well. However her co-workers are mostly idiots she's expected to sit in her office even though the work she has allotted to her only takes her 2 hours, because if she leaves it makes her co-workers who are mostly retarded diversity hires feel bad. Also his General sense of the life sciences is it there the most corrupt of any of the sciences. There's not really much money in corrupting chemistry. There's no money in corrupting astrophysics or whatever. Life Sciences are the only things where something that works less well generates more money.

>>14694258
Yea go apologize

>>14697958
They work at ruining your libido
Otherwise they work as effectively as placebo

>>14697768
>Like... always. With climate, with Covid, with depression now
Explain the following statements:
>Imminent climate change. The polar caps will be gone by 2020.
>Covid's gonna kill 2 to 10 % of the population. The vaccine is effective at preventing it.
>Depression is a neurochemical disorder.
Explain, under the easily proven assumption, that most scientists in their field were 1. aggressively promoting these ideas, 2. responsible for enacting public policies that turned these believes into facts and 3. believed the stuff themselves, when it was treated just like any other hypothesis?

Pro Tip: You can't.

>>14697260
Get outside, get regular exercise, get a job, make friends, move toward something good. Depression is not mysterious. You are depressed because your life sucks. Sort it out. Don't make excuses.

>>14697260
>what can I do other than blow my head off?
The only rational thing to do: leave the bugman dystopia and violently reject all aspects of the human cattle lifestyle.

"depression" is old fashioned clinical & research shorthand for "depressed activity level", it is a symptom, not a condition, it cannot be treated directly.

>>14698545
If they're entirely placebo why do they perform better then real placebos in trials
>libido
Fair point.

>>14698559
>Explain, under the easily proven assumption, that most scientists in their field were 1. aggressively promoting these ideas, 2. responsible for enacting public policies that turned these believes into facts and 3. believed the stuff themselves, when it was treated just like any other hypothesis?

It is because academia works like any other corporation. You don't get promoted for arguing with your boss, even if he is wrong, especially if the corporation is large enough (or supported by the Government) to absorb the losses.

You get promoted by being docile and by agreeing with the boss. No one wants to promote someone who threatens them.

Universitas in Latin just means Corporation, one of the biggest conceits of University educated people is that "universities aren't just too big to fail corporations that have been bailed out by the state for 100s of years because it is in the state's interest to promote docile people into positions as state functionaries."

They think Universities are these leading-edge institutions that "contribute to knowledge." Kant suggests that the "lower faculty" (all of the doctors of philosophy) are not like the higher faculties of theology, law and medic ine, which are subordinate to the state (http://la.utexas.edu/users/hcleaver/330T/350kPEEKantConflictFacNarrow.pdf)) but there is no evidence for this and, increasingly, you have the philosophy faculty backfeeding the theology, law and medicine faculties with nonsensical ideas.

>>14698660
>If they're entirely placebo why do they perform better then real placebos in trials

How much better? Everyone I have ever known who has depression eats a diet marginal in protein and choline and mineral---they mostly eat lots of carbohydrates, or they eat sparsely in general.

Then there is Vitamin D, without sun exposure or supplements you will be deficient.

>>14698559
>Explain, under the easily proven assumption, that most scientists in their field were 1. aggressively promoting these ideas, 2. responsible for enacting public policies that turned these believes into facts and 3. believed the stuff themselves, when it was treated just like any other hypothesis?
>Pro Tip: You can't.
No one needs to prove anything to you. You and your labcoat scammers will face serious physical consequences when the time comes.

>>14698669
Of course diet and mineral/vitamin deficiencies have an effect on amplifying or causing mental illnesses. I can attest to this myself as I'm way more likely to feel anxious when hungry/malnourished.
But SSRIs have a proven effect on minimising (note: not curing) various mental illnesses, like depression, anxiety and OCD.

>>14698693
>But SSRIs have a proven effect on minimising (note: not curing) various mental illnesses, like depression, anxiety and OCD.

There are absolutely no rigorous, controlled nutritional intervention studies that intervene to correct 100% of diet, not that I am aware of. They are prohibitively expensive to perform.

The issue is more that SSRIs are a profitable pharmaceutical problem to a lifestyle disease---it is very similar to diabetes, which we also have a pretty good cure rate for, Type 2, using fasting/calorie restricted diets.

Most doctors dont even mention this, even if they know, because of their contempt for patients and the lack of supportive infrastructure to assist with fasting, etc.

The whole system is broken---psychiatry with drugs basically started as an experimental thing on people in mental hospitals, back when there was very little scientific knowledge of nutrition, it is witch-doctoring.

>>14697260
have you tried getting a gf or at the very least having sex?

I have a different question
I am not depressed, but suffer from masturbation-porn addiction guilt

Are these things good for killing my sexual desire? Lowering my libido is kinda what I want.

>>14693835
they forget every time their religions lies get exposed. that is the nature of faith based beliefs.

>>14698997
>that is the nature of faith based beliefs.
>Changing your belief in the face of new evidence is bad.

