Courage

This is not an easy topic to write about because courage is so difficult to define. Like love, we all know what it is but we can’t define it. We all know courage when we see it but that is about all. 

Courage has no boundaries; courage has no limitations; courage knows no gender; courage knows no age limit. And above all courage is not uniquely human. All creatures display courage in their own way and I think that is wonderful.

All mothers, well generally, all mothers – from all animate life forms - will defend their young and even die in the process. But of course courage is normally associated with bravery – generally in a military situation. This however is not always the case. 

Somehow, somewhere over the years I acquired a little book called “Courage”. It is actually a verbatim record of J. M. Barrie’s 1922 inaugural speech when he was appointed Rector of the University of St Andrews, in Scotland. Barrie was a novelist and playwright who authored “Peter Pan and Wendy” amongst many others. 

In this little book, “Courage”, Barrie is recorded as speaking about Capt. Robert Falcon Scott (Scott of the Antarctic) and that tragic if glorious failure to reach the South Pole first. But it was the courage of Captain Laurence (Titus) Oates, an ex-military man, and part of Scott’s sledge team that I find very moving. Oates had badly frostbitten feet that became gangrenous, causing him pain and discomfort. He realized that he was holding back their return to base, being unable to assist in pulling the sledge. So one day he informed his companions (in words that are etched in history), “I’m just going outside. I maybe some time.” He walked out of the tent into a -40C blizzard and was never seen again.

That is courage!

Then, for me, there is a more personal example of courage. My wife, Magucha, had been ill with renal failure since before I met her. But she never, ever, complained. She never asked, “Why me?” That was never her way. For most of the 36yrs of our marriage she was in and out of hospital, more times that I can remember, and everyday she had to take a fist full of medications. These kept her alive and gave her some quality of life, but in the end the accumulation of the significant side-effects of these medications was the cause of the acute pancreatitis that was too much for her little body to bear and she died five weeks later of general organ failure.

That too, is courage! 

As always I find that poetry expresses in very few words what takes me a whole page to express. I offer this in memory of Magucha and all courageous people: 

Finis Exoptatus (a rough translation “Desired End”)

Question not, but live and labour

   Till yon goal be won,

Helping every feeble neighbour,

   Seeking help from none;

Life is mostly froth and bubble,

   Two things stand like stone,

KINDNESS in another’s trouble,

   COURAGE in your own.

                                    Adam Lindsay Gordon

Born: October 19, 1833, Faial Island, Portugal

Died: June 24, 1870, Brighton

Buried: Brighton Cemetery, Melbourne

Is the Brain the only factor in the determination of Mental Disorders?

My Opinion:

The express purpose of this opinion piece is to question the current widely held belief that biology, in the form of the brain, provides the best explanation of, and holds all the answers to, “Mental Illness”. Firstly the Mind/Brain is examined from an objective, reductionist point of view to try and establish from biological criteria, just what it is that is being discussed. Secondly a subjective, even philosophical approach is taken which adopts a more general, holistic view of life experiences and the mind and how this alternative may hold the key. The difficulties in reconciling these differing views are considered.

This approach may be deemed appropriate in light of recent revelations that a significant percentage of published psychological/psychiatric clinical research fails the replication test, together with the related problems of publication bias.

It is worth remembering that the words Psychology and Psychiatry derive from the Greek ‘Psyche’ (pertaining to the Mind or Soul). It would be to the advantage of all not to lose sight of this primary meaning because it should guide our thoughts on these matters. In this regard, personal life experiences, a psychology degree, the examination of published papers and extensive reading, have led to the rather uncomfortable conclusion that research into mental health is trying to reconcile the irreconcilable. There is an attempt to reconcile the objective, quantitative, scientifically measurable aspects of the biological brain with the subjective, qualitative and immeasurable aspects of the mind with the intention of arriving at some meaningful answer.

Any answers arrived at, however, will be dependent on the deep consideration of some difficult concepts which in themselves give rise to many questions. For instance, what is Intelligence? Is there a difference between brain and mind? What is “Life”? Is Life the same as Consciousness? What is it that is absent when something that was “alive” is now “dead”? What is a thought or an emotion and how are thoughts or emotions generated? These terms (intelligence, alive, dead, consciousness, mind, thought and emotion) are in the common lexicon, yet there is no agreed definition or consensus as to what they are. The brain is considered to “contain” the mind and yet the mind may not be confined to the brain – even though they appear to be related in some manner as one affects the other.

