> It does nothing to resolve the issue with serotonin levels not causing depression while antidepressants have a proven (slight) positive effect on depressive symptoms. It also doesn't do anything for explaining the effects from antidepressants that affect other things than serotonin.
Agreed it doesn't do these things, but there is value in publicizing the fact that "the idea that depression results from a 'chemical imbalance' is hypothetical." Anecdotally, most people I've encountered that are depressed view the chemical imbalance theory as fact. This has consequences in how they approach treatment (medication-centric) and in how they view their situation (inalterable).
> there is value in publicizing the fact [...] This has consequences in how they approach treatment (medication-centric)
If anything (in my experience) people are too biased against medicine. And as others pointed out, this isn't at all evidence that medicines don't work - their efficacy is based on double-blind studies, not on chemical imbalance hypotheses.
There are many other possible mechanisms that aren't related to the environment. Publicizing studies like this beyond academia is only likely to cause confusion and unfounded anti-medicine sentiment.
Agreed it doesn't do these things, but there is value in publicizing the fact that "the idea that depression results from a 'chemical imbalance' is hypothetical." Anecdotally, most people I've encountered that are depressed view the chemical imbalance theory as fact. This has consequences in how they approach treatment (medication-centric) and in how they view their situation (inalterable).