This is not even wrong. Depression is *related* with alterations of serotonin, dopamine transmitters and more:

> [**On the Complexity of Brain Disorders: A Symptom-Based Approach:**][1] <br>
Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) is a psychiatric disorder characterized by reduced mood, anhedonia, psychomotor retardation, and learned helplessness, among others (Kennedy, 2008). It is known that MDD **involves changes** to different neurotransmitters, while the most salient change is to serotonin. There are also changes to dopaminergic and noradrenergic transmission (Nutt, 2008). MDD is also **associated** with changes to brain volumes and connectivity networks among different brain regions. For example, studies have reported reduced gray matter volume in the anterior cingulate (van Tol et al., 2010) and hippocampus (Videbech and Ravnkilde, 2004) in patients with MDD. Other studies reported increased connectivity among the anterior cingulate and medial temporal lobe (de Kwaasteniet et al., 2013), while others reported a decrease in the functional connectivity in the insula and amygdala (Veer et al., 2010). These findings highlight the fact that MDD is **associated** with multiple neural dysfunctions. **These previously mentioned studies did not, however, map these neural abnormalities to specific symptoms in depression.** However, there are some studies that have attempted to understand the neural correlates for each symptom in depression (Vrieze et al., 2014). For example, Argyropoulos and Nutt (2013) found that anhedonia (the inability to experience pleasure) is **related** to dopamine reduction, while reduced mood is **related** to decreased serotonin levels. Some studies have investigated the neural substrates of psychomotor retardation (lack of energy and reduced movement) in depression, and suggested that reduced dopamine is also **implicated** (Liberg and Rahm, 2015). It is **possible** that reduced dopamine levels in the ventral striatum is **related** to anhedonia whereas reduced dopamine levels in the dorsal striatum is **related** to psychomotor retardation (Stein, 2008). In addition, it was suggested that reduced mood and sadness in MDD is **associated** with dysfunction in the prefrontal cortex, particularly, the orbitofrontal cortex (Drevets, 1999; Mayberg et al., 1999; Davidson et al., 2002; Drevets et al., 2002; Lévesque et al., 2003). **Although the studies mentioned above have mapped certain symptoms of MDD to separable neural dysfunctions, the exact mechanism of these observations remains unclear.** 

So the neurotransmitters are the chemicals and if they deviate from 'normal' levels, concentrations etc., they are in imbalance? That is a very unfortunate leap from a probabilistic correlation to a simple mechanistic causation hypothesis. "Seperable neural dysfunctions" are a very far cry from understanding just a subset of symptoms, let alone "depression".

It is unproven what comes first, the imbalance or the depression. It is unproven that achieving a 'desirable balance' cures depression:  


> [**The emperor's new drugs: medication and placebo in the treatment of depression:**][2]<br>
Antidepressants are supposed to work by fixing a chemical imbalance, specifically, a lack of serotonin in the brain. Indeed their supposed effectiveness is the primary evidence for the chemical imbalance theory. But analyses of the published data and the unpublished data that were hidden by the drug companies reveal that most (if not all) of the benefits are due to the placebo effect. Some antidepressants increase serotonin levels, some decrease it, and some have no effect at all on serotonin. Nevertheless, they all show the same therapeutic benefit. Even the small statistical difference between antidepressants and placebos may be an enhanced placebo effect, due to the fact that most patients and doctors in clinical trials successfully break blind. The serotonin theory is as close to any theory in the history of science having been proved wrong. Instead of curing depression, popular antidepressants may induce a biological vulnerability making people more likely to become depressed in the future.

So why is this theory still so popular? Just because a chemical imbalance can be chemically balanced? With marketable drugs, of course?



> [Medical models and metaphors for depression:][3]<br>
The aetiology of depression is not fully understood, which allows many different perspectives on aetiology to be adopted. Researchers and clinicians may be attracted to concepts of aetiology that parallel other diagnoses with which they are familiar. Such parallels may assume the role of informal models or metaphors for depressive disorders. They may even function as informal scientific theories of aetiology, energising research activities by guiding hypothesis generation and organising new knowledge. Parallels between different types of disease may ultimately prove valuable as frameworks supporting the emergence and maturation of new knowledge. However, such models may be counterproductive if their basis, which is likely to lay at least partially in analogy, is unacknowledged or overlooked. This could cause such models to appear more compelling than they really are. Listing examples of situations in which models of depression may arise from, or be strengthened by, parallels to other familiar conditions may increase the accessibility of such models either to criticism or support.<br>
**Depression as a chemical imbalance**<br>
Many diseases are viewed as imbalances in allostatic or homeostatic physiological processes. Normal physiology includes countless examples of tightly regulated feedback loops and self-limiting processes. A good example is the regulation of thyroid and other endocrine hormones. A perturbation of regulatory mechanisms (e.g., due to a thyroid tumour that has escaped suppression or a thyroid gland unable to produce sufficient hormone despite maximal stimulation) leads to physiological imbalances that produce disease states (Larsen, 1982). Another example is Parkinson’s disease, where motor symptoms are attributed to a dopamine–acetylcholine imbalance resulting from reduced striatal dopaminergic tone and subsequent cholinergic overactivity (Calabresi et al. 2006). This general idea of an imbalance between physiological processes that are normally (in health) tightly regulated may contribute to the popularity of the common metaphor of a ‘chemical imbalance’. This particular metaphor has been criticised as representing something more akin to a cultural narrative than a theoretical driver of scientific thinking in psychiatry (France et al. 2007). It may be used by clinicians who feel that it reduces stigma (perhaps by diminishing any implication of moral responsibility for depression), although available evidence suggests that such explanations may actually be associated with increased stigma (Speerforck et al. 2014).[…]<br>
> Because scientific theories are clearly articulated and lead to testable assumptions, they play an important role in the advancement of research, and ultimately in clinical and public health practices. Well established disease models may also assist clinicians with the selection and personalisation of treatment. Pathophysiological models can also effectively guide research.<br> However, good theories and models depend on an advanced state of knowledge that has thus far eluded the sciences underlying much of psychiatric practice.<br>
When they are not clearly articulated, theoretical ideas and models may nevertheless retain their influence. As the examples listed above may serve to illustrate, there are several ideas, empowered by parallels to other clinical conditions in medicine that may act as informal theories guiding psychiatric research and practice in particular directions. Their ability to impact on the emerging understanding of depression may unfold at many levels such as: the popular depiction of these disorders in media, the prioritisation of research funding and the selection of papers for publication through peer review processes. It is important to recognise that some of this influence may arise by analogy with other diseases. These ideas may take on greater intellectual weight because of their ‘pedigrees’ in the history of medicine rather than through their actual scientific promise or the weight of scientific evidence behind them.

## Conclusion:

> Is "The theory that [depression is] caused by chemical imbalances is false." an accurate statement?

Yes. At best this theory is on oversimplification. More accurate now, it seems the outlook is that a once promising hypothesis has failed to provide a convincing explanation for the causes nor the 'cures', has failed to accurately predict the outcomes of medications and other interventions, and plainly way too often does not work as advertised.


  [1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4763073/
  [2]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25304538
  [3]: https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045796015000153