Regarding the brain, while imaging techniques, for instance, have shown that certain areas of the brain are activated when thinking, it has yet to be determined whether thoughts, by some means, activate the neurons or whether the activated neurons, somehow, create the thoughts.

It is unfortunate that reason, when considering the issues of mental disorders and aberrant behaviour, is often sidestepped with the statement that such issues are “genetic” in origin. Yet genes are not self-emergent. Genes are “switches”, activated - turned on or off - by environmental “triggers”, something not generated within the body, triggers introduced from external sources or via the senses. Over reliance on genetics, however, is personally disempowering (“Doc – it’s in my genes – I can’t do anything about it”) and fraught, particularly as it is now known that we humans share half our genes with the banana.

It will be recalled that all living things are formed from cells and all life forms live and operate, in their disparate ways, by the functioning of these cells. This is a biological function, but we seldom consider the cells – estimated at some 100 billion – which comprise our individual body forms (excluding the many billions of bacteria that inhabit our bodies and which are so necessary for our well-being). Yet these billions of cells – which are individual entities in their own right – somehow co-operate to create the human form. This, by any standard, is an astonishing achievement. Likewise these cells, which have a limited lifespan, replicate themselves many times over, more or less  exactly, to maintain what was there before. Furthermore these cells, when replicating, not only somehow maintain the same, recognisable body form, they also transfer the same genes and by some means maintain the same traits, thought patterns, characteristics and mannerisms that presented themselves at birth or developed during a human being’s formative years. The extraordinary thing is that these traits, characteristics and mannerisms may be altered by life experience, with training or by self-will.

Is this a case of some cells telling other cells what to do?

For this to occur a signal-integrating mechanism would be required. In particular, once a cell in a multicellular organism is committed to differentiate into a specific cell type, the consequence of this “choice” is generally maintained through many subsequent cell replications, which means that the changes in gene expression involved in the choice must be “remembered”. This phenomenon of cell memory is essential for the creation of organized tissues and for the maintenance of stable, differentiated, cell types. Epigenetics is certainly involved – this is when modifications to the proteins that help to pack the long strands of DNA into our cells are added to or removed. These modifications may determine whether or not a particular gene is active in a cell. This process is unlikely unless cells have an element of consciousness (however this is defined).

First consideration:

In this first consideration a reductionist approach is adopted to try and establish, from an objective stand point, the difference between a person’s brain and the associated mind.

It will be recalled that all observable forms of matter are constructed from atoms and molecules. This becomes interesting if “Matter” (in the form of the human body and brain) together with “Life”, are considered in the light of quantum physics which states (basically) that Energy = Matter (remember E=MC²?). Einstein, with this famous equation, revealed that the Universe is not just billions of distinct items separated by inert space but in fact is a dynamic construct in which matter and energy are so inextricably mixed that it is not possible to consider them as separate elements. If this is true, where does this leave ‘life’, the ‘mind/consciousness’ and ‘intelligence’? How can energy/matter be intelligent or conscious? What is ‘dead’ energy (i.e. some matter which was alive and is now dead) compared to ‘live’ energy (i.e. some matter which is animated and alive)? Furthermore, physics tells us that there is no foundation for a view of life based on the pre-eminence of matter. Energy is indestructible and outside of time, and as a result the total quantity of energy is constant. This is known as the law of conservation of energy. But one of the surprising results of relativity theory is that there is no law on the conservation of mass (matter).

These questions, relating to life, matter and energy, need to be seriously considered if the part played by the brain in psychological/psychiatric theory is to be questioned. Consider, now, the progression from Inanimate Matter to Human Awareness, with Mankind, the last link in the chain, believed to have evolved with the widest range of qualities.

Ø   Inanimate Matter. This consists of atoms and molecules, which are the constituents of all matter in the known Universe. This “inanimate” matter, as far as can be determined, has neither life, nor consciousness, nor awareness. The atomic and molecular structure of the subject matter may be examined and its physical qualities determined and measured. 

   

Ø  Inanimate Matter + Life. This ranges from single cell microscopic life (e.g. amoeba and bacteria) to plant life. The physical structure of these will be found to consist of the same atomic and molecular structure as inanimate matter (above). Yet they have something else – a vivifying essence, an infusion, which we call “Life”. We know Life is present because we can see the bacteria move, subdivide and replicate. We may also note the growth of plants; we observe plants change to the rhythm of the seasons. We also know when Life is absent, because a plant or a cell is dead. But we do not know what the particular vivifying essence called “Life” is. No “Living” thing has ever been “produced” from inanimate matter in a laboratory setting.   

