This YouTube panel challenges common misconceptions about recovery, especially the dominant biomedical/DSM framing. Speaker B argues that the “chemical imbalance” explanation lacks empirical support (traced to Joseph Gilkraut, 1965) and notes meta-analytic critiques of antidepressants (Irving Kirsch’s work — reporting high placebo response, e.g., aggregate ~80% placebo, Prozac ~89%). The group favors trauma‑informed, systemic approaches and describes practical program elements (e.g., a nine‑video weekly family curriculum) to reframe beliefs and support sustained recovery.
What are some of the most common misconceptions about recovery that you encounter one, and how do you help others replace those misconceptions with a hopeful and realistic vision for transformation?
You know, that's a very interesting question. And I would say not every single parent and family do we have to do that with, but almost they come in with the same perception about things that all of us had growing up in America. And it's a biomedical dsm. All that stuff that I said earlier is an answer to your question. But it's, it's like they have never heard of asking the question, what makes this make sense? They've never connected trauma to addiction. They've never understood it, you know, at all. And so being able to, if, if you come at somebody really strong with that up front, you know, I don't think it works well. So, you know, we, we go at it at a slower pace and, and sequence our talking about it in a way one I think is respectful, but it's also strategic that you build the groundwork up. You know, we have them watch a video every week from the time they admit until family Week. There's nine videos. And we slowly build this whole picture. Like I shared, you know, while ago on the question, because if you can help them make it make sense and show them the difference, it's things like this. Everybody has heard of chemical imbalance, you know, that I've got a chemical imbalance. He does, his dad did, her mom did, you know, blah, blah, blah. And I come in with, not my I'm a redneck in the middle of the woods yelling about things I don't like kind of approach, but I bring peer reviewed journals, you know, Journal of Molecular Psychiatry and all these different things. Not that I read those things, but I do find articles in there and read them typically. But it's like, I don't want y' all to get a bad impression of me, but it's like, you know, when, when you're showing them that chemical imbalance is not a medical term, it does not exist. It was proposed by Joseph Gilkraut in 1965. It has had dozens and dozens of attempts to prove that there is a serotonin imbalance and that's what causes depression. It has never once been proven. Eli Lily used chemical imbalance as a marketing slogan in the late 90s. Chemical imbalance does not exist. And it's an interesting thing. One author posed this question, if there was a chemical imbalance, someone says, you have, I have a chemical imbalance. You. The question to say is, okay, how do you know that? Did a doctor do a test and give you the number, like your, you know, a 1C number, you know, your insulin number, your streptococcus bacteria number on strep throat? Did you get anything like it? No, they didn't. Okay, let's say they did and Your number is 14. What does that compare to? What is a chemical imbalance number? Well, oh, they don't know because they've never determined that either. So it's like it is a total non truth that America has believed as a, as a narrative. And so you. I'm kind of whittling at the very base of the biomedical model which creates doubt in what they have believed in. That opens the door for them to believe in this stuff that I'm talking about with the systemic funnel and the volcano, you know, etc. And then I give them the references, I give them the articles to read. I make a reader so that they can see it. And sometimes we'll have, you know, doctors and people that are very interested in reading that. And I'm like, hey, don't just take my word for it. Read this. And that, to me, is how you break down those beliefs coming in that are going to be detrimental to them. Now they're out one more. Just because I'm on my soapbox.
Yes.
So then people talk about use of, of SSRI antidepressants and Irving Kirsch, and I give them this article as well, did a study of every single antidepressant that was ever put before the FDA for approval. And the aggregate of all of them together was their effectiveness was 80% placebo, with Prozac 89%. And so it's like it's the placebo effect with most people. And it. They've now determined that serotonin is not what causes depression, you know, that SSRIs don't work for because they're changing serotonin. And all that stuff is in the research. It's just not presented in conferences because it goes against the biomedical model. I spoke at Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis. And if you guys have driven down that interstate to Nashville, you'll see Bellevue Baptist. It's giant, big as a college campus. And it was great place and a great conference and a doctor was talking about a topic and I knew from his topic it was going to be he'd have to talk about chemical imbalance and SSRIs, etc, so I went to it and for the first time I was going to contend with him with the research I'd been doing for this book, and all of a sudden he said, now, I'm sure most of you have read by now that there's no such thing as a chemical imbalance. And I'm like, well, there you go. It's starting to become so mainstream that they can't hide it. And. And psychiatrists have known this all along. You know, it's like a lot of us therapist types have not. You know, we just believed it because it was told to us. But if you can create doubt in. In the predominant paradigm because people suffer with all of us do paradigm paralysis or confirmation bias, whatever word you want to use. But it's like at one time, if we. The three of us went out in public and said, hey, we were on this mountain yesterday, and we were looking out across the ocean and we think there is a curve there, that maybe the earth is not flat, it's round. We would have been run out of town for being heretics, you know, and so it's like, the truth will set you free. I come back to that again. And in this stuff, the truth kind of erodes a little bit of the belief system, which opens them up to a different possibility again, novelty, dopamine, hope.
It makes me think of the idea that if there was an easy way to recover, we would have found it and already done it. I think Besser van der Kolk brings it up in his book on the body keeps the score that if the biomedical model is effective or was effective, wouldn't we see shrinking numbers of people getting the medication versus these exploding numbers? And just the numbers of people on it would suggest it's not actually effective. It's not creating traction and healing. And yet that's what we get to see in the kind of work that we do and that you do at capstone. Like when you lean into these pieces of our story and understanding the false core beliefs and the family of origin pieces and all of that, like, we actually see traction and effectiveness. And so why not look at the models where people are seeing something actually change versus just perpetuating the easy road myth of like, well, here's the next quick fix. And I think as you brought up, we will perpetually see people be attracted to that, but over and over, when we see it doesn't work, we can come back to this, that there is a road, and it's maybe longer and a little more challenging than we expected, but it's effective and it works.
