Yesterday, in Part Five, we looked at a theory put forward by researcher Kevin Drum and others, proposing that the skyrocketing increase in violence in American cities between about 1985 and 1990 was directly related to the amount of lead poisoning experienced by American children two decades prior, when the average blood-lead levels of preschool children was hitting levels eight times higher than is currently assumed to be safe.
We also shared a quote from Wikipedia.
Individuals exposed to lead at young ages are more vulnerable to learning disabilities, decreased I.Q., attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and problems with impulse control, all of which may be negatively impacting decision making and leading to the commission of more crimes as these children reach adulthood, especially violent crimes…
Researchers have put forward numerous other theories to explain that precipitous increase in crime, and the equally dramatic decline between about 1990 and 2000.
The decline was well documented and especially noticeable in large cities. In the winter of 2004, a professor of economics named Steven Levitt looked at certain statistics, and his analysis was shared on the U.S. Department of Justice website. It appeared originally in the Journal of Economic Perspectives.
Levitt’s analysis — which you can download here — focused on homicide rates in various larger cities, and begins by summarizing the reasons shared by media outlets, as possible explanations for the steep drop in crimes after 1990:
- Innovative policing strategies
- Increased reliance on prisons
- Changes in crack/other drug markets
- Aging of the population
- Tougher gun control laws
- Strong economy
- Increased number of police
Levitt concluded in 2004 that most of these suggested explanations had little impact on the drop in crime after 1990. In his opinion, the four factors that had the greatest impact were increased incarceration, increased number of police, a decline in crack cocaine use, and the legalization of abortion.
Some readers may be familiar with Levitt’s popular book, Freakonomics, published in 2005. In that book, Levitt and his co-author Stephen Dubner attempt to expand on a theory that the legalization of abortion led to a decrease in the number of unwanted children… raised in dysfunctional families and destined to become criminals.
In his Journal of Economic Perspectives article, however, Levitt admits that his attempted explanation for the decline in crime after 1990, based on four key factors, fails to explain the dramatic rise in crime between 1973 and 1990.
What we want is an explanation that successfully explains increases, as well as decreases, in criminal activity. Unfortunately, Steven Levitt failed to provide that explanation, in my opinion.
Perhaps Kevin Drum did a better job, with his research into lead poisoning?
Or maybe there are so many factors at work, that we will never be able to put our finger on the causes?
In November 2021, the medical journal The Lancet published a report on increased mental health challenges during the COVID crisis. You can read it here.
It’s titled, “Global prevalence and burden of depressive and anxiety disorders in 204 countries and territories in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic”, and it begins with this summary:
Before 2020, mental disorders were leading causes of the global health-related burden, with depressive and anxiety disorders being leading contributors to this burden. The emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic has created an environment where many determinants of poor mental health are exacerbated. The need for up-to-date information on the mental health impacts of COVID-19 in a way that informs health system responses is imperative. In this study, we aimed to quantify the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the prevalence and burden of major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders globally in 2020.
Two months later, The Lancet published another article about COVID-related depression, this time with a focus on Americans, through a survey of about 1,400 American adults age 18 and older.
“Persistent depressive symptoms during COVID-19: a national, population-representative, longitudinal study of U.S. adults”. You can read the report here.
From the introduction:
The COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with a substantial increase in mental illness. U.S. adults reported an estimated three-fold increase in the prevalence of elevated depressive symptoms at the start of COVID-19 pandemic relative to before it. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, a number of studies have reported worsening mental health across a range of populations in the U.S. and globally, including among healthcare workers, children, and the general public.
Depression is costly and increases risk for other physical and mental illness, as well as mortality.
I am mentioning these studies because the medical profession in the U.S. takes a certain approach to anxiety and depression.
Drugs.
Although depression and anxiety have probably been around since humans lived in caves, and although various cultures have treated ‘mental illness’ in various ways — including demonic exorcisms, imprisonment, insane asylums, counseling, psychological therapies, and dietary regimes — the preferred approach, here in the U.S. in the 21st century, seems to be the administration of pharmaceutical drugs.
From a story share in May 2021 on the CNBC website:
Mental illness is among the most costly medical expenses in the U.S., and it has a high cost to employers in lost productivity. In 2019, 51.5 million American adults were living with a mental illness in the U.S., and the number of people suffering and drug costs, already in the tens of billions of dollars annually, are projected to grow in the years ahead, with COVID-19 compounding mental health issues globally.
Roughly 7% of Americans suffer depressive episodes annually, and roughly 1% are resistant to treatment, the latter associated with a significantly higher economic burden including hospitalization…
A typical ‘treatment’ for depression, among those 51.5 million adults, includes antidepressants.
Antidepressants are, however, known to increase the risk of suicidal thoughts and behavior in people with depression under the age of 25. In 2004, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration along with the Neuro-Psychopharmacologic Advisory Committee and the Anti-Infective Drugs Advisory Committee, found a causal link between newer antidepressants and ‘pediatric suicidality.’
A 2016 review of selective common antidepressants looked at four outcomes — death, suicidality, aggressive behaviour, and agitation — and found that, while “the data was insufficient to draw strong conclusions,” adults taking these drugs did not appear to be at increased risk for any of the four outcomes, but that for children, the risks of suicidality and for aggression doubled.
The authors expressed frustration with incomplete reporting and lack of access to data, and with some aspects of the clinical trial designs.
Here is a common definition of an ‘active shooter’, taken from a document published by the state of Idaho:
4.4.4. Active shooter or active killer: The perpetrator of a type of mass murder marked by rapidity, scale, randomness, and often suicide. The United States Department of Homeland Security defines an active shooter as “an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area; in most cases, active shooters use firearms and there is no pattern or method to their selection of victims.”
I have not been able to find data confirming that the active shooters — the young men — who make headlines here in America on a weekly or monthly basis, are being treated with antidepressant pharmaceutical drugs.