Ø  Inanimate Matter + Life + Consciousness. This is the next stage in the progression. Consciousness cannot be objectively examined in a laboratory setting. It is assumed that to be conscious something must be alive. It is always possible that Life and Consciousness are different sides of the same coin, as it were, that one cannot exist without the other. If so, by default therefore, consciousness is assumed to require a living organism – something which, from the evidence, it may be inferred that consciousness is present. This begs a range of (possibly unanswerable) questions – if plants (or amoeba) are “alive” are they also “conscious” (e.g. an amoeba extending and retracting pseudopods when searching for nourishment)?

Ø  Inanimate Matter + Life + Consciousness + Awareness. This is the final, most subtle stage – awareness of existence. Human beings assume they are the only life forms aware of their own existence. But this may not be so. Other life forms may share this ability – dolphins, elephants and magpies are apparently able to recognise their image in a mirror.   

 This great sweep of the Cosmos from inanimate matter to Human Beings, may be tabulated for clarity - see Table 1, below:

1                    2                     3                     4                        Subject             Basic  Chemical                   Consciousness                                       Building Blocks        Life                                      Awareness
Inanimate Matter	Yes	No	No	No
Lower Life – Amoeba) Plants etc                    )	Yes	Yes	?	No
Higher Life Forms –  ) Animals etc                )	Yes	Yes	Yes	?
Humans	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

Table 1. It should be stressed that these are not discrete items but are shown in this form purely for descriptive purposes. Their interaction is accepted as a “given”.

In the four columns shown above, the first, the Basic Chemical Building Blocks, which form the physical world as we know and see it, are common to all substances. These constitute the only “parts” that may be objectively, scientifically and physically examined.

The remaining three columns represent concepts which are defined only by their opposites and may be identified only by inference. There is Life and Lifelessness; Consciousness and Unconsciousness; Awareness and lack of Awareness. These do not conform to any current scientific laws or accepted theories, and yet Life, Consciousness and Awareness exist and together with Matter, constitute a Human Being.

It must be emphasised that all the “parts” are interrelated even though they are qualitatively different. For instance while the physical attributes of the brain are objective and may be verified independently (column 1, above), the subject matter of the “mind” (presumed to be contained within columns 2, 3 and 4 above) – the thoughts, imaginings, emotions, desires, memories and beliefs – are subjective and known only to the possessor. The objective brain and the subjective mind, however, are assumed to be causally related in some way as injury to the brain appears to impair the activity of the mind, just as a “change of mind” may result in altered behaviour – facilitated by the brain.  

It will be seen from Table 1 that matter is the common factor in the observable universe – there are no exceptions. Using the same logic and believing that Nature (which is not defined) does not “allow” anomalies, it is reasonable to consider “Life” - the essence, whatever it is and however defined - as common to all living forms. The same would apply to consciousness and that likewise, there would be no exceptions. This gives rise to the possibility that there is a common, “Universal Life” and “Universal Consciousness”. But as we are not consciously aware of these they may be described as “Unconscious” elements – a “Universal (or Collective) Unconscious”.

Furthermore humans presume to consider themselves the epitome of the universe. As confirmation of this assertion the human brain has been described as the most complex single object known to science, with an estimated eighty six (86) billion neurons. The feasible connectivity of these gives rise, literally, to an astronomical number of possibilities. But does this connectivity explain the mind?

In this regard it is interesting to note the curiously plaintive comment made by David Kupfer, MD,  Chair of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual version 5 (DSM-5) Task Force (American Psychological Association (APA) press release No. 13-33, dated 3^rd May 2013) wherein  he stated:

“The promise of the science of mental disorders is great. In the future, we hope to be able to identify disorders using biological and genetic markers that provide precise diagnoses that can be delivered with complete reliability and validity. Yet this promise, which we have anticipated since the 1970s, remains disappointingly distant. We’ve been telling patients for several decades that we are waiting for biomarkers. We’re still waiting.”  

