The Manufacturing of an Epidemic: The Truth About “Chemical Imbalances”

This article is not meant to shame anyone taking antidepressants. Rather, this is a critique of the system — how pharmaceutical companies have shaped our understanding of depression, influenced treatment options, and prioritized profit over true healing. Real healing IS possible, and you are NOT broken — despite what you may have been led to believe.

The Rise of Antidepressants

The number of Americans taking antidepressants has more than doubled in less than a decade from 13 million to 27 million — a 400% increase since 1988¹. Antidepressants are now the third most commonly prescribed drug in the US, generating over $11 billion in US sales annually²— a number that is only increasing each year.

This rapid increase in antidepressant prescriptions raises questions about the factors driving it:

• Are more people becoming depressed, and if so, why?
• Or have we always been depressed, but are only now recognizing and diagnosing it?
• Or, could it be that we’ve lowered the threshold for what constitutes depression, leading to an increase in diagnoses?

The answer likely lies in a complex interplay of several factors. But there is one influence that is undeniable: this so-called “depression epidemic” has been, in part, manufactured by the financial interests of pharmaceutical companies.

The Manufacturing of a Narrative

“Big Pharma” has shaped the narrative around mental health by promoting a model that emphasizes medication over alternative treatments, which influences the way we understand, diagnose, and treat depression. They have done this through funding research for prescription medication, lobbying to relax pharmaceutical advertising restrictions, and relentlessly pushing marketing campaigns that have altered entire country’s perspectives on mental health, all in order to sell more prescriptions.

The kicker? Research suggests these medications are relatively ineffective in actually treating depression.

The Flawed Chemical Imbalance Theory

The “biomedicine model” of mental health gained popularity in Western medicine in the 1970s and has since become the dominant paradigm in psychiatry. In the biomedicine model, all disease including mental ailments can be directly attributed to a biological defect, and therefore treated by targeting the underlying biological dysfunction. As a result of the wide acceptance of this model, the current approach to mental disorders such as depression have been heavily focused on medication and its interaction with brain chemistry.

However, this line of thinking often overshadows the complex interactions of biological, psychological, and social factors that contribute to an individual’s mental well-being, which potentially limits patients’ access to effective alternative treatments, hindering their ability to achieve true long-term healing.

Research by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has shown that³:

• one in five Americans have been sexually molested as a child
• one in four have been beaten by a parent to the point of a mark being left on their body
• one in three couples engages in physical violence
• one in four grew up with alcoholic parents
• one in eight have witnessed their mother being beaten or hit

It’s no surprise that traumatic events like these can still have an effect on your mental health well into your adulthood. And yet, we rarely consider past trauma when treating depression. Instead, we believe feelings of depression are likened to that of a common cold, in which can easily be treated by a medication that gets prescribed after talking to a doctor for 15 minutes — if you’re lucky to get that much time. But experiencing such deep wounds isn’t something a pill can simply erase, despite what we’ve been led to believe.

And at the same time, depression isn’t always necessarily rooted in capital-T “Trauma”, either, but that doesn’t make it any less real. Chronic stress, unmet emotional needs, social isolation, and even a lack of purpose or fulfillment can all contribute to feelings of low mood and hopelessness. You don’t have to have lived through extreme hardship for your pain to be valid — or for you to deserve real healing beyond a prescription.

Further, the questionnaires doctors use to diagnose depression also don’t take into account social and environmental factors, and that a patient may possibly be reacting normally to their situation. While some questionnaires do ask about the death of the a loved one, they don’t ask about the loss of a job, pet, relationship, or any other complex financial, social, or family matters that may lead to feelings of depression⁴. As a result, patients may be prescribed medication that numbs their emotions when, in reality, they need to fully experience and process their feelings in order to heal.

The Problem with Research Funding

We can’t offer effective treatments without research, but research is expensive — and the ones funding it dictate the direction it takes. Since pharmaceutical companies have so much money, they control much of the research landscape, prioritizing studies that support medication-based treatments. As a result, alternative approaches — such as psychotherapy, trauma-informed care, lifestyle interventions, and emerging therapies like psychedelic-assisted treatment — often receive little funding and struggle to gain mainstream acceptance.

The Manipulation of Public Perception with Marketing

Pharmaceutical companies have not only controlled the funding for treatments, but they also control the narrative surrounding these treatments as they have invested heavily in marketing campaigns designed to promote their products. These companies have lobbied to relax restrictions on direct-to-consumer advertising, allowing them to launch massive marketing campaigns that have changed entire countries’ perspectives on what depression is.

For example, in Japan, where the concept of depression was relatively unknown until the late 1990s, pharmaceutical companies launched a massive public awareness campaign to “educate” the public about the condition. This campaign, which included television commercials and print advertisements, portrayed depression as a common and easily treatable condition, leading to a significant increase in diagnoses and antidepressant prescriptions in the country⁵.

The United States is one of two countries in the world in which pharmaceutical companies can legally advertise. You can already picture the commercial: Someone feeling blue, hopeless, morose; looking out of the window on a dreary day. Cut to the same person, now cheery, smiling, riding a bicycle, laughing, or blowing out birthday candles. All the while, a logo for an SSRI is on the screen.

One notable example of this influence is the case of Paxil, an antidepressant manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline. In the early 2000s, the company launched a massive marketing campaign targeting consumers directly, encouraging them to “talk to their doctor” about Paxil if they experienced symptoms of depression. This campaign was so successful that Paxil became one of the most widely prescribed antidepressants in the United States, despite concerns about its safety and efficacy⁶.

The “Happiness Molecule” Myth

Antidepressants work by targeting neurotransmitters, including norepinephrine, dopamine, and serotonin. In order to sell these medications, drug manufacturers have also launched a relentless worldwide marketing and public-relations campaign promoting serotonin as the distilled biochemical essence of happiness. This campaign was so successful that serotonin has since become a pop culture reference, with people getting tattoos of and countless books being written about the “happiness hormone.”

However, several studies have established that lowering serotonin levels actually does not necessarily negatively impact mood, challenging the fundamental premise upon which antidepressants are prescribed. In one study, researchers artificially lowered participants’ serotonin levels using a technique called acute tryptophan depletion, and found no significant impact on mood or behavior⁷. Despite this research, the pharmaceutical industry has downplayed these findings, continuing to promote diminished neurotransmitters as the reason for depression and antidepressants as its primary treatment.

The Placebo Effect

In fact, research has shown that antidepressants are often no more effective than placebos in treating depression, particularly in mild to moderate cases. A meta-analysis published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that the benefits of antidepressants over placebo were minimal or nonexistent in patients with mild to moderate depression⁸. Yet, studies that challenge the effectiveness of prescription antidepressants are often overlooked or dismissed.

While antidepressants can be beneficial — especially when they offer relief for those struggling to function in daily life — they don’t address the root causes of depression or the underlying emotional pain. Emerging research suggests that unprocessed emotions and trauma are stored in the body and can manifest not only as mental distress but also as physical symptoms⁹.

Trapped in the System

Most people are prescribed antidepressants after only a brief conversation with their doctor, with little to no exploration of the underlying factors contributing to their depression. While these medications can provide some immediate relief, helping individuals function in difficult times, there is rarely — if ever — any discussion of a long-term strategy or exit plan. Instead, the medication is presented as the final solution rather than a temporary support.

Ideally, antidepressants would serve as a stepping stone to deeper healing, offering temporary relief while a patient builds the foundation for long-term well-being. Yet in practice, patients are simply told to take the pill indefinitely, without supporting treatment and little guidance on how to eventually taper off — if they’re even informed that doing so is possible.

Conveniently, this approach ensures a steady stream of revenue for the healthcare system and pharmaceutical companies, while the patient’s underlying issues remain unaddressed. Rather than being empowered to reclaim their mental health, they are conditioned to believe they will always need the drug to keep depression symptoms away. They are left dependent and reliant on a defunct system that offers no real path forward, and no clear way out.

Breaking Free

Conditioned to believe that their suffering is purely a chemical imbalance beyond their control, a person on antidepressants will likely try a multitude of medications in their lifetime until they’ve relegated to a prescription cocktail that seems to have the least amount of side effects, and numbs their pain enough so at least they don’t feel hopelessly sad. The unfortunate reality is that as long as medication remains the primary treatment, patients may feel sedated rather than truly healed.

This narrow focus on medication has stifled research and funding for alternative approaches, including psychotherapy or lifestyle changes, which have been proven to be effective in treating depression. Yet as long as “Big Pharma” remains in control of the narrative, we’ll remain dependent on these ineffective treatments and incomplete solutions, suffering as a society, trapped in a system that prioritizes profit over healing — while they continue to rake in billions of dollars each year at our expense.

But it doesn’t have to be this way — and more and more people are waking up to this truth. We deserve a system that prioritizes real healing over prescriptions designed to numb our pain and keep us dependent.

The good news? You don’t have to wait for that system to change. You have the power to take control of your own health TODAY by exploring alternative paths to healing.

It starts with awareness and questioning what we’ve been told — and demanding better care for ourselves and for future generations.

References

• ¹: “Antidepressant Use in Persons Aged 12 and Over: United States, 2005–2008” NCHS Data Brief №76, October 2011. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db76.htm.
• ²: “Antidepressants Market Size, Growth | Global Report, 2020–2027.” n.d. www.fortunebusinessinsights.com. https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/antidepressants-market-105017.
• ³: Finkelhor, David, Heather A. Turner, Anne Shattuck, and Sherry L. Hamby. 2015. “Prevalence of Childhood Exposure to Violence, Crime, and Abuse.” JAMA Pediatrics 169 (8): 746–54. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.0676.
• ⁴: Kroenke, Kurt, Robert L. Spitzer, and Janet B. W. Williams. 2001. “The PHQ-9: Validity of a Brief Depression Severity Measure.” Journal of General Internal Medicine 16 (9): 606–13. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x.
• ⁵: Ihara, Hiroshi. 2012. “A Cold of the Soul: A Japanese Case of Disease Mongering in Psychiatry.” International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine 24 (2): 115–20. https://doi.org/10.3233/jrs-2012-0560.
• ⁶: Justice.gov. 2015. “GlaxoSmithKline to Plead Guilty and Pay $3 Billion to Resolve Fraud Allegations and Failure to Report Safety Data.” Justice.gov. May 22, 2015. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/glaxosmithkline-plead-guilty-and-pay-3-billion-resolve-fraud-allegations-and-failure-report.
• ⁷: Moncrieff, Joanna, Ruth E. Cooper, Tom Stockmann, Simone Amendola, Michael P. Hengartner, and Mark A. Horowitz. 2022. “The Serotonin Theory of Depression: A Systematic Umbrella Review of the Evidence.” Molecular Psychiatry 28 (3243–3256): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-022-01661-0.
• ⁸: Fournier, Jay C., Robert J. DeRubeis, Steven D. Hollon, Sona Dimidjian, Jay D. Amsterdam, Richard C. Shelton, and Jan Fawcett. 2010. “Antidepressant Drug Effects and Depression Severity.” JAMA 303 (1): 47. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2009.1943.
• ⁹: Kolk, Bessel van der. 2014. The Body Keeps the Score: Brain, Mind, and Body in the Healing of Trauma. New York, New York: Penguin Books.

‌