Isn’t it strange how we discovered a lot more stars after inventing telescopes?

Obviously there was an unrelated increase in stars born at that exact time.

This is actually the most apt analogy for the whole “sudden increase in diagnosis” bullshit line that anti-vaxxers and anti-science people continually vomit out.

I’m in no way an anti-vaxxer or anti-science (I’m a researcher myself). I still think it can be justified to look closely at the large increase in, and volume of, various mental disorders. First of all: There’s no doubt that a lot more people are being diagnosed due to better diagnosis tools.

However, a major difference between psychological and somatic illness is that the divide between sick and healthy is (typically) a lot sharper in the latter case. Either you have an injury or infection, or you don’t, and we can measure that. In the case of e.g. depression or ADHD, there’s a much wider gray zone from e.g. “healthy person having a bad day” to “clinically depressed”.

The point I’m getting at is this: When a certain percentage of the population is diagnosed with a disorder, you have to ask whether we’ve started diagnosing ordinary human existence as a disease. Alternatively, you have to start looking at a systematic level for why an enormous portion of the population has a certain disorder. Where that limit should be is an open question, but I would argue that when something like 10-20 % of the population has a specific disorder, we’re no longer just looking at individual cases of disease but rather at (a) the possibility that the criteria for diagnosis are two wide, so we’re catching “healthy” people with it, or (b) we have a society-level problem (e.g. an epidemic).

I know of areas with ADHD-rates around 20 %. For a somatic illness, we would never let that kind of infection rate pass without taking a closer look at what’s going on at the societal level.