The majority of physical illness diagnoses may be verified by objective clinical tests. The majority, if not all, of psychological or psychiatric “mental illnesses” cannot be (those caused by alcohol, drug abuse, Alzheimer’s and Huntingdon’s diseases are excepted). Many medical diseases have proven, verifiable causes. “Mental illness” has none. Mental disorders are categorizations of observed behaviours and the presenting person’s self-reported thought patterns which are then given labels. As far as can determined there is no evidence that DSM defined “mental disorders” are true medical conditions, but if such evidence is ever confirmed, they would, presumably, by default, be treated as such.

Current theories tend towards asserting that all mental disorders stem from aberrant or faulty brain activity which can be best resolved only with pharmacological products and/or electrical current (ECT). The efficacy and long term side effects of such medications and procedures are subject to considerable discussion which remain largely unresolved – the Psycho-pharmaceutical industry, for instance, is notoriously reluctant to reveal all results of their research. Similarly the actual manner by which applied ECT affects changes in the brain is unknown. There are many reasons why all concerned should be critical about psychotropic drug treatment, such as uncertain causes, the problematic accuracy of the few diagnostic tests available, commercial conflict of interest, poor understanding regarding the mechanism of drug action and their side-effects together with the related problem of publication bias [Note: The recent reanalysis of the –ghost written- GlaxoSmithKline Study 329 relating to their antidepressant drug formulation paroxetine, Paxil, (also known as Serotax or Aropax) provides an excellent, if unfortunate, example of these issues].

Furthermore it is all very well for neuroscientists to point out that with the various brain imaging and scanning techniques now available it can be seen that different parts of the brain are activated when a patient recalls earlier events or when thinking about a problem. But HOW does the excitation of neurons translate into memories of an experience or the solution to a problem? And which comes first – is it the activity of the neurons which create the thoughts and memories or do the thoughts and memories activate the neurons? These questions remain unanswered. The nature of even the “simplest” thought has yet to be determined.

Then there is a further matter, our freedom to choose – known as the “problem of mental causation”. It is a fundamental fact of science - a maxim - which states that nothing can happen that is not governed by natural laws of material causation (i.e. physical things cause physical effects). Thoughts are non-physical (they are subjective), therefore by definition cannot cause anything physical to happen. How then is it possible for subjective (non-material) thoughts of the “self” to so influence the function of the (material) brain that they compel the brain to direct the body to perform a particular action?

Similarly it is worth noting that prescribing mind altering drugs to people already suffering mental disorders is counterintuitive. Yet this is what happens. The issue, which has yet to be resolved, is that medications in various formulations and strengths have been prescribed for mental “illness” since the 1950s – some sixty years ago. Yet the problems remain. Logically this leads to the conclusion that, ipso facto, either the medications are ineffective or the causes of mental disorders is misunderstood and therefore, by default, misdiagnosed – or all three.

Is it sufficient, therefor, to claim that chemicals in the brain, alone, are responsible for all mental disorders and all the attributes (good, bad or indifferent) that make us human? Again, this assertion is greatly disempowering. Is it simply a case of, “Doc, my brain chemicals are out of wack – gimme a pill”? Is there not a possibility that there exists a dynamic unconscious (or Life), beyond the physical, that must be considered and respected in relation to every phase of Life and the Mind of every individual and which affects the personality and gives testimony – for better or worse – to their personal history? This, it is suggested, should be considered as a “Collective Unconscious” – common to all.

Second consideration:

Adopting a more philosophical or holistic approach, the three concepts of Life, Consciousness and Awareness (refer Table 1 above) are now considered. The whys and wherefores of these three are unknown, yet they exist. The millions of life forms comprising the flora and fauna of the world, together with Humans, are a testament to their presence. As a “group” these three concepts have historically been considered, collectively, as the Spirit, the Psyche, the Metaphysical, the Soul, the Tao or, more lately (and possibly controversially), as something dynamic, as the “essence” of Life and the associated Consciousness (however these are defined) or a “collective unconscious”.

A belief in Spirituality and the Divine/God/Allah/Creator/Supreme Being/Tao, is common to all societies through all ages but is something which many people in today’s (Western) secular world are uncomfortable discussing, and in fact, some deny exists at all. Yet such beliefs presumably have a deep psychological purpose. They may bring comfort and lend meaning to the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” Furthermore they give credence to the need for kindness, compassion, morality, courage, temperance, virtue and ethical behaviour in our relationships.

