Psych Drugs: The Real Weapons of Mass Destruction

[Hervé]

Psychiatric drugs: Time bombs in the medicine cabinet Peter R. Breggin, MD

American Free Press Newspaper
Wed, 07 Jan 2015 15:47 CET

© unknown, Prescriptions for anti-psychotic drugs handed out like candy.

Psychiatric drugs are more dangerous than you have ever imagined. If you haven't been prescribed one yet, you are among the lucky few. If you or a loved one are taking psychiatric drugs, there is hope, but you need to understand the dangers and how to minimize the risk.

Anti-psychotic drugs, including both older and newer ones, have been shown in many human brain scan studies and in animal autopsy studies to cause shrinkage (atrophy) of the brain. The newer "atypicals" especially cause a well-documented metabolic syndrome including elevated blood sugar, diabetes, increased cholesterol, obesity and hypertension. They also produce dangerous cardiac arrhythmias and unexplained sudden death, and they significantly reduce longevity. In addition, they cause all the problems of the older drugs, such as Thorazine and Haldol, including tardive dyskinesia, a largely permanent and sometimes disabling, painful movement disorder caused by brain damage and biochemical disruptions.

Despite their enormous risks, the newer anti-psychotic drugs are now frequently used off label to treat conditions from anxiety and depression to insomnia and behavior problems in children. Two older anti-psychotic drugs, Reglan and Compazine, are used for gastrointestinal problems, and despite low or short-term dosing, they too can cause problems, including tardive dyskinesia.

Nowadays, many patients are given medications for insomnia without being told that they are in fact receiving very dangerous anti-psychotic drugs. This can happen with any antipsychotic but most frequently occurs with Seroquel, Abilify and Zyprexa. The patient is unwittingly exposed to all the hazards of antipsychotic drugs.

Benzodiazepines (benzos), commonly prescribed as anti-anxiety drugs and sleep aids, deteriorate memory and other mental capacities. Human studies demonstrate that they frequently lead to atrophy and dementia after longer-term exposure. After withdrawal, individuals exposed to these drugs also experience multiple persisting problems including memory and cognitive dysfunction, emotional instability, anxiety, insomnia and muscular and neurological discomforts.

Mostly because of severely worsened anxiety and insomnia,many cannot stop taking them and become permanently dependent. This frequently happens after only six weeks of exposure. Any benzo can be prescribed as a sleep aid, but Dalmane, Doral, Halcion, ProSom and Restoril are marketed for that purpose.

"Non-benzo" sleep aids, such as Ambien, Intermezzo, Lunesta and Sonata, pose similar problems to the benzos, including memory and other mental problems, dependence and painful withdrawal. They can cause many abnormal mental states and behaviors, including dangerous sleepwalking.

Insufficient data is available concerning whether they lead to brain shrinkage and dementia, but these are likely outcomes considering their similarity to benzos. Recent studies show that these drugs increase death rate, taking away years of life, even when used intermittently for sleep.

It is time to face the enormous tragedy of exposing children and adults to any psychiatric drug for lengthy periods.

All classes of psychiatric drugs can cause brain damage and lasting mental dysfunction when used for months or years. Although research data is lacking for a few individual drugs in each class, until proven otherwise it is prudent and safest to assume that the risks of brain damage and permanent mental dysfunction apply to every single psychiatric drug. Furthermore, all classes of psychiatric drugs cause serious and dangerous withdrawal reactions, and again, it is prudent and safest to assume that any psychiatric drug can cause withdrawal problems.

Meanwhile, there is no substantial or convincing evidence that any psychiatric drug is useful longer-term. Psychiatric drug treatment for months or years lacks scientific basis. Therefore, the risk-benefit ratio is enormously lopsided toward the risk.

The safest solution is to avoid starting psychiatric drugs. It is time for a return to psychological, social and educational approaches to emotional suffering and impairment. 

Peter R. Breggin, M.D., a psychiatrist in private practice in Ithaca, New York, has been called "The Conscience of Psychiatry" for his many decades of successful efforts to reform the mental health field. His scientific and educational work has provided the foundation for modern criticism of psychiatric drugs and ECT, and leads the way in promoting more caring and effective therapies. He has authored dozens of scientific articles and more than 20 books.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=luKsQaj0hzs

[Hervé]

Depression: It's not your Serotonin

Dr. Kelly Brogan, M.D.
Greenmedinfo.com
Sun, 04 Jan 2015 23:34 CET

Millions believe depression is caused by 'serotonin deficiency,' but where is the science in support of this theory?

"Depression is a serious medical condition that may be due to a chemical imbalance, and Zoloft works to correct this imbalance."

Herein lies the serotonin myth.
As one of only two countries in the world that permits direct to consumer advertising, you have undoubtedly been subjected to promotion of the "cause of depression." A cause that is not your fault, but rather; a matter of too few little bubbles passing between the hubs in your brain! Don't add that to your list of worries, though, because there is a convenient solution awaiting you at your doctor's office...

What if I told you that, in 6 decades of research, the serotonin (or norepinephrine, or dopamine) theory of depression and anxiety has not achieved scientific credibility?

You'd want some supporting arguments for this shocking claim.

So, here you go:

The Science of Psychiatry is Myth
Rather than some embarrassingly reductionist, one-deficiency-one-illness-one-pill model of mental illness, contemporary exploration of human behavior has demonstrated that we may know less than we ever thought we did. And that what we do know about root causes of mental illness seems to have more to do with the concept of evolutionary mismatch than with genes and chemical deficiencies.

In fact, a meta-analysis of over 14,000 patients and Dr. Insel, head of the NIMH, had this to say:

"Despite high expectations, neither genomics nor imaging has yet impacted the diagnosis or treatment of the 45 million Americans with serious or moderate mental illness each year."

To understand what imbalance is, we must know what balance looks like, and neuroscience, to date, has not characterized the optimal brain state, nor how to even assess for it.

A New England Journal of Medicine review on Major Depression, stated:

" ... numerous studies of norepinephrine and serotonin metabolites in plasma, urine, and cerebrospinal fluid as well as postmortem studies of the brains of patients with depression, have yet to identify the purported deficiency reliably."

The data has poked holes in the theory and even the field of psychiatry itself is putting down its sword. One of my favorite essays by Lacasse and Leo has compiled sentiments from influential thinkers in the field - mind you, these are conventional clinicians and researchers in mainstream practice - who have broken rank, casting doubt on the entirety of what psychiatry has to offer around antidepressants:

Humble Origins of a Powerful Meme
In the 1950s, reserpine, initially introduced to the US market as an anti-seizure medication, was noted to deplete brain serotonin stores in subjects, with resultant lethargy and sedation. These observations colluded with the clinical note that an anti-tuberculosis medication, iproniazid, invoked mood changes after five months of treatment in 70% of a 17 patient cohort. Finally, Dr. Joseph Schildkraut threw fairy dust on these mumbles and grumbles in 1965 with his hypothetical manifesto entitled The Catecholamine Hypothesis of Affective Disorders stating:

"At best, drug-induced affective disturbances can only be considered models of the natural disorders, while it remains to be demonstrated that the behavioral changes produced by these drugs have any relation to naturally occurring biochemical abnormalities which might be associated with the illness."

Contextualized by the ripeness of a field struggling to establish biomedical legitimacy (beyond the therapeutic lobotomy!), psychiatry was ready for a rebranding, and the pharmaceutical industry was all too happy to partner in the effort.

Of course, the risk inherent in "working backwards" in this way (noting effects and presuming mechanisms) is that we tell ourselves that we have learned something about the body, when in fact, all we have learned is that patented synthesized chemicals have effects on our behavior. This is referred to as the drug-based model by Dr. Joanna Moncrieff. In this model, we acknowledge that antidepressants have effects, but that these effects in no way are curative or reparative.

The most applicable analogy is that of the woman with social phobia who finds that drinking two cocktails eases her symptoms. One could imagine how, in a 6 week randomized trial, this "treatment" could be found efficacious and recommended for daily use and even prevention of symptoms. How her withdrawal symptoms after 10 years of daily compliance could lead those around her to believe that she "needed" the alcohol to correct an imbalance. This analogy is all too close to the truth.

Running With Broken Legs
Psychiatrist Dr. Daniel Carlat has said:

"And where there is a scientific vacuum, drug companies are happy to insert a marketing message and call it science. As a result, psychiatry has become a proving ground for outrageous manipulations of science in the service of profit."

So, what happens when we let drug companies tell doctors what science is? We have an industry and a profession working together to maintain a house of cards theory in the face of contradictory evidence.

We have a global situation in which increases in prescribing are resulting in increases in severity of illness (including numbers and length of episodes) relative to those who have never been treated with medication.

To truly appreciate the breadth of evidence that states antidepressants are ineffective and unsafe, we have to get behind the walls that the pharmaceutical companies erect. We have to unearth unpublished data, data that they were hoping to keep in the dusty catacombs.

A now famous 2008 study in the New England Journal of Medicine by Turner et al sought to expose the extent of this data manipulation. They demonstrated that, from 1987 to 2004, 12 antidepressants were approved based on 74 studies. Thirty-eight were positive, and 37 of these were published. Thirty-six were negative (showing no benefit), and 3 of these were published as such while 11 were published with a positive spin (always read the data not the author's conclusion!), and 22 were unpublished.

In 1998 tour de force, Dr. Irving Kirsch, an expert on the placebo effect, published a meta-analysis of 3,000 patients who were treated with antidepressants, psychotherapy, placebo, or no treatment and found that only 27% of the therapeutic response was attributable to the drug's action.

This was followed up by a 2008 review, which invoked the Freedom of Information Act to obtain access to unpublished studies, finding that, when these were included, antidepressants outperformed placebo in only 20 of 46 trials (less than half!), and that the overall difference between drugs and placebos was 1.7 points on the 52 point Hamilton Scale. This small increment is clinically insignificant, and likely accounted for by medication side effects strategically employed (sedation or activation).

When active placebos were used, the Cochrane database found that differences between drugs and placebos disappeared, given credence to the assertion that inert placebos inflate perceived drug effects.

The finding of tremendous placebo effect in the treatment groups was also echoed in two different meta-analyses by Khan et al who found a 10% difference between placebo and antidepressant efficacy, and comparable suicide rates. The most recent trial examining the role of "expectancy" or belief in antidepressant effect, found that patients lost their perceived benefit if they believed that they might be getting a sugar pill even if they were continued on their formerly effective treatment dose of Prozac.

The largest, non-industry funded study, costing the public $35 million dollars, followed 4000 patients treated with Celexa (not blinded, so they knew what they were getting), and found that half of them improved at 8 weeks. Those that didn't were switched to Wellbutrin, Effexor, or Zoloft OR "augmented" with Buspar or Wellbutrin.

Guess what? It didn't matter what was done, because they remitted at the same unimpressive rate of 18-30% regardless with only 3% of patients in remission at 12 months.

How could it be that medications like Wellbutrin, which purportedly primarily disrupt dopamine signaling, and medications like Stablon which theoretically enhances the reuptake of serotonin, both work to resolve this underlying imbalance? Why would thyroid, benzodiazepines, beta blockers, and opiates also "work"? And what does depression have in common with panic disorder, phobias, OCD, eating disorders, and social anxiety that all of these diagnoses would warrant the same exact chemical fix?

Alternative options
As a holistic clinician, one of my bigger pet peeves is the use of amino acids and other nutraceuticals with "serotonin-boosting" claims. These integrative practitioners have taken a page from the allopathic playbook and are seeking to copy-cat what they perceive antidepressants to be doing.

The foundational "data" for the modern serotonin theory of mood utilizes tryptophan depletion methods which involve feeding volunteers amino acid mixtures without tryptophan and are rife with complicated interpretations.

Simply put, there has never been a study that demonstrates that this intervention causes mood changes in any patients who have not been treated with antidepressants.

In an important paper entitled Mechanism of acute tryptophan depletion: Is it only serotonin?, van Donkelaar et al caution clinicians and researchers about the interpretation of tryptophan research. They clarify that there are many potential effects of this methodology, stating:

"In general, several findings support the fact that depression may not be caused solely by an abnormality of 5-HT function, but more likely by a dysfunction of other systems or brain regions modulated by 5-HT or interacting with its dietary precursor. Similarly, the ATD method does not seem to challenge the 5-HT system per se, but rather triggers 5HT-mediated adverse events."

