zlacker

>>lcaff+(OP)
The fact is psychiatry today still lacks tests or any proof of its claims of "chemical imbalance", which remains unproven. No one had established a profile for what a "balanced brain chemistry"looks like, nor do they test for any brain chemistry imbalance.

Diagnosis is still left to the subjective assessment of the practitioner before prescribing powerful psychotropics that DO change brain chemistry in unpredictable ways, and cause a host of side effects often worse than the original symptoms.

So the argument today that psychiatry lacks any scientific basis and rigor for its practices is still very valid and legitimate.

>>imperi+p8
This seems overly pessimistic to me, there are drugs that significantly improve patients wellbeing and do so consistently and repeatably, despite the fact that we don't have a complete understanding of the complete mechanism of action.

If I do a study showing that handwashing in surgeons measurably reduces risk of infection, does the fact that I don't know about microbes make lacking in scientific rigor and remove its scientific basis?