Unless we can more reliably distinguish between the cases where it is a neurochemical imbalance that needs medicinal intervention and not, then it can be just a

Unless we can more reliably distinguish between the cases where it is a neurochemical imbalance that needs medicinal intervention and not, then it can be just as damaging to fight against that viewpoint as it is to fight for it. What we need is to foster open discussion of both viewpoints because both are fully valid explanations of anxiety and depression. For those who truly do need[1] such medicine it is demeaning and disheartening to hear views like yours touted as the only valid point of view because it implies they are invalid, or that they're cheating because they're not managing without drugs. I similarly take issue with the article's claim that "anxiety and depression are symptoms of psychosocial needs and threats" because it completely rejects neurological causes of anxiety and depression. There's nothing that says predisposition to neurochemical imbalances will never be more severe than what can be managed without medication. And the same can be said for environmental factors (e.g. ingested and inhaled compounds from the area around where you live, just by happening to live there). Has anyone done a scientific study on the common root causes of anxiety and depression? Do we even know enough about the brain to be able to confidently identify the root cause? [1] If you know there are no such people, I'd like to learn about how you know that.