So if we cannot confirm the role of serotonin in mood and we have good reason to believe that antidepressant effect is largely based on belief, then why are we trying to "boost serotonin"?

Causing imbalances
All you have to do is spend a few minutes on survivingantidepressants.org or beyondmeds.com to appreciate that we have created a monster. Millions of men, women, and children the world over are suffering, without clinical guidance (because this is NOT a part of medical training) to discontinue psychiatric meds. I have been humbled, as a clinician who seeks to help these patients, by what these medications are capable of. Psychotropic withdrawal can make alcohol and heroin detox look like a breeze.

An important analysis by the former director of the NIMH makes claims that antidepressants "create perturbations in neurotransmitter functions" causing the body to compensate through a series of adaptations which occur after "chronic administration" leading to brains that function, after a few weeks, in a way that is "qualitatively as well as quantitatively different from the normal state."

Changes in beta-adrenergic receptor density, serotonin autoreceptor sensitivity, and serotonin turnover all struggle to compensate for the assault of the medication.

Andrews, et al., calls this "oppositional tolerance," and demonstrate through a careful meta-analysis of 46 studies demonstrating that patient's risk of relapse is directly proportionate to how "perturbing" the medication is, and is always higher than placebo (44.6% vs 24.7%). They challenge the notion that findings of decreased relapse on continued medication represent anything other than drug-induced response to discontinuation of a substance to which the body has developed tolerance. They go a step further to add:

"For instance, in naturalistic studies, unmedicated patients have much shorter episodes, and better long-term prospects, than medicated patients. Several of these studies have found that the average duration of an untreated episode of major depression is 12 - 13 weeks."

Harvard researchers also concluded that at least fifty percent of drug-withdrawn patients relapsed within 14 months. In fact:

"Long-term antidepressant use may be depressogenic . . . it is possible that antidepressant agents modify the hardwiring of neuronal synapses (which) not only render antidepressants ineffective but also induce a resident, refractory depressive state."

So, when your doctor says, "You see, look how sick you are, you shouldn't have stopped that medication," you should know that the data suggests that your symptoms are withdrawal, not relapse.

Longitudinal studies demonstrate poor functional outcomes for those treated with 60% of patients still meeting diagnostic criteria at one year (despite transient improvement within the first 3 months). When baseline severity is controlled for, two prospective studies support a worse outcome in those prescribed medication:

One in which the never-medicated group experienced a 62% improvement by six months, whereas the drug-treated patients experienced only a 33% reduction in symptoms, and another WHO study of depressed patients in 15 cities which found that, at the end of one year, those who weren't exposed to psychotropic medications enjoyed much better "general health"; that their depressive symptoms were much milder"; and that they were less likely to still be "mentally ill."

I'm not done yet. In a retrospective 10-year study in the Netherlands, 76% of those with unmedicated depression recovered without relapse relative to 50% of those treated.

Unlike the mess of contradictory studies around short-term effects, there are no comparable studies that show a better outcome in those prescribed antidepressants long term.

First Do No Harm
So, we have a half-baked theory in a vacuum of science that that pharmaceutical industry raced to fill. We have the illusion of short-term efficacy and assumptions about long-term safety. But are these medications actually killing people?

The answer is yes.
Unequivocally, antidepressants cause suicidal and homicidal behavior. The Russian Roulette of patients vulnerable to these "side effects" is only beginning to be elucidated and may have something to do with genetic variants around metabolism of these chemicals. Dr. David Healy has worked tirelessly to expose the data that implicates antidepressants in suicidality and violence, maintaining a database for reporting, writing, and lecturing about cases of medication-induced death that could make your soul wince.

What about our most vulnerable?
I have countless patients in my practice who report new onset of suicidal ideation within weeks of starting an antidepressant. In a population where there are only 2 randomized trials, I have grave concerns about postpartum women who are treated with antidepressants before more benign and effective interventions such as dietary modification and thyroid treatment. Hold your heart as you read through these reports of women who took their own and their childrens' lives while treated with medications.

Then there is the use of these medications in children as young as 2 years old. How did we ever get the idea that this was a safe and effective treatment for this demographic? Look no further than data like Study 329, which cost Glaxo Smith Klein 3 billion dollars for their efforts to promote antidepressants to children. These efforts required ghost-written and manipulated data that suppressed a signal of suicidality, falsely represented Paxil as outperforming placebo, and contributes to an irrepressible mountain of harm done to our children by the field of psychiatry.

RIP Monoamine Theory
As Moncrieff and Cohenso succinctly state:

"Our analysis indicates that there are no specific antidepressant drugs, that most of the short-term effects of antidepressants are shared by many other drugs, and that long-term drug treatment with antidepressants or any other drugs has not been shown to lead to long-term elevation of mood. We suggest that the term "antidepressant" should be abandoned."

So, where do we turn?
The field of psychoneuroimmunology dominates the research as an iconic example of how medicine must surpass its own simplistic boundaries if we are going to begin to chip away at the some 50% of Americans who will struggle with mood symptoms, 11% of whom will be medicated for it.

There are times in our evolution as a cultural species when we need to unlearn what we think we know. We have to move out of the comfort of certainty and into the freeing light of uncertainty. It is from this space of acknowledged unknowing that we can truly grow. From my vantage point, this growth will encompass a sense of wonder - both a curiosity about what symptoms of mental illness may be telling us about our physiology and spirit, as well as a sense of humbled awe at all that we do not yet have the tools to appreciate. For this reason, honoring our co-evolution with the natural world, and sending the body a signal of safety through movement, diet, meditation, and environmental detoxification represents our most primal and most powerful tool for healing.

Dr. Brogan is allopathically and holistically trained in the care of women at all stages of the reproductive cycle experiencing mood and anxiety symptoms, including premenstrual dysphoria (PMDD), pregnancy and postpartum symptomatology, as well as menopause-related illness.

Learn more by taking Dr. Kelly Brogan's E-Course Beyond Medication, or receive it free by becoming a member of Greenmedinfo.com today.


SOTT Comment: Read more about the drugging of America's youth and some additional mind-altering facts about legal drug addiction in the U.S:

• The Psychiatric Drugging of Infants and Toddlers: An American Phenomenon
• Number of 0-5 year olds on psychotropic drugs skyrockets 42% since 2009
• Turning classrooms into labs: ADHD diagnosis and the druggingof kids
• Big Pharma and Wall Street Profit from the Drugging of Children and Elderly
• Mainstream Media and Medical Journals Pushing ADHD Drugs for Six-year-olds

Also watch the Documentary Generation RX for more disturbing facts about the side effects that SSRI's have on children, adolescents and young adults:

In the 1990s, Director/ Producer Kevin P. Miller began producing documentaries about the great social issues of our time. Miller investigates collusion between pharmaceutical manufacturers and their regulatory watchdogs at the FDA, and also questions whether we have forced millions of children onto pharmaceutical drugs for commercial rather than scientific reasons.

Additional information about the placebo effect:

• Placebos, nocebos, and the symptoms of healing

The placebo effect is one of the most misunderstood, misrepresented, misused and maligned effects of health and medical products.

Placebo is an interesting word, the definition of which helps to create a false image of the placebo effect. Placebo, according to Webster, is "a usually pharmacologically inert preparation prescribed more for the mental relief of the patient than for its actual effect on a disorder". Written as if placebos do not provide physical relief. But they do.

Many doctors prescribe 'placebos' because they recognize that mental relief is an important aspect of physical relief. Even if they don't understand the details. These doctors are not 'deceiving', they are acting in the best interests of the patient. They often prescribe 'patent medicines' that, in theory, will have no effect on the condition, rather than an alternative medicine - because paying more, and going to a pharmacy, increases the placebo effect.

• Study shows placebos work, even when patients know they're phony
• Placebo Works as Well as Antidepressant Drugs
• Almost half of U.S. doctors use placebos
• Placebo effect: Faith-based healing

[Hervé]

CIA mind-control program: did it really end?

Jan9, 2014 by Jon Rappoport
http://www.nomorefakenews.com

Follow me on a few twists and turns down the rabbit hole.

Start with this untitled June 27, 1994, document, stored at the National Security Archive at The George Washington University.

It was written by a CIA advisory committee, and forwarded to the Presidential Committee on Human Radiation Experiments, which was preparing public hearings in 1994.

Here is a key quote:

“In the 1950s and 60s, the CIA engaged in an extensive program of human experimentation [MKULTRA], using drugs, psychological, and other means, in search of techniques to control human behavior for counterintelligence and covert action purposes… Most of the MKULTRA records were deliberately destroyed in 1973 by the order of then DCI Richard Helms…Helms testified that he agreed to destroy the records because ‘there had been relationships with outsiders in government agencies and other organizations and that these would be sensitive in this kind of a thing but that since the [mind-control] program was over and finished and done with, we thought we would just get rid of files as well, so that anybody who assisted us in the past would not be subject to follow-up questions, embarrassment, if you will.’”

Helms was not only admitting he destroyed the records, he was stating that the MKULTRA program deployed, through contracts, “outsiders” to carry out mind control experiments. He was determined to protect the outsiders, to keep their identity and work secret. He was also dedicated to preventing these people from exposing the nature of their mind-control work.

Subsequently, some of these “outsiders” have been revealed. But no one really knows how deep, far, and wide the CIA penetrated into academic and research communities to enable MKULTRA.

Helms also stated that MKULTRA was ended. There is no reason to believe this. Therefore, his justification for destroying huge numbers of documents was absurd.

For example: Back in the early 1990s, I interviewed John Marks, author of Search for the Manchurian Candidate. This was the book that exposed the existence of the infamous CIA MKULTRA program.

John Marks related the following facts to me. He had filed many Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests to the CIA for documents relating to their mind-control program. He got nothing back.

Finally, as if to play a joke on him, someone at the CIA sent him 10 boxes of financial and accounting records. The attitude was, “Here, see what you can do with this.”

I’ve seen some of those records. They’re very boring reading.

But Marks went through them, and lo and behold, he found he could piece together MKULTRA projects, based on the funding data.

Eventually, he assembled enough information to begin naming names. He conducted interviews. The shape of MKULTRA swam into view. And so he wrote his book, Search for the Manchurian Candidate.

Marks continued to press the CIA for more MKULTRA information. He explained to me what then happened. A CIA official told him the following: in 1962, after ten years of mind-control experiments, the whole program—which supposedly was shut down—had actually been shifted over to another internal CIA department, the Office of Research and Development (ORD).

The ORD had a hundred boxes of information on their MKULTRA work, and there was no way under the sun, Marks was told, that he was ever going to get his hands on any of that. It was over. It didn’t matter how many FOIA requests Marks filed. He was done. The door was shut. Goodbye.

The CIA went darker than it ever had before. No leaks of any kind would be permitted.

In case there is any doubt about it, the idea of relying on the CIA to admit what it has done in the mind-control area, what it is doing, and what it will do should be put to bed by John Mark’s statements. The CIA always has been, and will continue to be, a rogue agency beyond the reach of the law.

So…can we go back in time and find evidence that the CIA embraced goals that would take their mind-control research right up through the present day?

Yes.

Goal: develop drugs to transform individuals…and even, by implication, society.

Drug research going far beyond the usual brief descriptions of MKULTRA.

The intention is there, in the record.

A CIA document was included in the transcript of the 1977 US Senate Hearings on MKULTRA, the CIA’s mind-control program.

The document is found in Appendix C, starting on page 166. It’s simply labeled “Draft,” dated 5 May 1955.

It begins: “A portion of the Research and Development Program of [CIA’s] TSS/Chemical Division is devoted to the discovery of the following materials and methods:”

What followed was a list of hoped-for drugs and their uses.

The range of CIA intentions was stunning.

Some of my comments gleaned from studying that drug list:

The CIA wanted to find substances which would “promote illogical thinking and impulsiveness.” Serious consideration should be given to the idea that psychiatric medications, food additives, herbicides, and industrial chemicals (like fluorides) would eventually satisfy that requirement.

The CIA wanted to find chemicals that “would produce the signs and symptoms of recognized diseases in a reversible way.” This suggests many possibilities—among them the use of drugs to fabricate diseases and thereby give the false impression of germ-caused epidemics.