All the ancient devotional writings, known to us as scriptures; all the philosophical texts from ancient India, China, Persia, Egypt, Greece and Rome, through Confucius to Plato and many more recent contributors; all great literature, great music, great poetry and all great art, start from the premise that the basis of life is spiritual. They all attempt to inspire the listener, reader or viewer to look beyond the immediate, apparent existence, to something more; that a “Great Artificer” exists and that Humans have souls and a higher purpose than mere existence. This was never questioned. The quest for and the fulfilment of this purpose is (or was considered to be) a Human Being’s guiding star.

In this context the possibility of a collective unconscious gains traction. It is as if “Life” needs to be expressed, to be made manifest, to be appreciated in all its beauty and variety of form. It must be remembered that there has been no known break in the continuity of expressions of Life since primordial times (many hundreds of millions years ago). In the Human context three, possibly unanswerable, questions arise, “Who am I?”; “Who or What made the Universe?”; “What is my relationship to that Who or What?”

It was the view of the ancients that the cause of the Universe is the permanent and indivisible Divine, whereas the effects (all matter, flora and fauna) are impermanent and decay over time.  Be this as it may, the tenacity and determination of all life forms in propagating and maintaining their existence is phenomenal. All sentient beings will fight to stay alive; flora and fauna persist in the most wretchedly harsh environmental and climatic conditions – in fact there is no “corner” of the Earth that is totally lifeless.

Life (however defined) MUST be expressed – this is the imperative – this is the charge placed upon all life forms.  It is instructive to note that the Bhagavad-Gita (an ancient Indian Hindu classic compiled over three thousand years ago) states: “Wherever life is seen in things moveable or immovable, it is the joint product of Matter and Spirit”.

All human life is bound to individuals who manifest it, and is simply inconceivable without them. But every human is charged with an individual destiny and destination, and the journey to that destination or the fulfilment of that destiny is the only thing that makes sense of human life. The individual journeys and destinations may differ but the fundamental purpose is the same – the expression of Life.                                                                           

It will be recalled that there is evidence, personal, anecdotal and “unscientific” it may be, but evidence none-the-less, in the power of prayer. Further, it has yet to be determined how positive thinking has such a beneficial effect on a person’s well-being. Likewise, currently, there is no acceptable scientific explanation for the medicinal benefits of the “placebo effect”, or how it comes about that an extreme emotional shock, inducing stress (emotional and subjective), may cause a physical death, or by what process this (subjective) stress affects a person’s (physical and objective) immune system, or to explain the immense influence of self will or will-power on an individual’s desire to live.

Much is explained when it is remembered that Human Beings are made or unmade by themselves.  In the armoury of our thoughts we fashion the means by which we build for ourselves all that is necessary for happiness, health, prosperity and peace of mind. Alternatively, we may forge the weapons with which to destroy ourselves. The “Mind of Man” is, indeed, a powerful tool!

The Bhagavad-Gita also states, “Man is made by his beliefs. As he believes, so he is.”

Further consideration must be taken regarding the moral and ethical aspects of humanity. It may be safely stated that virtues are at the core of both morality and ethics regardless of the society or culture concerned. Virtues are defined as the qualities all people admire and recognise in a “good person” - the qualities of kindness, compassion, courage, honesty, temperance, humility, integrity and justice.

A person cannot be either ethical or moral without also being virtuous; these are dependent on their set of values and their beliefs; something that is at the core of their being. Values are not just mannerisms or a set of preferences. They refer to something much deeper and more subtle, to a line that cannot be transgressed. Values cannot be measured and may be inferred only by the actions of the individuals under consideration; they are on “display” with someone’s behaviour and general demeanour. A person’s mind cannot be observed (their virtues, values or morals) but these are all there for anyone to deduce from their ethical (or unethical) conduct. No one can think one thing and do another (opposite to their thoughts) and remain in their comfort zone for long without the impact of generally unforeseen consequences.

It has been suggested (possibly unkindly) that human beings as a species are neither intelligent nor creative enough to have invented morality, virtues, values or ethics; that these are innate and part of the human psyche. It is further suggested that these universal, core aspects of human conduct are evidence of there being a dynamic unconscious or collective unconscious, common to all.

