Mental Illness: Reality or Myth?

The words ‘illness’ and ‘disease’ are often used interchangeably, although they aren’t exactly equivalent. In the context of the establishment view, ‘disease’ refers to the condition within the body, whereas ‘illness’ refers to the patient’s experience. We tend to say we feel ill because we have a disease.

As I’ve often mentioned in my articles, there are no different ‘disease entities’, there are only different sets of symptoms. But the nature of ‘disease’ is not the topic of this article, the purpose of which is to take a closer look at what are referred to as ‘mental illnesses’.

Interestingly, and perhaps tellingly, the alternative label for a ‘mental illness’ is ‘mental disorder’; they are not referred to as ‘mental diseases’.

So why is the word ‘disorder’ used? Does it mean the same as ‘disease’?

The online Merriam-Webster dictionary defines ‘disorder’ in 3 ways,

It’s the 3rd definition that we’ll focus on here because it refers to the condition as being ‘abnormal’, which raises the question: What is abnormal? The obvious answer is ‘not normal’. But what is ‘normal’?

Although ‘not normal’ can mean extraordinary, it tends to mainly be used in the context of something being wrong. In other words ‘normal’ is good and ‘not normal’ is bad.

This of course raises many more questions, especially: What does normal actually mean? Why is ‘normal’ seen as good and something we are encouraged to be? More importantly: Who decides what ‘normal’ means? Who decides the parameters of ‘normal’?

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines ‘normal’ under a few different headings: ordinary, stable, typical, average.

Do those words really sound like the ideal basis for living our life? Do they really represent the best we should be aspiring to achieve in life? Personally, I think not.

But what does this have to do with mental illness, you may ask.

My response is: everything!!

The 30th September 2025 WHO fact sheet Mental disorders claims that there are over a billion people with a mental disorder, which means that,

“Nearly 1 in 7 people in the world live with a mental disorder.”

Whether or not you accept that there are about 8 billion people in the world, that is still an incredibly large number of people who are claimed to have a ‘mental disorder’.

The fact sheet describes these ‘disorders’ as follows,

“A mental disorder is characterized by a clinically significant disturbance in an individual’s cognition, emotional regulation, or behaviour.”

The term ‘clinically significant’ means that the condition is determined through assessment by someone who is trained in the field of mental health.

The fact sheet claims that anxiety and depressive disorders are the most common forms of ‘mental disorder’.

I must emphasise here that I am NOT denying people’s experiences, in the same way that I do not deny people’s symptoms. What I AM questioning are the labels attached to ‘symptoms’ and to people’s very real experiences that are classified as ‘mental disorders’.

I appreciate that this is a very sensitive subject, but it is a much-needed conversation as far as I’m concerned, because of the ever-expanding attempts to medicalise ‘life’. But ‘medicines’ are only ever intended to suppress symptoms. In the context of ‘mental health issues’, medicalisation that suppresses symptoms denies us our unique life experiences under the rubric of encouraging us all to think we need to be ‘normal’ and that anything outside of that must be ‘abnormal’. I’m sure many readers can relate this to their experiences during ‘Covid’ when not wearing a mask was considered ‘not normal’.

I am aware that there are exceptions, the outliers who do require careful attention to be paid to them. What I’m referring to is the idea that we all need to be ‘normal’ and essentially all the same.

One category listed on the fact sheet is Anxiety disorders, which are claimed to affect 359 million people, a number that is said to include ’72 million children and adolescents’. In addition, the fact sheet states that,

“Anxiety disorders are characterised by excessive fear and worry and related behavioural disturbances.”

I’d say it’s not too surprising that more people are experiencing increased levels of anxiety, fear and worry, but does that mean that, at a certain level, these feelings become a ‘disorder’? What does ‘excessive’ mean? Who determines the level at which these feelings become ‘excessive’? And what does ‘behavioural disturbances’ even mean?

What is of particular concern to those of us who regard ourselves as ‘free thinkers’, is the category referred to under the heading Disruptive behaviour and dissocial disorders. There are said to be two such ‘disorders’ in this category; one is ‘conduct-dissocial disorder’, the other is referred to as ‘oppositional defiant disorder’. These ‘disorders’ are said to usually commence during childhood, and that,

“Effective psychological treatments exist, such as cognitive problem-solving and/or social skills training, and often involve parents, caregivers, and teachers.”

The Johns Hopkins Medicine web page Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) in Children states,

“Children with ODD show a pattern of uncooperative, defiant, and hostile behavior toward peers, parents, teachers, and other authority figures.”

What is of particular note, although increasingly unsurprising to me as it is a regular feature of such information, the web page states,

“Experts don’t know what causes ODD.”

So much for being ‘experts’!! (sarcasm intended).

If the ‘experts’ don’t know the cause(s) of something, how can they be relied upon to find the appropriate solution? How can they know how to help anyone, whether child, adolescent or adult, to whom they have attached such a label?

For me, the telling phrase on the Johns Hopkins page is that children with ODD,

“…are more troubling to others than they are to themselves.”

One of the alleged ‘symptoms’ of ODD is,

“Always questioning rules and refusing to follow rules.”

This ‘symptom’ is why this is of particular importance to those of us who regard ourselves as ‘free thinkers’, because ‘always questioning rules and refusing to follow rules’ is part of our Modus Operandi.

This category is said to mainly apply to children, but that does not make it of lesser importance to adults. However, I’d say it’s of immense importance to be aware of the efforts to label children with a ‘mental disorder’. Not following rules is only one of the listed ‘symptoms’; others include:

• Having frequent temper tantrums

• Arguing a lot with adults

• Refusing to do what an adult asks

• Blaming others for the child’s own misbehaviors or mistakes

• Often having an angry attitude

I appreciate it’s challenging for parents to have a child, or children, who exhibit such behaviours, especially if the parents are the sort who do follow the rules.

My purpose in raising this point is to question whether these behaviours are really symptoms of a ‘mental disorder’; do they really signify a child has a mental health issue? Shouldn’t we be listening to these children instead of making them comply with the way ‘society’ wants them to behave and ‘training’ them in social skills? These ‘solutions’ do not validate the child’s own experiences. How do these ‘experts’ think they know how each child is supposed to ‘be’?

Fortunately, it is not the standard recommendation, at the moment at least, to utilise pharmaceuticals as part of the treatment for children labelled with ODD.

In my research for What Really Makes You Ill, I read Dr Peter Breggin’s book, Toxic Psychiatry, in which he makes it perfectly clear that there is no basis for the idea that any ‘mental illness’ is caused by a ‘chemical imbalance in the brain’ and explains,

“…no causal relationship has ever been established between a specific biochemical state of the brain and any specific behaviour and it is simplistic to assume it is possible.”

He further explains that,

“There’s little evidence for the existence of any such imbalances and absolutely no way to demonstrate how the drugs would affect them if they did exist.”

The ‘treatment’ for mental disorders does not always involve pharmaceuticals, although they are used for certain conditions, especially those labelled ADD and ADHD, which the WHO fact sheet includes under the heading Neurodevelopmental disorders.

More recently, as I’ve been diving deeper into this topic, I have started reading The Myth of Mental Illness by Thomas Szasz (1920 - 2012). An October 2012 Lancet article entitled Thomas Szasz: rebel with a questionable cause that was published soon after his death, referred to him as having,

“…challenged mental health practice perhaps more than any other American psychiatrist in the decades after World War 2.”

He is clearly not the darling of the world of psychiatry.

The Myth of Mental Illness was the title of his article published in The American Psychologist in February 1960. It then became the title of his book, first published in 1974 and re-issued in 2010, which is the edition I have. In the Preface to the updated edition he states,

“The claim that mental illnesses are diagnosable disorders of the brain is not based on scientific research…”

He further states that his own claim that ‘mental illnesses are fictitious illnesses’ is similarly not based on scientific research, but instead,

“…it rests on the materialistic-scientific definition of illness as a pathological alteration of cells, tissues and organs.”

He makes a distinction between genuine pathological conditions that exist within the brain, such as a brain tumour for example, and ‘mental illness’, which has no such pathology.

This is probably the reason that ‘mental illnesses’ are not referred to as ‘mental diseases’ because the latter term would imply some form of pathology, but there are no tests to determine the existence of a pathological ‘disease’ in the brain in the context of a diagnosis of a ‘mental disorder’.

Dr Peter Breggin summarises his view on this point clearly in his June 2015 article entitled Rational Principles of Psychopharmacology for Therapists, Healthcare Providers and Clients, in which he states that,

“…the evidence for any biological basis for ‘psychiatric disorders’ is utterly lacking.”

Despite these challenges to their theories, the APA (American Psychiatric Association) which publishes the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), remains unmoved. On their website is a page entitled What is Mental Illness? that claims,

“Mental illness is nothing to be ashamed of. It is a medical problem, just like heart disease or diabetes.”

The evidence suggests otherwise!

So what are the real reasons for these conditions that are labelled ‘mental disorders’?

It’s clear that there are many aspects to this topic; far too many to cover in a single article.

I’d like to suggest that a key aspect to consider is that each individual is unique - each child is unique - so there is no single blanket explanation that can be readily applied to all cases or even to a number of cases. Yet the medical system insists on creating categories and labels, so we can all be placed in the appropriate ‘box’ with the right ‘label’.

The categorisation of our experiences into labelled boxes is a denial of our individuality and our expression of ourselves.

In the same way that there are no different ‘diseases’, there are no different ‘mental illnesses’.

By that I do not mean that people and children do not experience stresses in their lives. On the contrary, we all experience stresses in our lives, sometimes they can be severe, overwhelming and even disturbing. But making their experiences fit into a label that makes people feel they are ‘abnormal’ and defines them for the rest of their lives, will not help them to discover the source and purpose of those experiences, which is how we learn and grow. In most cases, people, and especially children, take the label as their identity, which inevitably keeps them trapped in that identity instead of allowing them to grow into the full expression of themselves.

Like the autists who are the subject of the Telepathy Tapes, maybe these children who behave in ways that are considered ‘abnormal’ have something to teach us; maybe they are telling us that ‘normal’ is not what we should be aiming to achieve. Maybe they are helping us understand that there are different ways of living…

Dawn 🌹

My work remains free thanks to the support of paid subscribers and generous donations for coffees and/or books. [My tendency is for the latter 😊]

Useful Resources

If you are looking for ways to start or continue your journey of taking responsibility for your own health, below are some useful resources:

Undo Meditation

“Matthew’s approach is ideal for those ready for genuine transformation who have grown weary of conventional therapies or quick-fix solutions. If you’re eager to develop a deeper understanding of yourself and implement lasting change in both your personal and professional life, Matthew is your next step.”

Website link

N.B. Use code DAWNL1 for one free month when you purchase an annual subscription.

The Way Forward

“Within our private community, we provide a platform to connect with nearby natural health practitioners and like-minded members, join monthly virtual events, and receive deeper education on a journey towards health, freedom, and coherence.”

Link for details & to join the TWF community

New Biology Clinic

“At New Biology Clinic, we prioritize your individual well-being with personalized holistic care rooted in the proven natural healing principles of the New Biology.”

Website link

Use code dawn18 for a discount on your activation fee

Alfa Vedic

“Formulated by a physician with over four decades of clinical expertise, Alfa Vedic combines modern research and spagyric alchemy to activate energy, strengthen resilience, and elevate your health.”

Website Link