The CIA wanted to find drugs that would “produce amnesia.” Ideal for discrediting whistleblowers, dissidents, certain political candidates, and other investigators. (Scopolamine, for example.)

The CIA wanted to discover drugs which would produce “paralysis of the legs, acute anemia, etc.” A way to make people decline in health as if from diseases.

The CIA wanted to develop drugs that would “alter personality structure” and thus induce a person’s dependence on another person. How about dependence in general? For instance, dependence on institutions, governments?

The CIA wanted to discover chemicals that would “lower the ambition and general working efficiency of men.” Sounds like a general description of the devolution of society.

As you read the list yourself, you’ll see more implications/possibilities.

Here, from 1955, are the types of drugs the MKULTRA men at the CIA were looking for. These are direct quotes from the document:

Substances which will promote illogical thinking and impulsiveness to the point where the recipient would be discredited in public.

• Substances which increase the efficiency of mentation and perception.

• Materials which will prevent or counteract the intoxicating effect of alcohol.

• Materials which will promote the intoxicating effect of alcohol.

• Materials which will produce the signs and symptoms of recognized diseases in a reversible way so that they may be used for malingering, etc.

• Materials which will render the induction of hypnosis easier or otherwise enhance its usefulness.

• Substances which will enhance the ability of individuals to withstand privation, torture and coercion during interrogation and so-called “brain-washing”.

• Materials and physical methods which will produce amnesia for events preceding and during their use.

• Physical methods of producing shock and confusion over extended periods of time and capable of surreptitious use.

• Substances which produce physical disablement such as paralysis of the legs, acute anemia, etc.

• Substances which will produce “pure” euphoria with no subsequent let-down.

• Substances which alter personality structure in such a way that the tendency of the recipient to become dependent upon another person is enhanced.

• A material which will cause mental confusion of such a type that the individual under its influence will find it difficult to maintain a fabrication under questioning.

• Substances which will lower the ambition and general working efficiency of men when administered in undetectable amounts.

• Substances which promote weakness or distortion of the eyesight or hearing faculties, preferably without permanent effects.

• A knockout pill which can surreptitiously be administered in drinks, food, cigarettes, as an aerosol, etc., which will be safe to use, provide a maximum of amnesia, and be suitable for use by agent types on an ad hoc basis.

• A material which can be surreptitiously administered by the above routes and which in very small amounts will make it impossible for a man to perform any physical activity whatsoever.

That’s the list.

At the end of this 1955 CIA document, the author [unnamed] makes this remark: “In practice, it has been possible to use outside cleared contractors for the preliminary phases of this [research] work…” That’s further evidence that the CIA mind control program, going forward, would rely on and use a large number of non-CIA researchers—evidence of which, as noted above, was destroyed by CIA director Richard Helms in 1973.

If you examine the full range of psychiatric drugs developed since 1955, you’ll see that a number of them fit the CIA’s agenda.

Speed-type chemicals, which addle the brain over the long term, to treat so-called ADHD.

Anti-psychotic drugs, to render patients more and more dependent on others (and government) as they sink into profound disability and incur motor brain damage. Dr. Peter Breggin, author of Toxic Psychiatry, places the number of Americans whose brains have been damaged by these anti-psychotic drugs at 300,000, at minimum.

The SSRI antidepressants, like Prozac and Paxil and Zoloft, which produce extreme and debilitating highs and lows—and also push people over the edge into committing violence.

Tranquilizers, which debilitate the thinking process for millions of users.

These drugs drag the whole society down into lower and lower levels of consciousness and action.

If that’s the goal of a very powerful and clandestine government agency…it’s succeeding.

And now, using the pretext of lone-shooter mass violence (Aurora, Sandy Hook, etc.), the US government, out in the open, is funding massive research to “map the brain,” in order to…what?

Control the brain. “Return it to a state of normalcy.”

Meaning: create a society in which obedience to authority is the prime human value.

Every day, the neuro-psychiatric establishment is making the CIA’s 1955 dream come true.

MKULTRA mind control dead and buried? Not a chance.

Jon Rappoport

[Hervé]

At the root of why psych drugs became the choice WMD:

US musicians drafted into the CIA’s MKULTRA

Jan12, 2015 by Jon Rappoport
NoMoreFakeNews.com

The CIA mind-control program is medically based. It employs doctors and psychiatrists and researchers. This isn’t just some small group of fringe whackos who have an idea about altering human behavior.

CIA contractors in the private sector resonate with the goals of the program, because they are already trying, in their own way, to change human reaction and thought.

They don’t need a nudge. MKULTRA isn’t foreign territory for them.

In fact, the entire field of psychiatry is about mind control: the diagnosis of arbitrarily labeled mental disorders; the application of toxic drugs to alter brain response, modulate neurotransmitters, and affect hormonal outputs; and the propagandizing of the population to accept the notion that everyone will experience a mental disorder in his/her lifetime.

Biological/chemical psychiatry is, in its current form, a stunning version of MKULTRA right out in the open, with the blessing and backing of national governments, court systems, prisons, mainstream media, and academia.

Here is a bit of US history that illustrates the reach of the CIA’s infamous mind-control program, MKULTRA.

Some would say the 1940s and 50s were the most vibrant and innovative period in the history of jazz.

During those years, it was common knowledge that musicians who were busted for drug use were shipped, or volunteered to go, to Lexington, Kentucky. Lex was the first Narcotics Farm and US Health Dept. drug treatment hospital in the US.

According to diverse sources, here’s a partial list of the reported “hundreds” of jazz musicians who went to Lex: Red Rodney, Sonny Rollins, Chet Baker, Sonny Stitt, Howard McGhee, Elvin Jones, Zoot Sims, Lee Morgan, Tadd Dameron, Stan Levey, Jackie McLean.

It’s also reported that Ray Charles was there, and William Burroughs, Peter Lorre, and Sammy Davis, Jr.

It was supposed to be a rehab center. A place for drying out.

But it was something else too. Lex was used by the CIA as one of its MKULTRA centers for experimentation on inmates.

The doctor in charge of this mind control program was Harris Isbell. Ironically, Isbell was, at the same time, a member of the FDA’s Advisory Committee on the Abuse of Depressant and Stimulant Drugs.

Isbell gave LSD and other psychedelics to inmates at Lex.

At Sandoz labs in Switzerland, Dr. Albert Hofmann, the discoverer of LSD, also synthesized psilocybin from magic mushrooms. The CIA got some of this new synthetic from Hofmann and gave it to Isbell so he could try it out on inmates at Lex.

MKULTRA was a CIA program whose goal was to control minds…in part through the use of drugs.

Isbell worked at Lex from the 1940s through 1963. It is reported that in one experiment, Isbell gave LSD to 7 inmates for 77 consecutive days. At 4 times the normal dosage. That is a chemical hammer of incredible proportions.

To induce inmates to join this drug experiment, they were offered the drug of their choice, which in many cases was heroin. So at a facility dedicated to drying out and rehabbing addicts, addicts were subjected to MKULTRA experiments and THEN a re-establishment of their former habit.

Apparently as many as 800 different drugs were sent to Isbell by the CIA or CIA allies to use on patients at Lex. Two of the allies? The US Navy and the US National Institute of Mental Health—further proof that MKULTRA extended beyond the CIA.

In another MKULTRA experiment at Lex, nine men were strapped down on tables. They were injected with psilocybin. Lights were beamed at their eyes–a typical mind control component.

During Isbell’s tenure, no one knows how many separate experiments he ran on the inmates. No one knows what other mind-control programming he attempted to insert along with the drugs.

As I say, Lex was the main stop for drying out for NY jazz musicians. How many of them were taken into these MKULTRA programs?

As Martin Lee explains in his book, Acid Dreams, “It became an open secret…that if the [heroin] supply got tight [on the street], you could always commit yourself to Lexington, where heroin and morphine were doled out as payment if you volunteered for Isbell’s whacky drug experiments. (Small wonder Lexington had a return rate of 90%.)”

A June 15, 1999, Counterpunch article by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair, “CIA’s Sidney Gottlieb: Pusher, Assassin & Pimp— US Official Poisoner Dies,” contains these quotes on Dr. Isbell:

“Gottlieb also funded the experiments of Dr. Harris Isbell. Isbell ran the Center for Addiction Research in Lexington, Kentucky. Passing through Isbell’s center was a captive group of human guinea pigs in the form of a steady stream of black heroin addicts. More than 800 different chemical compounds were shipped from Gottlieb to Lexington for testing on Isbell’s patients.

“Perhaps the most infamous experiment came when Isbell gave LSD to seven black men for seventy-seven straight days. Isbell’s research notes indicates that he gave the men ‘quadruple’ the ‘normal’ dosages. The doctor marveled at the men’s apparent tolerance to these remarkable amounts of LSD. Isbell wrote in his notes that ‘this type of behavior is to be expected in patients of this type.’

“In other Gottlieb-funded experiment at the Center, Isbell had nine black males strapped to tables, injected them with psylocybin, inserted rectal thermometers, had lights shown in their eyes to measure pupil dilation and had their joints whacked to test neural reactions.”

If you think these experiments were so extreme they bear no resemblance to modern psychiatry, think again. Thorazine, the first so-called anti-psychotic drug, was researched on the basis of its ability to make humans profoundly quiescent and passive. Electroshock and lobotomy are straight-out torture techniques that also destroy parts of the brain. SSRI antidepressants increase violent behavior, including homicide. Among its many documented effects, Ritalin can induce hallucinations and paranoia.

Well, all these effects are part and parcel of the original (and ongoing) MKULTRA.

Jon Rappoport

[Hervé]

Manufacturing the Deadhead: A product of social engineering…

By Joe Atwill and Jan Irvin

May 13, 2013; Version 3.7, May 17, 2013

In 2012 Jan Irvin made an important discovery. In the course of re-publishing The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross by the Dead Sea Scrolls scholar John Allegro,[1] Irvin had been researching the letters of one of Allegro’s most prominent critics, Gordon Wasson, at various university archives (including Princeton, Yale, Columbia, Dartmouth, and the Hoover Institute at Stanford) when he came across primary documents--letters actually written by Wasson--showing that he had worked with the CIA.[2]

Though Gordon Wasson was both chairman for the Council on Foreign Relations and the Vice President of Public Relations for J.P. Morgan Bank, he is most famous as the individual who “discovered”, or more accurately popularized, magic mushrooms. An article in Life magazine described fantastic visions and experiences Wasson claimed to have had while under their influence (see Life, May 13, 1957 – Seeking the Magic Mushroom). Wasson’s claims were the first description of the effects of psilocybin (“magic”) mushrooms presented to the general public.

Irvin saw troubling implications in his discovery. He was aware, of course, of the CIA’s infamous Project MK-ULTRA, in which the organization had given LSD to unsuspecting U.S. citizens. He also knew of the many conspiracy theories claiming that the government has been somehow involved with the creation of the “drug culture.” He was also aware of Dave McGowan's research on the drug and music movement that had come out of Laurel Canyon in the 1960‘s, which showed that many of the “rock idols” who created it were the children of members of military intelligence.[3]

So the fact that a member of the CIA had also been involved with the discovery of Psilocybe mushrooms fit into a large collection of troubling linkages between the American government and the drug culture that emerged during the 1960’s. Irvin decided to do further research into the government's involvement with the “psychedelic movement”. An obvious question he hoped to answer was: Had Wasson been somehow involved with MK-ULTRA?

During this research, Irvin came in contact with another scholar, Joe Atwill, author of Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus. Atwill’s research into the origins of Christianity had led him to conclude that Rome had invented the religion. Further, he believed that the Caesars had deliberately brought about the Dark Ages. They had used Christianity as a mind control device to give slavery a religious context intended to make it difficult for serfs to rebel. Like Irvin, Atwill had become suspicious of the U.S. government’s many connections to the psychedelic movement, which reminded him of the Caesars’ intellectual debasing of their population to help bring on the Dark Ages.

