Ending an epidemic means reversing the damage

More than 1 in 10 people in the USA are reported to be on antidepressants at this time. 1 in 5 people are reported to be on psychiatric drugs. When these people are women, fully 1 in 4 of them are reported to be on psychiatric drugs. The World Health Organization predicts that depression will be the leading cause of disability by the year 2020. This is incredible from my perspective. So many people with nothing physical wrong with them are claiming to have a “mental” ailment. The predominate delusion of mainstream psychiatry, at this time, is that there is something physically wrong with them.

The rate of “mental illness” labeling in the USA is so high because the selling of psychiatric drugs and mental health treatment is so pervasive. The thing that separates patients from non-patients is treatment with psychiatric drugs. This treatment comes with a flooding of pro-treatment propaganda. When people are convinced that they are wanting, or ill, then they become patients. Before people are convinced, they are resistant and doubtful with regard to the need, and therefore they must be persuaded. What we have at this time is not a need for more convincing but, rather, a need for more unconvincing.

“Mental illness” labeling has reached epidemic proportions. How could it be otherwise when mental health screening programs are aggressively pursuing more candidates for treatment? How could it be otherwise when mental health professionals claim that “stigma” is preventing people from seeking treatment? How could it be otherwise when mental health treatment is seen as the solution to a media generated fear of  multiple murderers? How could it be otherwise when drug companies inundate magazines, television shows, and internet websites with advertisements for their products?

Focus on the epidemic, ironically enough, doesn’t seem to come from people who want to stem the epidemic. Focus on the epidemic comes from people seeking to raise funds for mental health programs with varying degrees of ineffectiveness. These people are often people who have a stake in raising funds for mental health programs, either as mental health professionals or as family members of dependent patients. In theory these programs are doing something about the problem, our epidemic. In reality many of these programs are feeding the very epidemic they would claim to be countering.

Mental health professionals tend to be very efficient at getting people into treatment. Mental health professionals tend to be very inefficient at getting people out of treatment. ½ of all people labeled with lifelong “mental illness” were labeled by the age of 14 years. Chronicity, or lifelong “mental illness” labeling, is what you get when people go into treatment and don’t come out of treatment–alive. These people don’t come out of treatment alive because of the crippling dependency that it breeds and fosters.

Until this failure to recover people from dependency is addressed, and corrected, the “mental illness” labeling rate will continue to rise unabated. How can it do otherwise? What we call “mental illness” is in actuality the development of a dependency on the mental health system. We’ve got a system that removes people from working situations, and that never returns them to working situations. These people are marginalized and disempowered by the very system that claims to be “helping” them. When the mental health system starts to spend a fraction of the time and energy it spends on acquiring patients, its “consumer” base, on graduating contributing members of society, only then will we have a chance to make a dent on this epidemic in disability.