Statistically, it's about ten times more likely that someone in their twenties will suffer from depression than their 1950's counterpart. Some of the 'facts' about depression and the increases in morbidity rates that have taken place in the last fifty years of a number of categories of mental illness are what can only be classed as alarming. I am not convinced that there are the bio-psycho-social causes of contemporary depression as many would lead the population to believe. There are not always very high correlations between alcohol intake, drug use, and onset of mental illness - though these may be reasonably high. in my own case, after a short period of what was the most excessive anxiety - totally off the scale that is really possible to imagine - which lasted for forty-eight hours during the second weekend of the year 2000 I have gradually recovered. While a course of anti-depressants has helped significantly it has sparked some thought on the matter of what I had been the real cause of the depression I went through. The anti-depressants supposedly work as selective serotonin re uptake inhibitors - SSRIs. The theory underlying their effectiveness supposedly being that there needs to be a level of the neuro-transmitter serotonin around neurons, brain cells, and above a certain point of serotonin washing around the neurons, the less likely that it is you will experience depressive type symptoms. If the serotonin is soaked up by the neurotransmitters and not then released back into the fluids surrounding them, it is likely that an individual would suffer from depression. What tends to get classed as a relatively solid reason for the onset of depression in twenty-somethings is use of street drugs, for instance use of Ecstasy (MDMA), which may make neurotransmitters fire solidly for a few hours and then have caused significant imbalance neurologically as a result of over firing, over release of certain chemicals leading to a very abnormal chemical depression. What I think is interesting about this is that I didn't take Ecstasy, and I hadn't smoked cannabis for about eight years when I headed into the period of depression when this all took place. What I did experience were memory blanks and then periods of what appeared to be recall of what had taken place during the druggings. I have stated to a few public agencies that dreams may have some significance, if only because they may reflect where an individual was drugged and possibly influenced without their knowledge. I doubt this will be taken seriously for some time. I assume there could be substances already known which would act as selective serotonin reuptake facilitators which could cause the most extreme levels of anxiety and depression
I suppose the usual question that would be asked when someone like myself alleges that there are druggings being carried out on most of the population if not all is 'why haven't I seen what takes place?' or 'why aren't there more reportings of these types of druggings?'. The only answer I can offer in all this is that any one who had been drugged with chemicals of this nature would appear so ill that it would be automatically assumed that they have an organically generated mental illness. If they were to state that they have been drugged most conscientious staff in any public service would draw upon the training they've received and then class them as paranoid, unable to understand the condition they are in and dismiss what they are stating. That paired with the facts that there is no real public lobbying on this matter - of what drugs may be used in the facilitation of mental illness - that there is almost total uncertainty of exactly what drugs should be hunted for - will also cloud the issue.
What I think may also be a major factor in shaping what mental health the public experience - and who gets categorised as being mentally ill - is that there can be some enhancement to one's well-being when classing someone else as being paranoid or mentally ill, it might be the only reminder that some people get that their health is generally okay! This may be a Western phenomenon - I don't know how cross cultural this is - or even if this is largely dysfunctional way of maintaining health - to achieve it through reference to someone more ill, or more obviously ill than yourself. What may be interesting is the impact that there could be on the individual who does consider there being any truth in what appear to be paranoid allegations - if they entertain any degree of support for the individual it is deemed to be unprofessional, and may even elevate anxiety or feelings of discomfort. It does even make me wonder if schizophrenia is a disease of regime control - does someone who objects to druggings and refuses to believe the 'you've just got a bit confused' line of arguing if they allege that they've been drugged, get progressively worse in terms of their illnesses and degenerate into having anger attacks and becoming a stereotypical schizo. I assume this did happen to quite a few people - this interpretation of a schizophrenic does rely upon a notion that they may be aiming at carrying out a level of 'public service' and are degraded for doing so - not something that I think I'll get much in the way of academic support over... Rates of schizophrenia have dropped over recent years and rates of depression have increased - I've been in the gap between the two and I've challenged the diagnosis because of anger towards the state, thoughts of conspiracy etc. all of which have only been medicalised - none taken seriously - as if there is any form of pattern of drugging sweeping across the west....
In the context of whether or not this is only taking place in my imagination or not, I assume that there is some pattern Europe wide at least, as there tends to be greater life expectancy in countries which have higher rates of mental illness - perhaps I'm drawing upon stereotypes here I can't say - I understand there are high rates of suicide and mental illness in Scandinavian countries and there is also very high life expectancy compared to other European nations - have many of them been in a position similar to myself where I've been what at least seems like being drugged in order to experience a period of life so painful that I then have little to no inclination to drink above the recommended daily limits that the department of health inform me of. Surely, western nations would not allow a means of destroying an individuals state of mind in order to get their general self care up to an acceptable standard? I say surely not, but this may actually be a better explanation that the psycho-social stress issues that are put forward by Professor Richard Wilkinson in his book unhealthy societies, as to why the working classes, most notably those on low incomes are most likely to die younger than those in higher salaried positions. Is someone on a higher salary someone who has managed to get themselves sorted out and those who don't left to suffer the degradation of continued alcohol use to control the SSRF? Somehow I doubt it, but there may be some substance to what I state.
Does blowing someone's brains out with a high dose of an 'SSRF' do anything to increase life expectancy in the west - surely not....Maybe the Scandinavians are better at drugging their population that the British government is...?
