Do please pardon my abruptness in typing this response (comment) without having first become yet more familiar with the larger context of linearity of posts or overall orientation of the site. I am merely a patient, and as such am not professing, but doing what so many journal publications and industry media claims that reviews, statistics, research, data, evidence, studies, and findings do (even though they really can not), which is “suggesting.”
Having most recently been undergoing a great deal of difficulty with my health, arising from what presents as medical conditions arising from metabolic dysregulation of the endocrine and gastroenterological systems, it would seem foolish to assume that they either are unrelated to neurological damage (which has already been identified and well established as having been incurred), or non-existant as such (i.e. the nature of whatever my conditions may seem to present as is neither hormonal nor within the scope of motility concerns, but rather somatoform projections of a psychiatric “imbalance”).
The sense of a grounded assurance which chemical or psychiatric imbalance brings into the framework of nearly every medical specialization now, seems not even so much as a theory, but an assumption that a set of resultant and causal maladies which have been established, qualified and quantified in terms of systemic dysfunction, can be conceived as a hypothetical model for a related, but also quite distinctly separate system.
“Hormonal Imbalance,” or hormone or endocrine imbalance, has been long since entrenched in the general public lay-psyche, in terms of meaning, causes, effects, and mechanisms of functional relation and interaction with every other system of the human body, as having been understood as tested and measured, causal and effective disruptions of homeostasis.
Once again, I am merely suggesting that this understanding has disseminated educationally to the lay-public at large, to an extent that is somewhat similar to how it has manifested in my sense of knowledge and awareness. In brief, it has been soundly demonstrated that physiological and emotional conditions have been scientifically demonstrated to be causes and effects of imbalances in the ratios of hormone production necessary to maintain homeostasis in the body.
Theoretically, it could be suggested that the brain, central nervous system, and mind, are all one system, and that distressing functional difficulties which effect that one system have a cause that is just like the endocrine system, and it just hasn’t been found or demonstrated yet.
So I merely suggest that a “chemical imbalance” feels like a reassuring sort of promise to assume, (as are God, the Devil, Heaven and Hell as well), but still something still less than a theory.
I really should do a little bit of follow-through on some lay-assumptions here though. For instance, the assumption that there is sound evidence which confirms hormonal imbalance … such as doing the minimum of a Google search for …. hmmmm … ah! …. hormonal imbalance theory …
Do please pardon my abruptness in typing this response (comment) without having first become yet more familiar with the larger context of linearity of posts or overall orientation of the site. I am merely a patient, and as such am not professing, but doing what so many journal publications and industry media claims that reviews, statistics, research, data, evidence, studies, and findings do (even though they really can not), which is “suggesting.”
Having most recently been undergoing a great deal of difficulty with my health, arising from what presents as medical conditions arising from metabolic dysregulation of the endocrine and gastroenterological systems, it would seem foolish to assume that they either are unrelated to neurological damage (which has already been identified and well established as having been incurred), or non-existant as such (i.e. the nature of whatever my conditions may seem to present as is neither hormonal nor within the scope of motility concerns, but rather somatoform projections of a psychiatric “imbalance”).
The sense of a grounded assurance which chemical or psychiatric imbalance brings into the framework of nearly every medical specialization now, seems not even so much as a theory, but an assumption that a set of resultant and causal maladies which have been established, qualified and quantified in terms of systemic dysfunction, can be conceived as a hypothetical model for a related, but also quite distinctly separate system.
“Hormonal Imbalance,” or hormone or endocrine imbalance, has been long since entrenched in the general public lay-psyche, in terms of meaning, causes, effects, and mechanisms of functional relation and interaction with every other system of the human body, as having been understood as tested and measured, causal and effective disruptions of homeostasis.
Once again, I am merely suggesting that this understanding has disseminated educationally to the lay-public at large, to an extent that is somewhat similar to how it has manifested in my sense of knowledge and awareness. In brief, it has been soundly demonstrated that physiological and emotional conditions have been scientifically demonstrated to be causes and effects of imbalances in the ratios of hormone production necessary to maintain homeostasis in the body.
Theoretically, it could be suggested that the brain, central nervous system, and mind, are all one system, and that distressing functional difficulties which effect that one system have a cause that is just like the endocrine system, and it just hasn’t been found or demonstrated yet.
So I merely suggest that a “chemical imbalance” feels like a reassuring sort of promise to assume, (as are God, the Devil, Heaven and Hell as well), but still something still less than a theory.
I really should do a little bit of follow-through on some lay-assumptions here though. For instance, the assumption that there is sound evidence which confirms hormonal imbalance … such as doing the minimum of a Google search for …. hmmmm … ah! …. hormonal imbalance theory …
Brilliant!