When comparing the results of their research, Irvin and Atwill developed a theory about the origin of the psychedelic movement of the 1960’s: The “counterculture” had been developed by elements within the U.S. government and banking establishment as part of a larger plan to bring about a new Dark Age; or, as it was marketed to potential victims, an ‘archaic revival.’[4]

In 1992 Terence McKenna published in his book Archaic Revival:

These things are all part of the New Age, but I have abandon that term in favor of what I call the Archaic Revival—which places it all in a better historical perspective. When a culture loses its bearing, the traditional response is to go back in history to find the previous “anchoring model.” An example of this would be the breakup the medieval world at the time of the Renaissance. They had lost their compass, so they went back to Greek and Roman models and created classicism—Roman law, Greek aesthetics, and so on.[5] [emphasis added] ~ Terence McKenna

In another chapter regarding his timewave theory, he states:

Within the timewave a variety of “resonance points” are recognized. Resonance points can be thought of as areas of the wave that are graphically the same as the wave at some other point within the wave, yet differ from it through having different quantified values. For example, if we chose an end date or zero date of December 21, 2012 A.D., then we find that the time we are living through is in resonance with the late Roman times and the beginning of the Dark Ages in Europe.

Implicit in this theory of time is the notion that duration is like a tone in that one must assign a moment at which the damped oscillation is finally quenched and ceases. I chose the date December 21, 2012 A.D., as this point because with that assumption the wave seemed to be in the “best fit” configuration with regard to the recorded facts of the ebb and flow of historical advance into connectedness. Later I learned to my amazement that this same date, December 21, 2012, was the date assigned as the end of their calendrical cycle by the classic Maya, surely one of the world’s most time-obsessed cultures. [6] ~ Terence McKenna

Notice that the date McKenna chose – 12-21-2012 – was earlier falsely claimed to be the date of the Apocalypse foreseen in the Mayan calendar by professor and CIA agent Michael Coe in his 1966 book The Maya[7], although it was changed by McKenna in 1993 from Coe’s 2011 date to December 21, 2012.[8] Moreover, McKenna sees this date as resonating with the beginning of the Dark Ages. If, as the authors believe, the psychedelic movement was part of a general plan to usher in a new Dark Age, this suggests that McKenna’s promotion of a drug-fueled “archaic revival” was also a part of the plan.

I guess am a soft Dark Ager. I think there will be a mild dark age. I don’t think it will be anything like the dark ages that lasted a thousand years […][9]
~ Terence McKenna

Most today assume that the CIA and the other intelligence-gathering organizations of the U.S. government are controlled by the democratic process. They therefore believe that MK-ULTRA’s role in creating the psychedelic movement was accidental “blowback.” Very few have even considered the possibility that the entire “counterculture” was social engineering planned to debase America’s culture – as the name implies. The authors believe, however, that there is compelling evidence that indicates that the psychedelic movement was deliberately created. The purpose of this plan was to establish a neo-feudalism by the debasing of the intellectual abilities of young people to make them as easy to control as the serfs of the Dark Ages. One accurate term used for the individuals who were victims of this debasing was "Deadhead," which is an equivocation for a "dead mind" or "a drugged, thoughtless person."

Aldous Huxley predicted that drugs would one day become a humane alternative to “flogging” for rulers wishing to control “recalcitrant subjects.” He wrote in a letter to his former student George Orwell in 1949:

But now psycho-analysis is being combined with hypnosis; and hypnosis has been made easy and indefinitely extensible through the use of barbiturates, which induce a hypnoid and suggestible state in even the most recalcitrant subjects.

Within the next generation I believe that the world’s rulers will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience. [emphasis added] [10]
~ Aldous Huxley

Decades later, one of the CIA’s own MK-ULTRA researchers, Dr. Louis Jolyon West, while citing Huxley had this to say on the matter:

The role of drugs in the exercise of political control is also coming under increasing discussion. Control can be through prohibition or supply. The total or even partial prohibition of drugs gives the government considerable leverage for other types of control. An example would be the selective application of drug laws permitting immediate search, or “no knock” entry, against selected components of the population such as members of certain minority groups or political organizations.

But a government could also supply drugs to help control a population. This method, foreseen by Aldous Huxley in Brave New World (1932), has the governing element employing drugs selectively to manipulate the governed in various ways.

To a large extent the numerous rural and urban communes, which provide a great freedom for private drug use and where hallucinogens are widely used today, are actually subsidized by our society. Their perpetuation is aided by parental or other family remittances, welfare, and unemployment payments, and benign neglect by the police. In fact, it may be more convenient and perhaps even more economical to keep the growing numbers of chronic drug users (especially of the hallucinogens) fairly isolated and also out of the labor market, with its millions of unemployed. To society, the communards with their hallucinogenic drugs are probably less bothersome--and less expensive--if they are living apart, than if they are engaging in alternative modes of expressing their alienation, such as active, organized, vigorous political protest and dissent. […] The hallucinogens presently comprise a moderate but significant portion of the total drug problem in Western society. The foregoing may provide a certain frame of reference against which not only the social but also the clinical problems created by these drugs can be considered.[11]
~ Louis Jolyon West

The idea of drugs for control seems to be an ancient one. Italian professor Piero Camporesi, writing on Medieval Italy in his book Bread of Dreams, says:

Adulterated breads had been put into circulation by the untori of Public Health: criminal attacks orchestrated by the ‘provisionary judges’ who were supposed to oversee the well-balanced provisioning of the public-square.

On the 21st, a Sunday, with Monday approaching, Master … [blank in the manuscript] Forni, Judge of provisions in the square of Modena, was arrested, along with the bakers, for having had forty sacks of bay leaf ground to be put into the wheat flour to make bread for the square, where it caused the poverty to those who brought it to worsen, so that for two days there were many people sick enough to go crazy, and during this time they could not work or help their families.[12]

Camporesi later continues:

It would be wrong to suppose that one must wait for the arrival of eighteenth-century capitalism, or even of imperialism, in order to see the birth of the problem of the mass spreading of opium derivatives (first of morphine and then, today, of heroin) used to dampen the frenzy of the masses and lead them back – by means of dreams – to the ‘reason’ desired by the groups in power. The opium war against China, the Black Panthers ‘broken’ by drugs, and the ‘ebbing’ of the American and European student movements (supposing that hallucinogenic drugs were involved in the latter, as some believe), are the most commonly used examples – we don’t know with what relevance – to demonstrate how ‘advanced’ capitalism and imperialism have utilized mechanisms which induced collective dreaming and weakened the desire for renewal by means of visionary ‘trips’, in order to impose their will.

The pre-industrial age, too, even if in a more imprecise, rough and ‘natural’ manner, was aware of political strategies allied to medical culture, whether to lessen the pangs of hunger or to limit the turmoil in the streets. Certainly we could laugh at interventions which are so mild as to appear almost surreal, amateurish or improvised; but we must not forget that both in theory and in practice the ‘treatment of the poor man’, cared for with sedatives and hallucinogenic drugs, corresponded to a thought-out medico-political design.[13]
~ Piero Camporesi

A key element in the creation of America’s drug counterculture was “The Grateful Dead,” a rock band that passed out LSD to people attending its concerts in the 1960’s. At their concerts listeners were encouraged to take LSD and to “tune in, turn on, and drop out.” An expression that instructed the LSD takers to abandon the modern world and join what McKenna coined the “archaic revival.”

There is a recording of Dr. Timothy Leary actually describing the retrograde culture that those who dropped out would participate in: https://youtube.com/watch?v=lKi4zoJPfFs. In this talk, Leary, Alan Watts, Alan Ginsberg, Gary Snyder and Allen Cohen describe how those that “tune in, turn on, drop out” would abandon modern culture and return to the status of a peasant.

[...]

Full article: http://www.gnosticmedia.com/manufact...and-jan-irvin/

[naste.de.lumina]

Psychiatrists now say non-conformity is a mental illness: only the sheeple are 'sane'

The so-called "condition" for why a person might choose to resist conformity has been labeled by the psychiatric profession as "oppositional defiant disorder," or ODD. The new DSM defines this made-up disease as an "ongoing pattern of disobedient, hostile and defiant behavior," and also lumps it in alongside attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, another made-up condition whose creator, Dr. Leon Eisenberg, admitted it to be phony on his death bed.

Are conditioned (brainwashed) people to accept that their 'think for itself' is a 'BUG' undesirable plant (DNA) or an infectious disease.

I am definitely a bug for this 'New Normal World'.

I am the fly that landed on his 'soup'.

[Hervé]

Here is how the manufacturing of a life-long pill consumer works:

Pill Pushers- A Personal Story

February 10, 2015

The medical profession is an extension of the pharmaceutical industry. Instead of curing us, many doctors are making us sick, preying on us for profit like drug traffickers.

by David Scott Douthit
(henrymakow.com)

This is the story of Matthew. He is my step grandson, who has been raised entirely by my wife since shortly after birth. I have know Matthew since he was eight-years-old. Although Matthew is a good kid, at that time he was struggling with what was called Autism, a label for a wide spectrum of abnormalities surfacing in early childhood.

Matthew's issues started shortly after he was given a vaccination for Measles, Mumps, Rubella. This is often the case for children with Autism. The doctors claim it is just coincidence. The critics claim it is the ethyl-mercury contained in the serum as a preservative that actually causes Autism.

Of course the doctors have an answer for the critics. That answer is to unleash a horde of government-paid spokesmen to dispel such pesky old wives tales. The Doctors also have a solution for autism. That solution is to unleash a horde of potent psychoactive chemicals to mask, stiffle, and cripple the dread disease, which just happens to reside within human beings.

Those chemicals include but are not limited to, Zyprexa, Seroquel, and Zoloft. Zyprexa was the subject of a Rolling Stone Magazine article clearly explaining how drugs are often marketed for conditions they were not developed for. This makes billions in profits for the stockholders, who risk their very fortunes to help humanity. You see, it is those overwhelming profits that help develop new drugs to help humanity. And so this cycle goes.

Meanwhile back on the block, kids like Matthew have to wade through a chemical maze designed to generate an entirely new perception of life.

POSTURING

That is where Matthew was when I came into the picture. The Doctors were working fervently to solve Matthews problems with a pill. And Matthew exhibited all sorts of problems too. He would have mini-seizures called "posturing".

(Matthew and his mother Rebecca)

Isn't it lovely how the Doctors always seem to hatch a clever euphemism to cover an ugly truth. Posturing consists of holding both hands out in front of the body, palms up as if being inspected. Matthew would then roll both beautiful brown eyes completely into the back of his head exposing just the whites of his eyes.

This would occur all throughout the day. Matthew seemed to be completely unaware of what occurred. It all seemed so strange to me, but my future wife assured me the doctors had told her this was perfectly normal. Of course it didn't have anything to do with those potent psychoactive chemicals...

It was those wonder-working chemicals that caught my interest. I accepted the Doctors' explanations for Zyprexa, Seroquel and Zoloft because I simply did not know enough. Ignorance is bliss. But when the Doctors added Adderall to Mathew's regime, they were pushing the very limits of credibility.

Adderall is an amphetamine class drug such as Ritalin. When Matthew was on Adderall, he exhibited behaviors very similar to crack heads. His eyes would roll in their sockets in a different way. His behavior at school had reached the point they were going to expel him. I convinced my wife, the Doctors were barbarians who had sold their souls for a free trip to Hawaii perk. I convinced her to take Matthew off all the drugs, to at least let his poor system clear.

Within two weeks, 80-90% of what the Doctors were calling Autism totally disappeared never to be seen again, including "posturing".

Matthew's behavior corrected itself. A new Matthew emerged from the ruins of the old, like say a Phoenix or something. The transformation was complete. The new un-drugged Matthew no longer shoveled Potato chips into his mouth, and he consequently lost a bunch of excess weight. He developed a vibrant sense of humor. He was a human being again.

The special school Matthew had been attending had a policy that required all parents to drug their children. Working in conjunction with the school, the doctors found fertile ground to traffic drugs. It all seems so "drug-dealer-like" to me, but what do I know I am just a parent?

In any event, Matthew was not welcome at the special school anymore, so for the very first time he ventured into the public school system. It was a daunting task, but something he lived up to. Isn't it weird how people excel when challenges are placed in front of them, and they are free to use their minds?

Many years later Matthew graduated from that public school system without incident, and with many new friends. He regularly works out with weights. He has many hobbies and interests, including girls which is far beyond the scope of this article.

Matthew is almost 20-years-old now and is looking forward to facing life's challenges, undrugged, unfettered, and flags flying in the wind.
--------

Also by David Scott Douthit-

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

See the logic? ...

!

That might give one an idea about why the insistence for getting everyone to get that MMR vaccine? As well as the current "Measles" propaganda.

