The rise in depression diagnoses in recent decades is staggering. It's estimated that 1 in 7 in US alone have turned to antidepressants in their quest for relief. This journey often begins with a narrative many of us are familiar with: the theory of a chemical imbalance in our brains. The idea that our brains are somehow "broken" and that these medications can correct that imbalance has been a cornerstone of psychiatric treatment for over 30 years. However, this theory is not without its challenges. Recent studies have questioned the simplicity of the chemical imbalance narrative, suggesting that depression cannot be pinned down to just serotonin levels. This has sparked a heated debate within the scientific community, with some researchers defending the theory and others calling for a reevaluation of our understanding of depression and its treatment. Our discussion today is not an indictment of these treatments but a call to broaden our perspective. Depression is a multifaceted condition, influenced by a myriad of factors, including our environment, personal experiences, and yes, our biology. But to reduce it solely to a matter of chemical imbalances does a disservice to the complexity of human emotions and experiences. The narratives of "broken brains" needing "chemical corrections" may overlook the resilience of the human mind and the capacity of our brains to adapt and find strategies to cope with stress.