You said, "it's that the theory doesn't have a lot of support"
I was simply pointing you to a reference that showed that "academics" use the exact same language regarding chemical balance of neurotransmitters as the original author.
Notice that it didn't say, "Academics disregard the chemical balance explanation because it lacks evidentiary support."
> Numerous studies to identify reproducible changes in neurotransmitter levels in the cerebrospinal fluid of clinically depressed patients, or to induce or correct depression by manipulating brain serotonin levels, were inconclusive and fraught with methodological limitations.
> Gordon McCarter, PhD, an assistant professor of biological sciences at the College of Pharmacy of Touro University in Vallejo, California, agreed that the evidence for an "imbalance" in neurotransmitters causing depression is "circumstantial" and "more and more tenuous." He noted the dearth of studies showing any measurable difference in serotonin or norepinephrine between depressed patients and controls
> "The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders does not list serotonin as a cause of any mental disorder; it is simply one neurotransmitter that continues to be investigated. And the prescribing information for the SSRIs does not claim that their mechanism of action is to correct a chemical imbalance, although this is exactly what the advertisements claim."
> "We suspect that many consumers believe the serotonin theory to be more scientifically based than it is, and that they might have chosen an alternative approach to their distress if they were fully informed.
I was simply pointing you to a reference that showed that "academics" use the exact same language regarding chemical balance of neurotransmitters as the original author.
Notice that it didn't say, "Academics disregard the chemical balance explanation because it lacks evidentiary support."