Atheism

Depression’s Chemical Imbalance Explained

By RICK NAUERT PHD Senior News Editor
Reviewed by John M. Grohol, Psy.D. on November 10, 2006

For over three decades, scientists have attributed a chemical imbalance in the brain as the source of major depression. Now, a new study provides an explanation of how this “chemical imbalance” occurs.
Major depression is a disease that impacts approximately 5% of people globally. For over 30 years, scientists believed that monoamines– mood-related chemicals such as serotonin, norepinephrine and dopamine– are low in the brain during major depressive episodes. This is commonly referred to as a “chemical imbalance”. However, no one had ever found a convincing explanation for monoamine loss, until now.
This study by the Canadian-based Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) is published in the November Archives of General Psychiatry.Dr. Jeffrey Meyer investigated whether brain monoamine oxidase A (MAO-A) — an enzyme that breaks down chemicals like serotonin, norepinephrine and dopamine– was higher in those with untreated depression. The results showed that in major depression MAO-A was significantly higher in every brain region that the scientists investigated. On average, MAO-A was 34% higher.
According to Dr. Meyer, “In major depression, higher levels of MAO-A is the primary process that lowers monoamine levels. Having more MAO-A leads to greater breakdown of key chemicals like serotonin.”
This study by the Canadian-based Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) includes a detailed new monoamine model of depression, based upon this work as well as four previous publications from Dr. Meyer and collaborators at CAMH.
Said Dr. Meyer, “A key barrier to making advances in treating depression is a lack of precise disease models. Having disease model is like having a map. Once you have that map you can really begin to understand how an illness like depression works, and offer more targeted and effective treatment.”
A second part of this new model is that monoamine transporters have an important role in removing monoamines away from active sites. Having more of a monoamine transporter is not helpful as it removes more monoamine — for example if one has more serotonin transporter, one would additionally lose more serotonin during depression.
“An important aspect of our advanced monoamine model is that individuals with depression lose chemicals like serotonin and dopamine at different rates based upon transporter density. This helps explain why one person with depression may experience loss of appetite while another may not. And some people have more severe symptoms than others,” said Dr. Meyer.
This advanced monoamine model of depression is a huge step forward in the disease frontier. It brings the study of mental illness closer to the advancements seen in research into physical illness such as cardiac disease, and offers one of the most comprehensive disease models in mental illness.
The next step for researchers will be to investigate why MAO-A levels are raised in the brain and consider prevention strategies. Prevention strategies are critical — according to the World Health Organization, major depression is currently the fourth leading cause of death and disability and is expected to rise to second by the year 2020.

Source: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health

http://psychcentral.com/news/2006/11/09/depressions-chemical-imbalance-explained/398.html

Yes, for instance, evidently materialism, a trust in science, reason and empiricism, including of course evolution; frequently a negative perception of religion. That's for the obvious. Less clear but also less "duh-worthy": liberal on gay and lesbian rights and abortion; anti-racist / pro civil rights; in sum not necessarily leftist but at least liberal on social issues.

I feel much less comfortable than you making those generalizations. And I'm not sure what the point of making them is. Plenty of Christians trust in science. And I don't for second believe that there are no atheist homophobes. There's probably statistically significant correlation between atheism and the things you list but I'd never consider the majority being 'all'.

But, Olivier, you ignore the possibility that being illiberal on matters relating to sexual behaviour and inequality is based upon a trust in science, reason, empiricism and evolution.

There are intelligent voices being heard which claim that multi-culturalism and permissiveness are not working, are dysfunctional, and science is concerned with what works, function, if science is defined more broadly than the utopian notion of it being simply the disinterested play of curiosity. I gather that such voices are becoming politically effective in France. I know they are in England.

Funding for scientific research is based upon solutions to problems, i.e. what works, and is thus not disinterested. Which is why science in its purest form was an activity of the leisured classes in its glory days. It is now a job with all the usual paraphernalia of what might be loosely called "union rules".

The idea that the Catholic Church opposes masturbation, pre-marital sex, public copulation, female priests, divorce, adultery, homosexuality and abortion for non-scientific reasons is a conceit of those muddled thinkers who prefer to believe, for their own personal reasons, that it is out of prejudice, bigotry and sheer bloody-mindedness . Which is profoundly unscientific. A straw man of some magnitude relying entirely on a lack of education, and not wanting any, and a high degree of delicate discretion and joyful generalisation.

And I never said the majority WAS all, not that Christians didn't trust science...

The point is to show that atheism has ideological consistence and consequences. It's not just a passive absence of belief in real life, even if that's what dictionaries say. It is actively connected and correlated with other ideas.

If you want to post recent scientific articles showing that women are less intelligent than men, or that masturbation is dangerous, go ahead... I'll have a look at the evidence.

I have seen plenty Olivier but I don't remember where they are to be found.

And I don't think any of them claimed that women were less intelligent than men. Just that they had a different intelligence which is a biological division of labour one might expect from evolution theory.

Mailer highlighted the dangers of masturbation in the book on Gary Gilmore.

Her name's Lyudmila and she's quite a dish if you like mumsy types, she can take me for a romantic stroll around the Stalingrad Tractor Factory any time she likes, especially as she split with Vlad last year after 30 years of marriage.
She's got a sense of humour too, here laughing at Bush while Vlad next to her struggles to keep a straight face-


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/vladimir-putin/10104671/Vladimir-Putin-and-his-wife-Lyudmila-announce-split.html

PS- would any atheist like to prove they've got a sense of humour by coming up with a funny caption for that pic?

Would you consider me an atheist? ... or a God, Holy Spirit worshiper who is obsessed with heaven? How would you describe me in your own words?

What is the man doing with the umbrella?

Is that how aliens communicate?

Do you even know who the "man" is? Do you even know who either man is?

I ain't putin any caption on that bush!

Indeed--we have a lunatic who posts here occasionally who rants like a maniac against religion, and then rants like a maniac against homosexuals. It's hard to say if he's an atheist, because he's so busy ranting. one can't get any coherence out of him. He is definitely anti-religion, though.

I have no idea where you got the bit I've bonded from.

I don't think you've met the burden of proof of any sort of active connection. Correlation is not causality.

Telling the same lie over and over again doesn't make it true. Until you can show evidence, you're just doing a spendi, and dribbling equal amounts of **** from both sides your mouth at the same time.

There was a comma missing. I meant to say: It's not just a passive absence of belief, in real life, even if that's what dictionaries say. IOM: in real life, it's not just a passive absence of belief, even if that's what dictionaries say.

I refuse to believe that atheism is an idea without consequence. Every ideas have consequences. The link with a distaste of religion is obvious, as is the link with a strong support for science.

Which is showing signs of being about to fly up its own arse.

Interesting thought... Do you often fantasize about eating ****, Wilso?

I have shown plenty of evidence, but you are my best piece of evidence: your dogmatism, your pathetic aggressiveness look much like those of a rabid fundamentalist. You cannot stand the mere idea than another atheist could have a different opinion than yours. All the while arguing that Atheists have no particular set of opinions, of course... Funny!

Thanks for the explanation about the comma.



I may be playing semantics but atheism isn't an idea (to me). I think theism is an idea. Atheism merely rejects that idea. Clearly in a society any group rejecting an idea held by the majority will experience/create consequences. But the cause isn't athiesm, it's difference (or perceived difference). There will be atheists who never disclose they are atheists.

I would be stunned if there aren't clergy who are atheists, but carry on their duties for some perceived social good, or just because it's simpler to keep doing what you've always done. Their atheism has no social consequence (quite possibly a fair amount of personal consequence).

Hmmm - even consequence is a million shades of meaning.

In the United States, Pew Research does regular polls of religious affiliation. In Canada, Ipsos-Reid does the same thing. Interestingly, a few year ago, they both modified their polling questions, to ask those who assert a religious affiliation if they believe in god. About ten percent in each country readily acknowledged that, although they assert a confessional affiliation, they don't believe there is a god. (There was an article in The National Post, the arch-Tory newspaper in Canada, which claimed that the number of "religious atheists" was 38%. However, they didn't provide a source for that. It was startling to see the Tory paper of record making such a claim.)

I agree with you that there may be quite a few clergy who are privately atheists.

Well yes, that's playing with words.


That's called staying in the closet. If that's what you guys want to do, fine...


Yes. Nothing is without consequences of all kinds.