It used to be the case that the theory for why people have depression was "people who are depressed don't have enough serotonin" (in very simple terms), and the reason why SSRIs work was supposed to be that they increase levels of serotonin, but scientists have found that boosting levels of serotonin alone does not help with depression.
After a long battle with depression, this is how I interpret the phenomenon that "boosting" serotonin levels does not work.
SSRI's do not increase the pool of available serotonin, they just artificially increase the amount that remains in the synaptic cleft, facilitating additional firing of the neuron (or for a longer duration, I'm not sure which). They do not increase a neuron's ability to synthesize serotonin and release it into the synaptic cleft at the appropriate time. SSRI's cause our neurons to reuse serotonin longer than they normally would, which is not how we evolved to use serotonin.
The way this felt to me as a human interacting with the world around me was artificial happiness and artificial feelings of ease. I felt "better", but it didn't feel like it was grounded in anything real. I felt happy when happy things happened, but I also felt happy when sad things happened. Eventually it wore off and SSRI's no longer had any effect on me.
I eventually tried tryptophan and B vitamins (specifically B6), which our bodies use to synthesize serotonin. I got a similar effect to when I first started SSRI's, but it felt real. I was able to be happy when something happy happened. But when something sad happened I also felt sad. This effect has endured for 4 years now.
I have since found that I had a serious problem with a particular toxin which poisons many of the pathways involved with serotonin synthesis (among many many others including one of the most fundamental, the Citrate Cycle). A way around the poisoning is large doses of the appropriate nutrients. This is because the toxicity causes serious inefficiencies in their use by the body's biochemical pathways.
This was my personal experience. Depression is caused by many factors and I'm sure what works for me would not work for many. It can be genetic issues, other kinds of toxins, and overwhelming amount of trauma, chronic infections, unhealthy relationships, etc. Or a combination of those.
Sure. I usually don't bring it up unless asked because it is very controversial.
Chronic mercury toxicity was the cause. I've confirmed this diagnosis with dramatic improvement to chelation therapy. I've also done some novel testing that indirectly confirms the diagnosis. It's not something you can test for directly unless you start taking biopsies of tissues you wouldn't want to cut out of someone alive. It resides in "deeper" tissues, not in the blood. The effect of mercury on biochemical pathways has been mapped out quite extensively, and we even know what and why certain genes make some people more susceptible than others. Not something you'll find in mainstream medicine, but the research is extensive and still rapidly growing. Particularly in the toxicology and chemistry circles.
I use a newer chelator called emeramide. It's currently in Phase II clinical trials and will probably be approved within 10 years. Although, it can be very dangerous if someone takes a too large of a dose, and the person pushing it through FDA approval does not seem to be fully aware of how bad it can be. Generally, the sicker you are the lower the dose you need to start on. This phenomenon is extensively documented in the Facebook groups where mercury toxic people discuss their experiences and results.
Emeramide binds to mercury the strongest, but also chelates other toxic metals like lead and cadmium, so those could certainly be complicating factors. Especially lead, as I grew up in a home and neighborhood with lots of it.
As for where the mercury came from, the timeline of my symptoms, animal toxicology studies, and it's removal in 2001, and more, all point towards the vax(inations I received as a child. For example, I had random and inexplicable symptoms as a kid like attacks of projectile vomiting without being sick, and bloody noses that would last for hours.
Thanks for the context, very interesting. When did you get those shots as a child (ie what year, if you don't mind), and do you have any sense of which ones might have been the cause?
My parents followed the usual schedule. I was born in 1986. I'm not sure what the schedule was exactly back then, but I had several shots under the age of 5, a few more leading up to age 10, and a few more up until my last shot in 2016. Iirc the majority of them before 2001 included thimerosal as a preservative. I don't think any one shot was a specific cause, and rather it was a cumulative thing. I do know that the MMR shot does not contain thimerosal.
This FDA Q&A is a good read, although obviously biased against my perspective:
The FDA does acknowledge that kids in my generation were exposed to mercury slightly exceeding the established safety limit for oral exposure, but makes no mention as to how it is not appropriate to use an oral limit when the exposure is through injection. Toxicologists know that the exposure route makes all the difference in how toxic a substance is, and it is specifically written into environmental regulations like RCRA. For example, ingested substances are first directed straight to the liver through the portal vein for detoxification before being spread to the rest of the body. Injected substances bypass this defense mechanism. No exposure limits have ever been developed for injection, because the laws are all written for pollution, and people obviously do not inject pollution into themselves. (I was an environmental engineer for several years.)
That FDA Q&A also discusses how there was a lot of concern expressed by healthcare professionals regarding thimerosal, and that's why it was (mostly) removed, but they stress that it was just to be safe, and they have no reason to believe that it's dangerous. To be honest, it sounds like covering-their-ass double-speak to me, and reminds me of how polluting companies handle their coverups. The reality is that these things are so difficult to prove one way or the other, and the liability and denial issues are immense. No one wants to admit to themselves or others that they accidentally poisoned someone. Not just for financial reasons but for their own psychological well-being.
I'm not sure that the reason why some (e.g. official) health information sources keep repeating that isn't just a combination of having an easy explanation and making a (benign) attempt to induce a placebo effect in unknowledgeable patients.
If you either get massively technical about complex things that would make most laymen's heads spin, or shrugged your shoulders and said that we don't really know, you might miss on the potential psychological effects that you can get by projecting some kind of confidence.
Here's a good journal article on the subject https://sci-hub.st/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...