Talk:Chemical imbalance

Predominately spurious "criticisms" section
All but the first paragraph of this section is unsourced. That's not surprising, since the unsourced paragraphs misrepresent the current state of medical science. The article claims that there are no physiological abnormalities which can be demonstrated through objective laboratory testing in the brains of depressed and otherwise mentally ill individuals. However, deceased depressed patients have been shown to have greater numbers of 5-HT2A receptors (the full article text is necessary, and can be accessed through a university computer). Receptor counting and other highly involved evaluations of brain physiology are not used for the diagnosis of mental illness in living patients simply because they currently cannot be effectuated without destruction of the tissue being tested. Jennifer500 (talk) 04:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Monoamine Hypothesis Paragraph
All the citations in the monoamine hypothesis paragraph are broken except one. --128.243.253.111 (talk) 11:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph
The citation in the following sentence in the first section is broken:
 * In the 1950s the monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) and tricyclic antidepressants were accidentally discovered to be effective in the treatment of clinical depression.[1]

--ThinkerDreamer (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

It lacks evidence for the statement that critics believe pharmaceutical companies promote hypotheses. I suggest the following: Pharmaceutical companies promote this theory by reporting partically factual studies; often they do not report studies that disprove the effectiveness of their drug. For instance, in two of the three clinical trials the anti-depressant paroxatine proved to be as effective and less effective than a placebo. However only the trial that showed paroxatine as being effective was published by the pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline.