By David Stephen
One of the ways to spot the clueless in mental health research is to note those who say that environmental factors are responsible for mental health.
If there is a loud noise in the environment, it could irritate some people. It could result in a lack of focus for others. It may not let some sleep. However, some people may be indifferent to it. Anything in the environment often has different effects on [the emotions and feelings of] people.The memory [or say basic interpretation] of the sense of sound could be near-similar for everyone, but the feelings or emotions of it could be a lot different. It is within emotions and feelings that the mental health of that environmental factor can be explored.
The question is not about noise, but how [the] noise came to have an effect. There are people who may be indifferent at one time, but not be — later. There are those that may have something more serious to deal with, for which they would not care about it. But what mechanisms are responsible for the noise [emotions or feelings] and how would it be possible to explore it to be [near] certain of how environmental factors end up affecting the mind?
This is what should at least be obvious in any serious mental health research. However, it does not seem to be the case with continuous fallacy of the responsibility of environmental factors. There are people who have been depressed or had major anxiety without any nominal environmental factor. So, what is the mechanism in the brain?
There is a recent [July 8, 2025] opinion on FT, Psychiatric medication is in dire need of innovation, stating that, “While most recognise that mental health problems are caused by a tangle of psychological, social and biological factors, debates about solutions are polarised between those advocating for addressing environmental factors and those more interested in medication. However, the vast majority of mental health medicines prescribed today have the same targets as their pre-1960 prototypes. Most of them were discovered by serendipity; we know surprisingly little about their underlying mechanisms. While we must rigorously examine non-pharmacological interventions, including digital and large-scale social policy interventions, we also need to explore potential medicines.”
How does Wellcome Trust not know that the most important contribution that they can do for mental health and psychiatry is to develop a possible mechanism for how the brain works, even conceptually. Nothing else matters if they cannot put forth a usable mechanism for the field.
How do you model neurons for how the brain works? This means that whatever is a feeling or an emotion [which could both be basis, roughly speaking, for most mental health] how do neurons make them possible?
How do you develop a theory around this towards the development of biomarkers for tests or targets for psychiatry medications?
If you cannot model neurons, what else is an option to model, in the brain, from empirical evidence in neuroscience? How does this shape the understanding of mental health and psychiatry?
All the functions of neurons for the mind involve their electrical and chemical signals. So, how do you model the mechanisms of the mind for neurons and signals or for signals directly, in clusters of neurons? Why is there no bold step that the organization can take to understand the brain, moving knowledge forward and shaping care, immediately, around the world?
This myth of environmental factors is pervasive, becoming a broad problem with a vague solution that is dominantly mainstream, blinding what should be solutions at the source and not fringe peripherals.
There is a new [June 26, 2025] report by NHS Digital, Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey: Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing, England, stating that, “Common mental health conditions (CMHCs) comprise different types of depression and anxiety disorder. One in five (20.2%) adults in England had a CMHC, with prevalence higher in women (24.2%) than men (15.4%). The most prevalent CMHCs were GAD (7.5%), depression (3.8%), and the general category of CMHC-NOS (8.6%). There is a socioeconomic gradient in CMHCs, with prevalence higher in the most deprived fifth of areas (26.2%) than in the least deprived fifth of areas (16.0%). People with problem debt were twice as likely to have a CMHC (39.0%) as those with no problem debt (18.4%). This pattern of association was similar for men and women. Among working age adults, unemployed (40.0%) and economically inactive (38.8%) people were more likely to have a CMHC than those in employment (18.3%). This association was stronger for men than women. Regional disparities in CMHCs were evident, with people in the North East (24.6%) and East Midlands (24.6%) more likely to have a CMHC than those in the South East (16.3%) and South West (18.7%). Physical and mental health are strongly linked.”
What is the mechanism of the components of the brain for common mental health conditions? Simply, what components are different, per condition and how? What components are the likeliest to be responsible and how do they make determinations?
How is anything serious in global mental health research without trying to answer these questions? What are all these vague correlations, of regions, socioeconomic, gender physical health and so forth, when there is no mechanism in the brain to show? Should this be science or should this be something else?
It can be assumed that electrical and chemical signals are the configurators, formations or assemblers of functions. They do so in sets, in clusters of neurons. They can be used to explain every condition in the DSM-5-TR, moving understanding forward for how mental health is mechanized at the source.