[Hervé]

1,000 British soldiers given psychiatric help after consuming ‘zombie drug’ – new figures

Published time: April 16, 2015 12:52
Edited time: April 16, 2015 14:16
Get short URL

Reuters / Nigel Roddis

The British military is accused of failing to protect its soldier’s mental health. Figures show nearly 1,000 have sought psychiatric treatment after being given the MoD’s budget price anti-malarial drug Lariam.

A Freedom of Information (FoI) request revealed the figure is much higher than previously thought, with 994 service personnel being admitted to mental health clinics or psychiatric hospitals since 2008.

The figures only go back to 2007, so the true number may be much higher, as Lariam, also known as mefloquine, has been in use for much longer.

The MoD has consistently defended the drug, which is one of several it issues to troops, amid concerns that Lariam is contributing to an Armed Forces mental health epidemic. This is despite growing pressure from senior military figures, campaigners and relatives of those affected.

The drug, banned by US Special Forces two years ago, and which the UK military avoids giving to pilots or divers, is still issued to UK troops.

Its use continues despite evidence linking the anti-malarial to the 2012 Panjwai Massacre, in which a US soldier slaughtered 17 Afghan civilians after taking the drug.

Sergeant Robert Bales has since been sentenced to life imprisonment.

In an internal report, Roche, the drug’s manufacturer, described the killings as an “adverse event.”

Roche themselves have conceded that the side effects can include “hallucinations, psychosis, suicide, suicidal thoughts and self-endangering behavior” and may induce “serious neuropsychiatric disorders.”

The figures come as it was revealed a retired British general, who took the drug during service, is currently in a secure psychiatric unit.

Major General Alastair Duncan commanded British troops in Bosnia. His wife, Ellen, told the Independent:

“Like others, I believe that this is a scandal. If 1,000 troops have reported the effects then you can be sure there are others who have not. I know personally of several, and anecdotally of many more.

“The long-term effects of this will be more and more in evidence over the coming years.

She said the MoD was “staggeringly unprepared to deal with the fallout.”

In 2012, Dr Remington Nevin, a US Army epidemiologist whose research found the drug could be toxic to the brain, told the Daily Mail:

“Mefloquine is a zombie drug. It's dangerous, and it should have been killed off years ago.”

He said Lariam was “probably the worst-suited drug for the military,” adding that its side effects closely matched the symptoms of combat stress.

Considering why the drug remains in use, one former general speculated that it was a matter of economics over welfare.

Former marine Major General Julian Thompson led 3 Commando Brigade during the Falklands War. He told the Independent:

“I can only come to the conclusion that the MoD has a large supply of Lariam, and some ‘chairborne’ jobsworth in the MoD has decreed that as a cost-saving measure, the stocks are to be consumed before an alternative is purchased.”

Lariam is significantly cheaper than comparable anti-malarials, such as Doxycycline and Malarone.

An MoD spokesperson said:

“All our medical advice is based on the current guidelines set out by Public Health England.

“Based on this expert advice, the MoD continues to prescribe mefloquine (Lariam) as part of the range of malaria prevention treatments recommended, which help us to protect our personnel from this disease.”

The Labour Party responded to the revelations by promising to fully address the impacts and use of Lariam if the party comes to power in the May general election.

Shadow Defense Secretary Vernon Coaker told Channel 4: “Given the growing evidence of the potential damage caused by this drug we are committed to immediately reviewing its use should we form the next government.”

Read more
Army reviews notorious drug after Afghan massacre

​6 veterans per day seeking post-traumatic stress help – military charity

[danegeroussacredgeometry]

Fascinating! I am planning a LONG trip to South America and recently had a discussion with a friend about vaccines and whether we should get them before we go. I have been reading a lot of alternative news pointing to them being dangerous. I am going to have to read more into psychedelics and how they may be used for mind control. I have never thought of drugs like mushrooms and DMT to be dangerous bc no one has ever shown me the alternative side outside of doctors (whom I don't trust). Thank you for spending such a great deal of time putting all this information together for us Herve. While my experiences with drugs is not vast I cannot help but agree that there were certain times on hallucinogens when my thoughts had a mind of their own and I found myself a spectator in regards to what was happening.
Can't help to think that what destroys man's will, destroys man.

I hope you have a wonderful day!

[Hervé]

Posted by danegeroussacredgeometry (here)
[...]

Can't help to think that what destroys man's will, destroys man.

[...]

Cannot hit it more squarely:

Posted by Hervé (here)
Something to take into consideration with regards to hypnosis:

Here are the words from a very old oral tradition echoed to the ears of an apprentice to the Gypsy tradition (Pierre Derlon, Voyage au delà du Mental):

“Never in my life have I ever used hypnosis as my masters constantly repeated to me that what destroys Man’s will, destroys Man. Hypnosis destroys consciousness of motion and therefore massacres personality. For hypnosis is to a man’s mind what drug is to his body: a poison which, by killing his will, enslaves his soul into only perceiving lies.

“The difference between drugs and mental disciplines is that drugs kill; whereas, whichever ascetic discipline chosen, it strengthens/empowers. Man is prisoner of drugs, he is the master of the disciplines he subjects his body to in order to free his spirit from the gangue he is prisoner of.

"Man is ignorant of the fact that he is both a machine as well as its mechanics. He distances himself from nature and resorts to artifice. Artifice slowly kills him."

[danegeroussacredgeometry]

Posted by Hervé (here)

Posted by danegeroussacredgeometry (here)
[...]

[...]

Cannot hit it more squarely:

Posted by Hervé (here)
Something to take into consideration with regards to hypnosis:

Here are the words from a very old oral tradition echoed to the ears of an apprentice to the Gypsy tradition (Pierre Derlon, Voyage au delà du Mental):

“Never in my life have I ever used hypnosis as my masters constantly repeated to me that what destroys Man’s will, destroys Man. Hypnosis destroys consciousness of motion and therefore massacres personality. For hypnosis is to a man’s mind what drug is to his body: a poison which, by killing his will, enslaves his soul into only perceiving lies.

“The difference between drugs and mental disciplines is that drugs kill; whereas, whichever ascetic discipline chosen, it strengthens/empowers. Man is prisoner of drugs, he is the master of the disciplines he subjects his body to in order to free his spirit from the gangue he is prisoner of.

"Man is ignorant of the fact that he is both a machine as well as its mechanics. He distances himself from nature and resorts to artifice. Artifice slowly kills him."

Wow... reading that left me speechless. Sat at my computer for a good while before I knew how to respond. I appreciate you sharing that oral tradition. I have done hypnosis before and past lives came up. I realized that MANY lies were told to me during this session and it took me quite some time to sort it out. It's strange because I refuse to go to one again after a session was done on me where I had this... feeling I guess... or more an inclination from myself metaphorically whispering in my ear telling me not to say anything to the hypnotist about what I was hearing... I don't know why, but I listened. I had many past life memories come up naturally beforehand and I went to this person in hopes of bringing forth the small details. This voice of reason told me that what I was seeing were false light images (which I assumed meant that it wasn't real and for some reason I was trying to be tricked). I realized later on (after much meditation on the subject) that I WAS being tricked and something very powerful was doing all it could to appeal to my ego. This being has been after me my whole life. It still gives me the chills talking about that story... I came out of the session more confused than when I walked in. I have told everyone I know not to do hypnosis because of this experience and have had to find other ways to bring almost all of my past lives true information forward.

[Hervé]

Mental Health Agencies Prey on the Vulnerable

by Dale Evans (henrymakow.com)
April 21, 2015

Similar to the military industrial complex, Dale Evans says there is a social services complex that has a voracious need for clients to defend their budgets. They need to "help" us whether we need help or not.


The Ontario sex education curriculum will give "community stakeholders" access to children's records for purposes of "co-parenting". Who are these community stakeholders?

Let's say: "All roads lead to Rome". Rome is the psychiatric ward. In the report of the Select Committee on Mental Health, the stakeholders are listed in the back pages - all 200 of them. Seventy five are designated psychiatric facilities in Ontario. Just one of those gets $1,223,119,376 a year. The Hamilton health Service Corporation administers seven mental facilities.

In addition, there are children's mental health facilities, gambling and alcohol addiction centres, community network services, public health services, psychological testing services, ADHD clinics, intellectual disability centres, resource centres, government ministries, suicide prevention centres, secure child lockups, Children's Aid, on and on. There is BIG MONEY in disability.

Many of these agencies are private corporations funded by levels of government according to quotas. The salaries of the employees can be staggering - many over $100,000, $200,000 with benefits and retirement packages.

If your child ever says - "I want to end it all" or "I had a dream I killed myself", the child will be involuntarily committed. No community worker will risk having a suicide on their hands. Parents lose their children at that point. It would be medical neglect to oppose psychiatric treatment which includes dangerous drugs, shock and brain tampering.

CONSEQUENCES
What will be the unintended consequences of this? I have put this in the context of my own experience.

As a doctor's wife in Toronto, I have been called upon to handle many tragic situations. Two years ago, an elderly lady came to our clinic. She was very frail in body but robust in spirit and hopping mad. A "community care worker" told her to go to the hospital for a check up. When she arrived at the hospital, she was involuntarily committed to the psychiatric ward for a month. She had not even brought her toothbrush.

Because she had no family, she was grist for the mill. In order to certify her and remove her rights, psychiatrists prodded her to admit that she'd like to be dead. However cognitive tests failed to yield any evidence that she was incompetent. Rather, she had a fighting spirit to live. They had to release her.

While she was in the hospital, her Power of Attorney, a supposed trusted church minister took over her affairs. This adviser sold her house for $850,000, threw all her possessions in a dumpster and gave away her dog. The money was supposedly used to buy a house for unwed mothers.

The elderly lady asked for our help. Over the next months, I worked with the Member of Provincial Parliament, the Guardian's Office, a centre for Elderly Rights and the hospital president's office. I got all her medical files and found that due to the fact she had NOT been certified incompetent, the Guardian's Office simply had her write a letter changing her Power of Attorney.

The simple action of writing a letter transfering responsibilities from this minister to a reliable friend solved the problem. She got her money back and moved into a Retirement Home of her choice.


MONEY GUZZLING AGENCIES
The public naively believes that a benevolent government runs these "community partners". Many are private corporations funded by up to three levels of government. Their funding is based on quotas. In other words, they need clients. They can be a vicious and litigious lot that collect information on people to threaten and silence them.

In my experience, intake workers often misrepresent people's situations on assessment forms to make them dependents of the "community partner." Don't be fooled by the misuse of the word "community". They are profit-driven entities with tremendous power to make you their "partner". These are usually elaborate marketing schemes for psychiatric drugs.

A good example of this is the "Motherisk" program at Sick Children's Hospital run by Gideon Koren. Motherisk is partially funded by the drug company Duchesnay and has been involved in experiments on pregnant women with the drug "Diclectin". The Toronto Star only recently revealed this to the public ("Motherisk problems shrouded in mystery", Toronto Star, April 15, 2015).

This program also administered a "hair test" that is mired in controversy. Christine Rupert had her two toddlers taken into foster care in 2009 because of findings that she was a cocaine user. She is adamant that she had not touched the drug since 2006.

Adequate legal actions such as Exemption Forms and constant vigilance must be practised by the public. We should remain skeptical of any "community partners" marching in with their Jackboots to "help" us or our children.
------
- See more at: http://henrymakow.com/2015/04/Mental....H1v7CgNc.dpuf

[Hervé]

Psychiatric drugs kill 500k+ Western adults annually, few positive benefits – leading scientist

Published time: May 13, 2015 13:46
Edited time: May 14, 2015 06:22

Reuters / Siphiwe Sibeko

Psychiatric drugs lead to the deaths of over 500,000 people aged 65 and over annually in the West, a Danish scientist says. He warns the benefits of these drugs are “minimal,” and have been vastly overstated.

Research director at Denmark’s Nordic Cochrane Centre, Professor Peter Gøtzsche, says the use of most antidepressants and dementia drugs could be halted without inflicting harm on patients. The Danish scientist’s views were published in the British Medical Journal on Tuesday.

His scathing analysis will likely prove controversial among traditional medics. However, concern is mounting among doctors and scientists worldwide that psychiatric medication is doing more harm than good. In particular, they say antipsychotic drugs have been overprescribed to many dementia patients in a bid to calm agitated behavior.