Finally the following quote, from “Anatomica - The Complete Reference to the Human Body” (Random House), further illustrates the extraordinary qualities of Nature (not defined) and which transcends any known neurological process and which may be considered as a working example of the “collective unconscious”:-  

“Women are characterized as the weaker sex but it is men who need a helping hand from Mother Nature. The male disadvantage extends throughout life. From birth, male babies are less likely to survive childhood, while at the other end of life, on average men die younger. Nature maintains the balance between men and women by ensuring more boys are born than girls. A study published by the European Society of Human Reproduction found that ... the usual ratio is 511 boys for every 489 girls in every 1000 births (statistically 104.5 boys for every 100 girls).”

Concluding opinion:

 On one hand applying a biological approach to Mental Health, focusing just on the Brain, does not explain how or why a person is “alive” or how their individuality comes about. There is an inescapable conclusion that all life forms are not just an agglomeration of matter – not just ‘mechanisms’; that a human being is not just a watertight skin bag filled with blood, flesh and bones; that there is something above and beyond the observable Universe which affects all sentient beings in different ways according to their kind. This something, this vivifying essence, it is proposed, is a dynamic unconscious or a “collective unconscious” which is present in all matter which somehow, when the conditions are suitable, has been “infused” with Life. This collective unconscious is the bond between all living things, that allows for the benefits of relationships between sentient beings (between humans, with animals and between animals) and between human beings and plant life (the peace felt in a wilderness setting or by someone who creates and tends a garden).

On the other hand a holistic consideration of all the aspects of Life, Consciousness and Awareness which have been the subject matter of Philosophical discussion since ancient times leads to the same conclusion. That there is something above and beyond the observable which many term as the Divine/God/Allah/Spiritual/Metaphysical/Tao; something which infuses all things that are “alive” with Life; infuses all with the same emotional responses to fear, anger and affection; the same essence that is withdrawn when something dies; the same essence that requires, needs and thrives on nurture (love). This essence, this Life, which is common to all living things, should be considered, it is suggested, as a dynamic or collective unconscious.

Finally, in relation to the determination of Mental Disorders, biology – neuroscience – should not be considered on its own. There is a need to consider all aspects of Human Life in a balanced manner.  Such consideration questions the inference that “Life”, “Consciousness” and all the attributes that make us human are generated, exclusively, within the confines of the dark, silent, recesses of the skull. Concentrating on one (the objective Brain) and ignoring the other (Life and the subjective Mind) is similar to a bird trying to fly only with one wing. Biology and Neuroscience alone do not, and cannot, provide answers to all mental health issues. Trying to reconcile matter (the body and brain) with the subjective Mind and Life (however these are defined) – in a laboratory - will prove to be very difficult if not impossible, but regardless, one is left in awe of the wondrous thing that is a Human Being.

If antidepressants drugs are so effective ….

If antidepressant and antipsychotic drugs are so effective why are they being prescribed in ever increasing numbers? Something is out of kilter here.

The percentage of the population with some sort of mental issue remains fairly constant at about one person in five (in developed countries that is). But the number of prescriptions issued for antidepressants and antipsychotics are increasing year by year – according to the New York Times “In 2011 alone, they and other antipsychotic drugs were prescribed to 3.1 million Americans at a cost of $18.2 billion, a 13 percent increase over the previous year, according to the market research firm IMS Health.” Again, according to the American Psychological Association (APA) “The use of psychotropic drugs by adult Americans increased 22 percent from 2001 to 2010, with one in five adults now taking at least one psychotropic medication, according to industry data.”  

In Australia the rate of increase in such medications is similar with the rate per 1,000 population of community-dispensed prescriptions for mental health-related medications increased from 2005–06 to 2009–10 by an annual average increase of 2% - roughly 10% in five years or (extrapolating the figures) roughly 20% in ten years (Australian Medicare records).

In the same ten year period the population of the US increased by (again roughly) 10% and that of Australia by roughly 12%.

In summary then – populations of both the USA and Australia have increased by about 10%-12% in the years2001 – 2010 but mental health medication has increased at roughly 20% - 22% in the period.

It may not be a widely known fact but documented research constantly shows that antidepressants and antipsychotics are only marginally more effective than a placebo (a sugar pill). Yet the pharmaceutical companies – they are huge money making organizations – keep telling us otherwise.

My point is IF (and it is a big if) these drugs - which have been around in one form or another for about fifty years - are so effective, and if the percentage of people with mental health issues has remained constant at about  1 in 5 for years, why then is the use of these drugs increasing?

As I said at the beginning of this post – something is out of kilter!!