Adam and Eve chose freedom

Pre apple, all A/E's choices led to happiness. If the means to an ends is believed , then one path to happiness is suffice ie get rid of all choice=> lose our freedom and let God guide us . This is herd mentality. Although there are many choices to happiness, there are infinite more choices w/c lead to unhappiness, shame, greed etc. hence when A/E chose to eat the apple, their choices increased hence if freedom is choice, A/E chose freedom. It follows that more freedom increases our odds of unhappiness. But lack of choice to some degree leads to unhappiness. Clearly chosing a path is a reward in itself. Would this have to be sacrificed in the road to happiness? Our choices are our essence of being. To follow the herd is to rob ourselves from this essence unless following the herd was a well thought out choice.

Partial control of brain on hormonal system

Consider that glucose increase in the blood signals the pancreas to release insulin. In a Pavlovian like fashion, insulin is released, even when glucose is not present, via the PNS. That is the brain is controlling hormonal output. Now consider that interleukin is released by the immune system to among other organs also the brain. It tells the brain to increase fever, makes sleepy, basically feel awful. This is presumably done to tell one not to expend energy so that the immune system can diverge all possible energy to fighting the pathogen. What if one, due to psychological reasons, felt awful via biofeedback methods and increased the immune system. The immune system starts kicking out interleukin and one becomes "sick". What would be the long term results? Hyperalgesia, fibromyalgia, degenerative joints, hyper immunity w/c can lead to allergies?

what do u know

Researchers have shown that nearly all of us are overconfident, sometimes to the point of comedy. Eighty percent of students predict they will finish in the top half of their class. Seventy-five percent of mutual fund managers think they are above average at their jobs. Almost 90% of us think we're better than the typical driver.

The more you know, the more likely you are to overestimate your ability to predict the future. Philip Tetlock, a professor of political science at Berkeley, spent years surveying the views of top political scientists and analysts on world events and found that these supposed geniuses were usually wrong even when they were most confident. On predictions in which they indicated they had 80% or more confidence, they were correct only 45% of the time. Overall, they had no more ability to forecast the future than a coin flip.

Over medicinized in N.A. 2010 A.D.

The science of medicine should find chemicals that should promote longevity and decrease misery. It doesn't yet thrive to increase happiness. Mostly corporations are in the medicine business. Corporations objectives are to make profits. Although the axioms of the science of medicine would achieve this objective, this is not the only way to get people to takes pills.
For society, increasing one's life mayn't be good economically but decreasing one's misery helps by at least lessening the spread of the misery to others in society. However, it is a tenet in society to keep one alive as long as possible (without life support) ie life supersedes economics, happiness etc. Society's view on misery is not as high on the scale. Society would prefer one doesn't suffer but will tolerate one's suffering over the possible decrease in it's rule of law.
The idealized pharmacy is to ensure all who need pills, those who the pills will increase life and/or decrease misery, will be provided and educated on proper use of the pill. However, most pharmacies are not ideal. Their main objective is to sell as many pills as possible. Herein lies the over medication of the masses.
The corporate pillmakers, through the guise of science, have skewed the data such that in is difficult to know the truth of the pills. The main tools they have used and continue to use to encourage pill usage include i) burying data ii) buying influential people in the medical field through a quid pro quo system iii) advertising to a gullible public. iv) advanced statistics. v) creating new diseases and/or lowering parameters of what is considered a disease. The gov't has set up what the pillmakers can/can't say but they are under staffed, lazy and under paid. There is little incentive to be a hero.
Through these methods, the pill presciber will give the taker what the milieu the pill maker has created. It is pleasant for the pill presciber to go with the zeitgeist and painful to go against. Again, there is little incentive to be a hero. The only resistance to this pill pushing machine is patent expirations, gov't's affordability to pay, insurance unwillingness to pay, etc.
Even if the pill making companies were to step aside, pill prescribers and pharmacies are a capitation business. The prescriber ensures repeat business by giving pills. The pharmacy, too, can only exist if people are taking pills. The

sub·sis·tence

Consider humans basic subsistence needs. Call it X. With innovation and technos, surely we have reached X. Why then do we seem to work as hard as we did say fifty years ago?