Gøtzsche warns psychiatric drugs kill patients year in year out, and hold few positive benefits. He says in excess of half a million citizens across the Western world aged 65 and over die annually as a result of taking these drugs.

“Their benefits would need to be colossal to justify this, but they are minimal,” he writes.

“Given their lack of benefit, I estimate we could stop almost all psychotropic drugs without causing harm.”

Gøtzsche, who is also a clinical trials expert, says drug trials funded by big pharmaceutical companies tend to produce biased results because many patients took other medication prior to the tests.

He says patients cease taking the old drugs and then experience a phase of withdrawal prior to taking the trial pharmaceuticals, which appear highly beneficial at first.

The Danish professor also warns fatalities from suicides in clinical trials are significantly under-reported.

In the case of antidepressants venlafaxine and fluoxetine, Gøtzsche casts doubt over their efficacy. He said depression lifts in placebo groups given fake tablets almost as promptly as groups who partake in official clinical tests.

He also stressed the results of trials of drugs used to treat schizophrenia are disconcerting, while those for ADHD are ambiguous.

Commenting on the negative side effects of such pharmaceutical drugs, Gøtzsche argued the “short-term relief” appears to be replaced by “long term harm.”

“Animal studies strongly suggest that these drugs can produce brain damage, which is probably the case for all psychotropic drugs,” he said.

“Given their lack of benefit, I estimate we could stop almost all psychotropic drugs without causing harm – by dropping all antidepressants, ADHD drugs and dementia drugs … and using only a fraction of the antipsychotics and benzodiazepines we currently use.”

“This would lead to healthier and more long-lived populations.”

Gøtzsche says psychotropic drugs are “immensely harmful” if used for prolonged periods.

“They should almost exclusively be used in acute situations and always with a firm plan for tapering off, which can be difficult for many patients,” he adds.

Gøtzsche’s views are sharply contradicted by many experts in the field of mental health. But others, including a diverse group of medical experts and institutions affiliated with the Nordic Cochrane Centre, argue otherwise. The Nordic Cochrane Centre is an independent research hub dedicated to scrutinizing and monitoring the effects of health care.

The debate on psychiatric drugs has gathered momentum in recent times. In the discussion, published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), Gøtzsche’s arguments are contradicted by Professor of Mood Disorders Allan Young and John Crace. Crace, himself a psychiatric patient, writes for the Guardian.

Crace and Young say a broad body of research indicates the drugs are effective and that they are just as helpful as drugs for other ailments. They also argue mental health conditions are the fifth most significant contributor to disabilities worldwide.

While Gøtzsche stresses clinical trials bankrolled by pharma giants churn out skewered results, Young and Crace say the efficacy and safety of psychiatric medication continues to be monitored after research trials come to a close.

However, both Young and Crace acknowledge concern over the side effects and effectiveness of psychiatric medication.

“For some critics, the onus often seems to be on the drug needing to prove innocence from causing harm rather than a balanced approach to evaluating the available evidence,” they write.

“Whether concerns are genuine or an expression of prejudice is not clear, but over time many concerns have been found to be overinflated.”

The BMJ discussion is a preamble to the Maudsley debate at Kings College London on Wednesday. The debate takes place three times a year at the university’s Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience (IoPPN).

Wednesday’s debate focuses on the impacts of psychiatric medications, and poses the question of whether they prove more destructive for patients than beneficial.

Read more:​
Emotional toxicity of austerity eroding mental health, say 400 experts

‘More than a tragedy’: Research efforts to cure dementia falter, UK centers renew push

US spends most on this drug… and no one knows how it works

[Hervé]

Now here is a different tack taken on that subject:


Drugs Help Explain Modern World

by our Kuala Lumpur Correspondent, June 1, 2015


Hitler was off his head on "Pervitan" - Meth.

So many behaviors you find strange become obvious when you understand drugs.

Hollywood sets are "sexually charged" because they are all off their heads on Meth and cocaine.

In the old days - Julie Garland, Wizard Of Oz - they were all off their heads on benzedrine.

You could do a documentary on drug use by politicians, actors, armed forces etc...

Soooooooooooo many behaviors you find strange become obvious when you understand drugs.

When I went to night clubs, I could never understand people up all night and standing in the UTTER freezing cold in a tiny top and mini skirt seemingly unaffected by the weather. It was close time in 30 minutes but they kept lining up. Then I tried Meth for the first time in 1997 and then I understood.

Then Hitler raving on the podium and sweating like a pig onstage became clear. He was off his head on "Pervitan" - Meth. First synthesized by the Germans in 1932 and injected IV into Hitlers veins by Dr Morrel - a syphilis doctor and most likely jewish. For a man who hated Jews so much Hitler sure spent a lot of time surrounded by them, including his Jewish vegetarian cook. It will take another 50 years to unravel WW2.

Then watch Mussolini on the balconies raving - Meth! Completely off his chops and SOOOOOO obvious but I never saw a doco on it all till 2003.

Then all the crazy stuff Americans and Israeli's are doing. Thats METH! The Waffen SS lived on it. The British, Americans and Russians used Benzidrene.

Its worth several documentaries. This is why the German Army committed so many war crimes - they were off their heads on drugs most of the time. Three days of no sleep - revved up on Meth. This is where killing women and children becomes easy. Just ask the IDF who have one of the most massive drug problems of all the armed forces. They absolutely live on it.

AS FOR PAUL MCCARTNEY
I know a guy who was a stage actor. He ran a shop in London during the infamous swinging 60's. It was one of the first health food shops around. ALL, and I mean ALL of the who's who of the time came to that shop including The Beatles.

Jack told me that he too believed Paul McCartney was not the same man who started out. He said when they came to his large flat to hang out, Ringo would sit in the kitchen and not even speak to Paul. At the time he thought it very strange. When he first read of the theories about McCartney it made sense to him. He said Paul looked different. Many commented on this at the time.

Check out "Jack Potter" and "Wildcard" on you tube. Jack told me of all the perversions that go on and was one of the reasons he left the industry.
---

[Carmody]

Substances which will promote illogical thinking and impulsiveness to the point where the recipient would be discredited in public.

Substances which increase the efficiency of mentation and perception.

Materials which will prevent or counteract the intoxicating effect of alcohol.

Materials which will promote the intoxicating effect of alcohol.

Materials which will produce the signs and symptoms of recognized diseases in a reversible way so that they may be used for malingering, etc.

Materials which will render the induction of hypnosis easier or otherwise enhance its usefulness.

Substances which will enhance the ability of individuals to withstand privation, torture and coercion during interrogation and so-called “brain-washing”.

Materials and physical methods which will produce amnesia for events preceding and during their use.

Physical methods of producing shock and confusion over extended periods of time and capable of surreptitious use.

Substances which produce physical disablement such as paralysis of the legs, acute anemia, etc.

Substances which will produce “pure” euphoria with no subsequent let-down.

Substances which alter personality structure in such a way that the tendency of the recipient to become dependent upon another person is enhanced.

A material which will cause mental confusion of such a type that the individual under its influence will find it difficult to maintain a fabrication under questioning.

Substances which will lower the ambition and general working efficiency of men when administered in undetectable amounts.

Substances which promote weakness or distortion of the eyesight or hearing faculties, preferably without permanent effects.

A knockout pill which can surreptitiously be administered in drinks, food, cigarettes, as an aerosol, etc., which will be safe to use, provide a maximum of amnesia, and be suitable for use by agent types on an ad hoc basis.

A material which can be surreptitiously administered by the above routes and which in very small amounts will make it impossible for a man to perform any physical activity whatsoever.

I. G. Farben, in it's multitudinous disguises.

Monsanto, chemical companies, big pharma.

The fascist manipulation machine, brought back from Germany...at the end of WWII... as the spoils of war, by the bankers of the USA and the world (who financed it).

Who are, in turn, just a cover story for something far uglier.

'Rise of the fourth Reich, as written by Jim Marrs, and fleshed out, in detail, in the works by Joseph Farrell.

They went too fast, in WWII. They almost pulled it off, but they went a hair too fast, and it came into notice by some.

The set up is very specific, detailed and slowed, this time around. They are trying to leave nothing to chance.

[Hervé]

American Psycho: Has the United States lost its collective mind?

Published time: 15 Oct, 2015 14:26

© Lucas Jackson / Reuters

From Ferguson, Missouri to the deserts of Afghanistan the specter of US aggression is fueling the flames of civil strife and military conflict around an increasingly volatile planet. Much of the problem may be connected to the breakdown of the American psyche.

Before attempting to shed some light on America’s mental condition, let’s open with a pop quiz question: What is the top-selling prescription drug in the US? Nope, it’s not Viagra, not Prozac, forget the Percocet. If you don't know, take a peek in the medicine cabinet because there’s a high chance it’s lurking in there, right behind that purple people eater. Yes, you got it. The top-selling drug in the Land of the Free and Disturbed is an antipsychotic, happily named Abilify.

Once again: The top-selling drug in America is an antipsychotic. Now some might say that’s mental.

“To be a top seller, a drug has to be expensive and also widely used,” Steven Reidbord M.D. wrote in Psychology Today. “Abilify is both. It’s the 14th most prescribed brand-name medication, and it retails for about $30 a pill. Annual sales are over $7 billion, nearly a billion more than the next runner-up.”

Let those numbers seep into your brain for a moment: $7.2 billion dollars. $30 per pill. Although that might make for some laugh-out-loud late-night comedy, these numbers are no laughing matter.

This on top of the latest statistic that shows prescription drug spending in the US exploded in 2014 to nearly $374 billion, a whopping 13.1 percent increase in growth, according to a new report from IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics.

Aside from the fact that Americans are buying antipsychotic medication by the truckload, there’s another disturbing thing about Abilify: Nobody, not even the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), has any idea what makes it effective. According to the USPI label that accompanies each bottle:

“The mechanism of action of aripiprazole... is unknown. However, the efficacy of aripiprazole could be mediated through a combination of partial agonist activity at D2 and 5-HT1A receptors and… etc, etc.”

In other words, millions of Americans are ingesting an antipsychotic drug that not even the scientific community can say exactly what makes it work. Is that not in itself the very definition of insanity?

So where is the uproar, the protest, the media hype over this battle for the great American brain? Behind the wall of silence, there have been a few courageous experts who have broken rank with their colleagues - not to mention the omnipotent pharmaceutical industry - to blow the whistle on the abuse of psychiatric drugs in America.

Professional backlash
Joanna Moncrieff, an academic and practicing psychiatrist, is a long-standing critic of psychiatric drug treatment. Her 2009 book, The Myth of the Chemical Cure, was short-listed for the 'Mind Book of the Year.' In it, Moncrieff “exposes the traditional view that psychiatric drugs correct chemical imbalances as a dangerous fraud.”

According to Moncrieff’s landmark study, psychiatric drugs 'work' by “creating abnormal brain states, which are often unpleasant and impair normal intellectual and emotional functions along with other harmful consequences.”

As Jay Michaelson noted in The Daily Beast, administering such a powerful drug like Abilify “makes sense for their primary use: anti-psychotics like aripiprazole are administered to seriously ill people like schizophrenics. Abilify is a close cousin of Thorazine. Yet, now it’s the most profitable drug in America.”

[...]

Full article: https://www.rt.com/op-edge/318768-am...zombies-drugs/

[Hervé]

Does Prescribing Anti-psychotic Drugs to Infants, Toddlers and Young Children Meet the Definition of Reckless Endangerment?

By Dr. Gary G. Kohls Global Research, January 20, 2016

(This article was inspired by the following website: http://www.cchrint.org/issues/prescr...sendangerment/)

When physicians (or medical paraprofessionals) prescribe psychiatric drugs to children without the parent or legal guardian’s fully informed consent, the prescribers could reasonably be charged with reckless endangerment and/or child endangerment because such drugs commonly cause a multitude of well-known adverse effects, including the following short list: worsening depression, worsening anxiety, sleep disturbances, suicidality, homicidality, mania, psychoses, heart problems, growth disturbances, malnutrition, cognitive disabilities, dementia, microbiome disorders, stroke, diabetes, serious withdrawal effects, death, sudden death, etc. We physicians (not only psychiatrists) normally only spend a small amount of our scarce time warning about a few of the dozens of potential adverse effects when we recommend drug treatment – and apparently most American courts uphold this questionable action when the rare malpractice case manages to be heard in the legal system.

