“Think about the basic framework of this proposition: an animal that has evolved for millions of years, roughly 350,000 in the present form, experiences its greatest century to date in terms of population expansion, while simultaneously billions of our brains are suddenly chemically compromised. This narrative boggles the mind, yet it’s exactly what’s being sold by psychiatrists and medical doctors around the world.”
This article (by Derek Beres on the Big Think website) is subtitled “Two anthropologists question the chemical imbalance theory of mental health disorders.” It begins:
“Twentieth-century science was supposed to change everything. Indeed, thanks to vaccinations, antibiotics, and improved sanitation, humans thrived like never before. Yet in that mix was thrown pharmacological treatments for mental health disorders. On that front, little progress has been made.
It can be argued—it is being argued, in a new paper in American Journal of Physical Anthropology—that we’re regressing in our fight against mental health problems. As Kristen Syme, a PhD student in Evolutionary Anthropology, and Washington State University anthropology professor Edward Hagen argue, psychopharmacological treatments are increasing alongside mental health disorder diagnoses. If the former worked, the latter would decrease.
There are numerous problems with the current psychiatric model. Journalist Robert Whitaker has laid out the case that antidepressants, antipsychotics, and other pharmacological interventions are the real culprit behind chemical imbalances in the brain—a psychiatric talking point that’s been challenged for over a half-century. Patients suffering from minor anxiety and depression are placed on ineffective drugs, often being placed on a cocktail of pills. With many consumer advocacy groups being funded by pharmaceutical companies, we’ve reached a tipping point in mental health protocols.
As Syme and Hagan write, consumer advocacy groups are not the only compromised organizations. One review of 397 clinical trials discovered 47 percent of these studies reported at least one conflict of interest. As Whitaker has written about before, when pharmaceutical companies don’t like the results of their trials, they’re scrapped until more suitable results are recorded …”
You can read more from here.