>Scientist
>look at *thing that BTFO's me*
>"Neat"
>Downloads a pdf and puts it in a folder called "things that BTFO me"

>monotheist
>look at *thing that BTFOs me*
>NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, IT CAN'T BE REAL! BURN IT! BUUUURN IIIIIITT!
>basedjak.jpg
>make a /sci/ post

>>14698997
>>14699000
i rest my case

>>14693835
The reason SSRIs " work" (they don't work at all btw) is that when you force the serotonin into unnaturally high levels, the body freaks out and attempts to fix the imbalance by raising dopamine levels(which was the cause of the depression in the first place either by being too low or having developed too many receptors thus 'dividing the signal.'). You body is literally just trying to keep the levels at a 1 : 1 ratio the whole time WHILE ALSO regulating the number of either receptor to maintain signal strength for each neurotransmitter( It's way TF more complicated than this but basically yeah....)
If your water heater is on the blink, you don't set the house on fire to get a warm bath....unless you're a medical doctor apparently...

DIET AND EXERCISE is cheaper than a bottle of mindfuckerol every month.

>>14697671
>It is always hysterical to me how incompetent you morons are while accusing others of "not reading" things you plainly did not read
I'll just go ahead and quote the study AGAIN.

>"This review suggests that the huge research effort based on the serotonin hypothesis has not produced convincing evidence of a biochemical basis to depression."
>"of a biochemical basis to depression"
>"The main areas of serotonin research provide no consistent evidence of there being an association between serotonin and depression, and no support for the hypothesis that depression is caused by lowered serotonin activity or concentrations.
>no support for the hypothesis that depression is caused by lowered serotonin activity

You're welcome to disagree with the study, or claim they didn't cover everything you discussed, but the authors clearly dismissed serotonin, at all levels, of playing any role in depression. No one else is misunderstanding anything, we're going by what the authors stated. It's you who is arguing against their claims.

>>14697683
>Nobody but a bunch of ignorant dipshits online, namely you lot, thought depression was related merely to levels of serotonin in the blood.
Goodness.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/depression/in-depth/ssris/art-20044825
>SSRIs treat depression by increasing levels of serotonin in the brain.

Again, you're more than welcome to state that's wrong, I won't disagree, but you're lying out of your behind if you're trying to claim drug companies haven't pushed this very hypothesis in their advertisements. I'm also not sure why you're hurling insult after insult when I haven't been rude to you in any way. Why do you have such an attitude?

>>14697797
>NO. You don't get tortured in hell for several hours and mind wiped after you wake up in the morning.

>>14697260
eat good, do exercise, meditate and try fucking magic mushrooms baby, there's no proof that it works but might as well give it a try

>>14693835
>SSRIs are an effective treatment
Kek

>>14699580
>try fucking magic mushrooms
Couldn't I eat them instead?

>>14699452
>I'll just go ahead and quote the study AGAIN.
Which you're incorrectly interpreting AGAIN as I already explained.
>but the authors clearly dismissed serotonin, at all levels, of playing any role in depression
Your dishonest cherrypicking is not anything to do with the authors. You're just doing what young earth creationists do to preserve your desired faith. Case in point,
>https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/depression/in-depth/ssris/art-20044825
I like how you so stupidly interpret everything written meanwhile you miss my own words directly contradicting this as some kind of "own".
>>14697683
>It isn't even a bullshit marketing term, it's just a bullshit interpretation of a legitimate term cynically oversimplified because people refuse to understand how complex hormonal systems are. Rather than thinking in networked gates and switches and thresholds, a lot of people idiotically just go "Muh blood level".

Go ahead and square that circle dipshit.

>>14699695
>Which you're incorrectly interpreting AGAIN as I already explained.
They quoted the authors directly, there's nothing to interpret.

"no support for the hypothesis that depression is caused by lowered serotonin activity"

"not produced convincing evidence of a biochemical basis to depression."

No biochemical basis to depression, and no support for depression being caused by lower serotonin activity. Their stance can't be any more clear. You're arguing to argue at this point.

>>14699695
>I like how you so stupidly interpret everything written
Okay, can you tell me where I misinterpreted these words?

>Nobody but a bunch of ignorant dipshits online, namely you lot, thought depression was related merely to levels of serotonin in the blood.
I gave you a direct quote from the Mayo Clinic stating SSRIs work by boosting serotonin levels in the brain. Are the people at the Mayo Clinic also a bunch of ignorant dipshits?

>That is what this review was about, and what your misunderstandings are about.
The authors unequivocally stated that there's no convincing evidence to suggest serotonin plays any role in depression, or that there's even a biochemical basis to depression, per what the anon quoted here >>14699705.

What are you arguing exactly? You're going out of your way to say we're misrepresenting the paper, and then you repeatedly ignore the words of the authors themselves. Again, you're welcome to disagree with them, but don't distort what they said when they've been quoted repeatedly for all to see.

>>14697683
>Serum concentration is a macro level statistic that tells you nothing about what the receptors are doing, whether they're taking in proper quantities or not, and so on.

How in the world do these quotes >>14699705 not cover that? Denying a biochemical basis and stating there's no support for lowered serotonin activity is a direct contradiction to everything you just claimed.

>>14693835
trust the onions-ence goy

>>14697720
the image that killed /sci/

Buddy, tabloids are not a good source of you want to know more about science. You should start from a university level textbook and then read papers. Anyway, since a long time we know that it must be something else at play in the work mechanism of antidepressants, since the serotonin levels rise within hours but the symptoms get better after two or three weeks.

>>14697260
Find a gf

>>14694025
you cant unmedicate a generation of kids that were put on drugs for literally no reason though

>>14697339
How can this be only caused by gut bacteria if depression is often triggered by purely psychological experiences?