And yet, Child Protective Services has the legal right to charge parents with medical neglect for refusing to give their child a known neurotoxic or psychotoxic drug that wasn’t adequately tested either in the animal lab or in long-term clinical trials prior to being given marketing approval by the FDA.

This makes no sense to parents and can’t be explained by their lawyers, especially if the parents know more than their medical caregivers about the multitude of potentially serious dangers that such drugs could pose for their child. It is worth noting that psychiatrists admit that there is no scientific test in existence that proves that children deserve a permanent mental illness label (and getting brain-altering drugs for the rest of their lives).

Indeed, making a psychiatric diagnosis in this big business era of high volume/high turnover patient care is based largely on an unscientific, sometimes absurd checklist of patient behaviors, emotions or thoughts, often hurriedly obtained after a relatively short office visit. Checklists of signs or symptoms of a newly thought-up “mental illness” periodically are composed at the annual meetings of the American Psychiatric Association where the newly invented “disorder” is voted on (by a show of hands) by groups of volunteer psychiatrists, most of whom have financial and/or professional conflicts of interest. If a sufficient majority of convention attendees agree, the new diagnosis is then placed in the next Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM), which contains hundreds of other unscientific check-lists of “mental disorders”.

Ignoring the Warnings of Drug Regulatory Agencies
Psychiatrists have long admitted that none of their drugs ever cure anything or anyone. They also admit that there are no medical, laboratory, radiological or biopsy tests to confirm that any given psychiatric diagnosis is an actual medical condition.

There are, however, thousands of lab, radiology and biopsy tests that confirm the existence of the long-term neurotoxic effects of the multitude of synthetic psychoactive drugs that continue to be given out in combinations that have never been adequately tested for efficacy or safety – even in the animal labs.

Therefore what the courts have erroneously criminalized as parental neglect must be re-assessed by the legal system. The parent that refuses potentially hazardous psychiatric drugs for their child because they happen to know more about the drug’s dangers than their prescriber, should be supported rather than punished by the courts. And lawyers and judges interested in understanding the nature of the best neuroscience need to be increasingly mistrustful of psychiatrist “experts” who frequently have serious conflicts of interest when it comes to maintaining the prestige and/or economics of the big business of pharmaceuticals, medicine and psychiatry.

There have been more than 200 international drug regulatory agency warnings about the fact that psychiatric drugs can cause dangerous and potentially life-threatening effects (check them out at: http://www.cchrint.org/psychiatric-drugs/). When I was in medical practice, I was totally unaware of the existence of these warnings, so I suspect that most over-worked physicians and psychiatrists today are equally unaware. Undoubtedly, lawyers and judges are in the same boat.

The basic science-based warnings about the dangers of prescription drugs are easily available for anybody concerned with the health and welfare of our children’s brains and bodies, and parents are always more concerned and in many cases, more aware, than their doctors. Concerned parents should be cautious about allowing their vulnerable children to be given potentially toxic substances, especially when the drugs are being prescribed “off label” (ie, for indications that are not approved by the FDA).

The Legal Definition of Reckless Child Endangerment
“Reckless Endangerment” is a crime consisting of an act that created a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person, even if the accused person did not intend to harm the victim. However, the person must have acted in a way that showed a disregard for the foreseeable consequences of the actions.The charge may occur in various contexts, such as domestic cases, car accidents, construction site accidents, testing sites, domestic/child abuse situations, and hospital abuse. The penalties vary from state to state.

“Child Endangerment” refers to an act or omission thatplaces a child at risk of psychological, emotional or physical abuse. Child abuse based on the offense of child endangerment is normally a misdemeanor, but endangerment that results in mentalillness or serious physical illness or injury is a felony. The child who is subjected to child endangerment is called an abused child or a neglected child.

This means that an action or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker (or healthcare giver) that results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse, exploitation or an act or failure to act that presents an imminent risk of serious harm could result in legal action.

(As an aside, it must also be mentioned that there is a significant potential for serious neurological harm and/or vaccine-induced autoimmunity disorders (including the ME/CFS and “ASIA” syndromes) that can follow vaccinations that contain aluminum adjuvants and/or mercury. (http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/05/13/5294_aluminum_toxicity_and_vaccines_recent_basic)

Infants and small children are most at risk because they commonly get multiple doses of vaccines at a single well baby visit (at 2, 4 and 6 months of age when their immune systems and blood brain barriers are at their most immature and their body weight is at its smallest). Thus our smallest pediatric patients are much more at risk of developing, sometimes in a delayed fashion, autoimmune and neurotoxic disorders mentioned in the paragraph above. Astonishingly, deaths or damage because of vaccine injuries cannot be litigated in the United States because of the 1986 Reagan-era law that absolves multinational vaccine corporations of liability!)

Antipsychotic Drugs and Reckless Child Endangerment
The sobering data below has been gleaned from www.cchrint.org and https://www.cms.gov/medicare-medicai...-factsheet.pdf

1) The Medicaid Integrity Group (MIG) has identified issues with the utilization of the atypical antipsychotic drug therapy class. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves product labeling for prescription drugs. The MIG has found that some providers have prescribed atypical antipsychotics outside of FDA-approved product labeling for indication, age, dosage, or duration of therapy.

2) Despite their widespread use, atypical antipsychotics are not FDA approved for children younger than five years old and the use for the under-18 group has been controversial, with no long-term studies concerning brain shrinkage, brain damage or drug dependency. By and large, the studies that the FDA has approved for using antipsychotic drugs in those young children (whose brains were not hard-wired yet!) were poorly designed, of low power and showing only modest improvement in a very few select outcomes.

3) More than three-fourths of youths receiving Medicaid are taking psychiatric medications for an indication that is not FDA approved. Atypical antipsychotics are being used off-label to treat the so-called attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and aggressive behavior, indications for which the FDA has not granted approval.

4) According to a 2011 Medicaid survey, children taking antipsychotic medications almost always receive one of the newer, more expensive, “atypical” antipsychotic drugs. In the majority of patients the use is for an off-label indication.

5) The list of so-called atypical antipsychotics include Abilify, Clozaril, Geodon, Invega, Risperdal, Seroquel, Zyprexa, and Fanapt. They are promoted as being “safer” than the “first generation” anti-psychotic drugs like Thorazine or Haldol but they are actually only safer in that it is harder to commit suicide with them. In many respects, they are actually more dangerous, especially with long term use.

6) The use of antipsychotic drugs for very young American children with behavior problems approximately doubled between 1999 and 2007.

How Many American Pre-Schoolers are on Off Label Antipsychotics?
SOURCE: IMS, Vector One: National (VONA) and Total Patient Tracker (TPT) Database, Year 2013, Extracted April 2014.

http://www.cchrint.org/psychiatric-d...ntipsychotics/

In 2013 American psychiatrists and primary care physicians treated, off label, over 27,000 children below the age of 5 with antipsychotic drugs, drugs that are well known to be capable of causing permanent neurotoxic effects like brain atrophy (shrinkage), cognitive decline, sexual dysfunction, over-sedation and even Parkinson’s disease in children (among many other generalized toxic effects such as constipation, diabetes, obesity, sudden death and gynecomastia). It can be safely assumed that full information about all these known dangers of these brain-altering drugs is only rarely given to the parents by the prescribing physician prior to their child’s starting the drug. (For more on antipsychotic drug adverse effects, click on http://www.cchrint.org/psychiatric-drugs/antipsychoticsideeffects/

Below is the 2013 breakdown of antipsychotic drug use in America, separated out according to age group. It is important to be aware that normal (non-psychotic) voice-hearing, psychostimulant drug-induced psychosis, antipsychotic drug withdrawal psychosis and PTSD with flashbacks can be easily mis-diagnosed and therefore mis-treated (with antipsychotics) as “schizophrenia”. It is equally important to be aware that psychostimulant drug-induced mania, anti-depressant drug-induced mania, and antipsychotic drug withdrawal psychosis can also be mis-diagnosed as so-called “bipolar disorder” and thus mis-treated with antipsychotic drugs.

It is also important to note that antipsychotic drug withdrawal symptoms includenausea and vomiting, diarrhea. rhinorrhea (runny nose), diaphoresis (heavy sweating), myalgias (muscle pains), paresthesias (odd sensations such as burning, tingling, numbness), anxiety, hypersexuality, agitation, mania, insomnia, increased tremor, and voice-hearing.)

Recognizing these realities should give us all pause, especially since over 4,000 American toddlers were assaulted with these drugs in one year.


Age ... Number of Patients (2013)
0-1 Years ............ 654
2-3 Years ......... 3,760
4-5 Years ........24,363
6-12 Years .... 359,882
13-17 Years .. 490,272
18-24 Years .. 599,816
25-44 Years 1,987,933
45-64 Years 2,406,526

65 Year +.... 1,169,044

Grand Total: 6,845,303

Warnings From International Regulatory Agencies
There have been 72 warnings from eight countries (United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland and South Africa) about the harmful effects of antipsychotic drugs. These include the following:

• 17 warnings on antipsychotics causing heart problems
• 15 warnings on antipsychotics causing death/sudden death
• 9 warnings on antipsychotics causing weight gain
• 8 warnings on antipsychotics causing involuntary movements or movement disorders
• 7 warnings on antipsychotics causing strokes
• 7 warnings on antipsychotics causing withdrawal symptoms
• 6 warnings on antipsychotics causing convulsions, seizures or tremors
• 5 warnings on antipsychotics causing diabetes
• 5 warnings on antipsychotics causing birth defects
• 4 warnings on antipsychotics causing agitation
• 1 warning on antipsychotics causing mania and psychosis
• 1 warning on antipsychotics causing sexual dysfunction

Ignored Antipsychotic Drug Studies
There are 97 studies from seventeen countries (United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Netherlands, Australia, Spain, Turkey, Italy, Israel, Ireland, Denmark, New Zealand, China, France, Japan, Sweden, Taiwan) showing that antipsychotic drugs can cause harmful side effects. These include the following:

• 18 studies on antipsychotics causing diabetes or other metabolic problems
• 16 studies on antipsychotics causing weight gain/obesity
• 15 studies on antipsychotics causing death or increased mortality
• 9 studies on antipsychotics causing heart problems
• 4 studies on antipsychotics causing strokes
• 3 studies on antipsychotics causing Parkinson’s Disease
• 3 studies on antipsychotics having lack of efficacy
• 3 studies on antipsychotics causing cognitive decline or impairment
• 2 studies on antipsychotics causing brain shrinkage
• 2 studies on antipsychotics causing seizures or convulsions
• 2 studies on antipsychotics causing lowered bone mineral density
• 1 study on antipsychotics causing violence and homicidal ideation
• 1 study on antipsychotics causing psychosis and delusional thinking
• 1 study on antipsychotics causing tumors
• 1 study on antipsychotics causing birth defects
• 1 study on antipsychotics causing coma
• 1 study on antipsychotics causing sexual dysfunction

So the question must be asked again: Does prescribing off-label anti-psychotic drugs to vulnerable immunologically-immature infants, toddlers and young children meet the definition of reckless endangerment?

In a similar vein, one must ask if prescribing (to infants, toddlers and young children) off-label psychostimulants (such as the highly addictive drug Ritalin which is known to cause brain atrophy in some cases) or off-label antidepressants such as Paxil (which is known to cause permanent sexual dysfunction in some cases) also meets the definition of reckless endangerment.

And how about this question? Does injecting an untested (for long-term safety) mixture of mercury or aluminum-containing vaccines into the bodies of pregnant women, infants, toddlers and young children also meet the definition of reckless endangerment? (http://duluthreader.com/articles/201...ty_of_vaccines)

And we should also wonder about the injustice of prosecuting parents who are aware of the possible permanent dangers of psychiatric drugs and multiple simultaneous injections of vaccines and therefore logically refuse to allow their children to be potentially poisoned by them?

I suppose that the answers are blowing in the wind, but one can be certain that they will not be honestly addressed by the multitude of Big Pharma, Big Vaccine and Big Medicine industry-sponsored front group websites like WebMD, National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, Anxiety Disorders Association of America, Attention Deficit Disorder Association (ADDA), Children and Adults with ADD (CHADD), Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance, Screening for Mental Health, Inc, Signs of Suicide (SOS), Suicide Prevention Action Network USA (SPAN), TeenScreen, National Center for Mental Health Checkups, Mental Health America, the JED Foundation, etc, etc.

The (pseudo-) patient advocacy organizations (PAOs) with hidden conflicts of interest and paid-for hidden corporate agendas are almost as uncountable as the number of industry-funded lobby groups and Super PACs in Washington, DC. It should horrify us all to realize how effective they all are in emptying out our pocketbooks and bamboozling us all – a sad commentary on how brain-washable we American consumers are as we sucker for TV commercials, Big Pharma’s drug salespersons and their unaffordable prescription drugs, junk food and political promises.

Dr Kohls is a retired physician from Duluth, MN, USA. He writes a weekly column for the Reader, Duluth’s alternative newsweekly magazine. His columns mostly deal with the dangers of American fascism, corporatism, militarism, racism, malnutrition, psychiatric drugging, over-vaccination regimens, Big Pharma and other movements that threaten the environment or America’s health, democracy, civility and longevity. Many of his columns are archived at http://duluthreader.com/articles/cat...0_Duty_to_Warn

[Hervé]

SSRIs and Antidepressants Increase Mental Health Issues Confirmed

By Catherine J. Frompovich February 3, 2016

Something of pharmaceutical concern that the holistic/alternative medical community and the alternative press have been alleging for numerous years now, finally is being confirmed by a British Medical Journal paper published January 27, 2016.

Professor Peter C Gotzsche, MD, and several students published “Suicidality and aggression during antidepressant treatment: systematic review and meta-analyses based on clinical study reports” after reviewing and including 76 trials with 64,381 pages of clinical study reports for 18,526 patients—certainly not a small sampling!

What the researchers concluded from their extensive retrospective study of pharmaceutical trials dealing with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) was that for children and adolescents, the risks for suicidality and aggression doubled. What are some of the pharmaceuticals involved? Antidepressants Prozac® and its knock off-type drugs: Celexa®, Lexapro®, Luvox®, Paxil®, and Zoloft®, plus Effexor®, Remeron®, Serzone®, and Wellbutrin®.

What the BMJ paper’s authors concluded brings to mind that in many of the mass shootings and horrible events that have occurred in the USA in recent years, several of the perpetrators were known to have been taking, had been taking, or getting off mood altering prescription drugs.

Still, the BMJ paper states that

It is widely believed that the risk of suicide is not increased in adults, and support for this was provided by a Food and Drug Administration meta-analysis of about 100 000 patients.

However, that statistical analysis comes from FDA records. Personally, I have to question its authenticity since we know how much “the FDA is in bed with Big Pharma” to hawk Pharma’s products.

Getting back to children on SSRIs committing crimes, here is some information that seems to corroborate such “coincidences”:

Another Mass Shooting? Another Psychiatric Drug? Federal Investigation Long Overdue
http://www.cchrint.org/2012/07/20/th...hotropic-drug/

Every mass shooting over the last 20 years has one thing in common…and it’s not guns
http://www.naturalnews.com/039752_ma...pressants.html

Study: Psychiatric Drugs Linked to Violent Crime
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...-violent-crime

Young people on antidepressant drugs more likely to commit violent crime
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/heal...ent-crime.html

Psych Meds Linked to 90% of School Shootings
http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/psych-med...ool-shootings/

The Proven Dangers of Antidepressants
http://breggin.com/index.php%3Foptio...sk=view&id=196

Dr Peter R Breggin, MD, has this to say about the problem:

As a psychiatrist and as a medical expert, I have examined dozens of cases of individuals who have committed suicide or violent crimes while under the influence of the newer antidepressants such as Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Luvox and Celexa. In June in South Carolina, Christopher Pittman will go on trial for shooting his grandparents to death while they slept. Chris was twelve when his family doctor started him on Zoloft.

Three weeks later the doctor doubled his dose and one week later Chris committed the violent acts. In other cases, a fourteen-year-old girl on Prozac fired a pistol pointblank at a friend but the gun failed to go off, and a teenage boy on Zoloft beat to death an elderly woman who complained to him about his loud music. A greater number of cases involve adults who lost control of themselves while taking antidepressants. In at least two cases judges have found individuals not guilty on the basis of involuntary intoxication with psychiatric drugs and other cases have resulted in reduced charges, lesser convictions, or shortened sentences. [1]

Some of the findings cited in the BMJ paper include reports and statistics on:

• Aggressive behavior

• Akathisia, which is a state of agitation, distress and restlessness that can be a side effect of antipsychotic and antidepressant prescription drugs

• Suicidality, the likelihood of someone committing suicide

• Suicidal ideation, suicidal thoughts or preoccupation with thoughts about suicide

• Suicides and suicide attempts

In the Conclusion section of the BMJ report we find some disturbing admissions, I think:

We believe our study shows that, despite using clinical study reports, the true risk for serious harms is still uncertain. The low incidence of these rare events and the poor design and reporting of the trials makes it difficult to get accurate effect estimates.

GlaxoSmithKline issued a letter to doctors advising them of the increased harm to young adults and for adults of all ages with depression, the frequency of suicidal behavior was higher in patients taking paroxetine [Aropax®, Brisdelle®, Deroxat®, Paraxyl®, Paroxat®, Paxetin®, Paxtine®, Paxil®, Pexeva® Sereupin® and Seroxat® (2)] when compared with placebo.

Therefore we [the BMJ paper authors] suggest minimal use of antidepressants in children, adolescents, and young adults, as the serious harms seem to be greater, and as their effect seems to be below what is clinically relevant.

The question that I present is, “How many physicians will take seriously this new BMJ paper, since many, if not most, don’t bother to read the journals?” for if they did, they’d realize the dangers of vaccine ingredients. It seems medical doctors would rather believe the pharmaceutical hucksters (reps) who plop down samples on their desk and exhort them to prescribe, prescribe, and prescribe.

Parents must become over-vigilant to what medical doctors are prescribing for their children, especially those whose behavioral problems may stem from, or be an adverse reaction to, toxic ingredients in vaccines.

The authors of the BMJ paper suggest alternative treatments such as exercise and psychotherapy. My suggestion would be to find a holistically-inclined medical doctor who will treat your children or you with non-toxic SSRIs before having to resort to them, since there are many vitamin and mineral deficiencies that occur in the human body that exacerbate mental health issues. Most of the chemicals found in food and water only intensify those problems for individuals with fragile mental health leanings, I offer. Fast food, junk food diets, sodas and snacks replete with GMOs in everything, certainly do not contribute to a healthful wellbeing or sound mental health.


References:
[1] http://breggin.com/index.php%3Foptio...sk=view&id=196

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paroxetine

[Mike]

wow. just wow.

i don't know how ive missed this thread.

one of the most important on avalon, easily.

great work here Herve!

[Hervé]

Bombshell Study Exposes Frightening Facts About Anti-Depressant Drugs & Pharmaceutical Companies

by Arjun Walia February 12, 2016

The title of this article might give you the impression that my aim is to frighten you. I assure you it is not. The realities of the pharmaceutical industry are admittedly difficult to swallow, but this is important information given the fact that so many people are taking anti-depressant drugs. While these details may be disturbing, especially if you or someone you know takes anti-depressant drugs, it is important to move past the fear of information and really look at what has happened with the modern day medical industry and the pharmaceutical stranglehold that plagues it today.

“The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.” – (source)(source)Arnold Seymour Relman (1923-2014), Harvard Professor of Medicine and Former Editor-in-Chief of the New England Medical Journal

The most recent example of this kind of corruption comes from a study that was published last week in the British Medical Journal by researchers at the Nordic Cochrane Center in Copenhagen. The study showed that pharmaceutical companies were not disclosing all information regarding the results of their drug trials. Researchers looked at documents from 70 different double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRI) and found that the full extent of serious harm in clinical study reports went unreported. These are the reports sent to major health authorities like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Tamang Sharma, a PhD student at Cochrane and lead author of the study, said:

We found that a lot of the appendices were often only available upon request to the authorities, and the authorities had never requested them. I’m actually kind of scared about how bad the actual situation would be if we had the complete data. (source)

Joanna Moncrieff, a psychiatrist and researcher at University College London, elaborates:

[This study] confirms that the full degree of harm of antidepressants is not reported. They are not reported in the published literature, we know that – and it appears that they are not properly reported in clinical study reports that go to the regulators and form the basis of decisions about licensing. (source)

Peter Gotzsche, a clinician researcher at Cochrane and the co-author of the study, actually tried to gain access to clinical trial reports almost a decade ago for anti-obesity pills. Unfortunately, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) denied them the reports:

They talked about commercial confidentiality although there was absolutely nothing in these reports that was commercially confidential. We explained that all this secrecy actually cost human lives, but they weren’t interested in that at all. (source)

It took years of requests and complaints for this to happen and, while Gotzsche is pleased they were able to achieve this breakthrough, he reminds us that similar progress has yet to be made in the United States. He went on to state that researchers need better access to data from clinical trials to conduct assessments unimpeded by industry influence:

It’s deeply unethical when patients volunteer to benefit science and then we let drug companies decide that we cannot get access to the raw data. The testing of drugs should be a public enterprise. (source)

Moncrieff (quoted above) then goes on to express further concerns:

We really don’t have good enough evidence that antidepressants are effective and we have increasing evidence that they can be harmful. So we need to go into reverse and stop this increasing trend of prescribing [them]. (source)

This Is Not The First Time
This is not the first time that pharmaceutical companies have been caught manipulating science in order to get antidepressants onto the shelves. It was only a couple of months ago that an independent review found that the commonly prescribed antidepressant drug Paxil (paroxetine) is not safe for teenagers, even though a large amount of literature had already suggested this previously. The 2001 drug trial that took place, funded by GlaxoSmithKline (also maker of the Gardasil Vaccine), found that these drugs were completely safe, and used that ‘science’ to market Paxil as safe for teenagers.

John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at Stanford University School of Medicine and co-author of the study, is also the author of the most widely accessed article in the history of the Public Library of Science (PLoS), titled Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. In the report, he states that “most current published research findings are false.” And this was more than 10 years ago — the situation has undeniably worsened in the interim.

This echoes the words of Dr. Richard Horton, the current Editor-In-Chief of one of the most reputable reviewed medical journals in the world:

The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. (source)

The Editor in Chief of the New England Medical journal, which is also considered to be one of the best in the world, has made similar assertions:

It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgement of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. (source)

A couple of years ago, Lucia Tomljenovic, a PhD in biochemistry and a senior postdoctoral fellow in UBC’s Faculty of Medicine, uncovered documents that reveal vaccine manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, and health authorities have known about multiple dangers associated with vaccines but chose to withhold them from the public. The documents were obtained from the UK Department of Health (DH) and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization (JCVI), who advise the Secretaries of State for Health in the UK about diseases preventable through immunizations. The JCVI made “continuous efforts to withhold critical data on severe adverse reactions and contraindications to vaccinations to both parents and health practitioners in order to reach overall vaccination rates.” She goes on to explain that,

The transcripts of the JCBI meetings also show that some of the Committee members had extensive ties to pharmaceutical companies and that the JCVI frequently co-operated with vaccine manufactures on the strategies aimed at boosting vaccine uptake. Some of the meetings at which such controversial items were discussed were not intended to be publicly available, as the transcripts were only released later, through the Freedom of Information Act (FOI). These particular meetings are denoted in the transcripts as “commercial in confidence,” and reveal a clear and disturbing lack of transparency, as some of the information was removed from the text (i.e., the names of the participants) prior to transcript release under the FOI section at the JCVI website. (source)

Below is a clip taken from the One More Girl documentary, a film which looks at the Gardasil vaccine, a medicine designed to prevent Human Papillomavirus. In it, Dr. Peter Rost, MD, a former vice president of one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world (Pfizer), shares the truth about the ties between the medical and pharmaceutical industry.

Rost is a former vice president of Pfizer, and a whistleblower of the entire pharmaceutical industry in general. He is the author of The Whistleblower, Confessions of a Healthcare Hitman. Considering his work experience, it would be an understatement to say that he is an insider expert on big pharma marketing.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=TrCizlAOBAo

It’s time to re-think current medical research and look at the bigger picture.


Related CE Article:
10 ways you can increase dopamine levels in your brain without the use of drugs.