Psych Drugs: The Real Weapons of Mass Destruction

[onawah]

Depression... or inflammation?
Can Lowering Inflammation Help Major Depression?
Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola
December 26, 2019
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a..._rid=777426939

"Many people believe depression is caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain. This is a theory that has been widely promoted by drug companies and psychiatrists, to the point it is now accepted as fact.

However, this is just a theory and, worse, it's a theory that has been largely discredited. The idea spread quickly after it was proposed in the 1960s when it appeared antidepressant drugs altered brain chemicals. In the 1980s, Prozac (fluoxetine) was released by Eli Lilly and heavily promoted to balance brain chemicals and affect depression.

Prozac had fewer side effects than some of the earlier antidepressants and soon became the poster child for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) class of antidepressants. However, while heavily prescribed, data repeatedly showed SSRIs worked no better than placebos for those experiencing mild to moderate depression.

Although antidepressants don't effectively treat depression, they do double the risk of harm from suicide and violence in healthy adults and increase aggression in children and adolescents.

"Researchers also suggest major depression could be vastly overdiagnosed and overtreated with antidepressants. The majority who are prescribed these drugs end up staying on them long-term, which may compromise their health.

More Studies Link Depression to Inflammation
Researchers have found yet another link between inflammation and depression. In one study1 published in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, researchers systematically reviewed the safety and effectiveness of anti-inflammatory agents in people suffering with major depression."

Much more in the article, also copied and pasted here: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...56#post1328856

[Gwin Ru]

20 Million Schoolchildren Have Been Prescribed Psychiatric Drugs Known to Cause Suicidal Thoughts

By Christina England
June 17, 2020

A news article published in 2017 reported that, according to the latest data, a staggering 12.7 percent of all US citizens over the age of 12 were taking antidepressants. Thrive Global, who reported these figures, stated that:

"For many, antidepressants have been a long-term course of medication: 68 percent of people in the most recent survey said they’d been taking them for two or more years, and 25 percent had been taking them for more than a decade.”

In reality, more children are being prescribed these drugs than the public are aware of. This fact was highlighted by the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) in their film, Psychiatry: an Industry of Death. They stated that currently around 20 million school children are being prescribed stimulants and psychotropic drugs.

https://www.cchr.org/videos/psychiat...roduction.html

This information is extremely worrying, especially when you consider that professionals worldwide have been linking the use of antidepressants to suicide, suicidal thoughts, and attempted suicide, for many years.

Studies Prove that Antidepressants Can Lead Patients to Die by Suicide
In 2016, in her article titled 7 Facts About Depression That Will Blow You Away, holistic women’s health psychiatrist, Kelly Brogan, M.D., stated that:

"Despite what you’ve been led to believe, antidepressants have repeatedly been shown in long-term scientific studies to worsen the course of mental illness—to say nothing of the risks of liver damage, bleeding, weight gain, sexual dysfunction, and reduced cognitive function they entail. The dirtiest little secret of all is the fact that antidepressants are among the most difficult drugs to taper from, more so than alcohol and opiates. While you might call it “going through withdrawal,” we medical professionals have been instructed to call it “discontinuation syndrome,” which can be characterized by fiercely debilitating physical and psychological reactions. Moreover, antidepressants have a well-established history of causing violent side effects, including suicide and homicide. In fact, five of the top 10 most violence-inducing drugs have been found to be antidepressants.” (Emphasis added)

Worryingly, Brogan highlighted the fact that the majority of prescriptions being written for antidepressants were actually being written by general practitioners and not psychiatrists, as one would expect. She wrote that:

"Seven percent of all visits to a primary care doctor end with an antidepressant and almost three-quarters of the prescriptions are written without a specific diagnosis. What’s more, when the Department of Mental Health at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health did its own examination into the prevalence of mental disorders, it found that most people who take antidepressants never meet the medical criteria for a bona fide diagnosis of major depression, and many who are given antidepressants for things like OCD, panic disorder, social phobia, and anxiety also don’t qualify as actually having these conditions.” (Emphasis added)

In fact, according to Brogan, many individuals suffering with a physical condition can also display symptoms similar to those suffered by those patients with psychiatric disorders. If this is correct, then young children may be diagnosed with mental illness when they are not mentally ill but physically sick.

She stated that:

"Many different physical conditions create psychiatric symptoms but aren’t themselves “psychiatric.” Two prime examples: dysfunctioning thyroid and blood sugar chaos. We think (because our doctors think) that we need to “cure” the brain, but in reality we need to look at the whole body’s ecosystem: intestinal health, hormonal interactions, the immune system and autoimmune disorders, blood sugar balance, and toxicant exposure.” (Emphasis added)

Brogan concluded that:

"Depression is a message and an opportunity
It’s a sign for us to stop and figure out what’s causing our imbalance rather than just masking, suppressing, or rerouting the symptoms. It’s a chance to choose a new story, to engage in radical transformation, to say yes to a different life experience.”

If she is correct, then her paper is extremely worrying, as, according to research, children as young as one-year-old are being prescribed antidepressants.

One-Year-Old Prescribed Antidepressants
In 2016, it was reported that the Scottish National Health Service (NHS) had been prescribing antidepressants to children for many years.

In a report written by Harry Cockburn, published by the Independent in 2016, Cockburn stated that between January and May, the Tayside and Dundee National Health Service (NHS), prescribed antidepressants to approximately 450 children under the age of 18.

Furthermore, he continued with the extremely worrying statement that:

"In 2014, the trust prescribed antidepressants to a one-year-old boy, according to figures obtained by the Dundee Evening Telegraph.” (Emphasis added)

Cockburn also stated that:

"A spokesperson for NHS Tayside told the Evening Telegraph the drugs could be used to treat a number of different conditions beyond their most common use as a treatment for clinical depression.”

This being said, should antidepressants be given to children under the age of 18 at all? Cockburn continued his article by revealing that:

"In January this year, the largest ever review of clinical study reports compiled by drug companies found teenagers were twice as likely to commit suicide if they were taking antidepressants.”

Concerned by what we had discovered, we decided to ask leading child psychiatrist Dr. Sami Timimi what he believed was happening to our children.

Dr. Timimi is a Consultant Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist and Director of Medical Education in the National Health Service in Lincolnshire, Training Programme Director for East Midlands Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and a Visiting Professor of Child Psychiatry and Mental Health Improvement at the University of Lincoln, UK.

In an exclusive interview, we asked Dr. Timimi whether or not he believed that young children should be prescribed antidepressants.

He replied:

"I believe that they should not. Doctors prescribe them because they can and we deal with difficult situations, but this leads to massive overprescribing and creation of long-term patients on medications that, according to the research, have little to no advantage over a sugar pill (placebo) but come with a range of side effects and withdrawal problems.”

Given his reply, we asked him whether or not there was a known link between antidepressants and suicide?

He told us that:

"You are about twice as likely to experience suicidal impulses and behaviours if you are prescribed an ‘antidepressants’ compared to placebo in under 18s.”

We asked him if, over the years, he had noticed a rise in the number of children being labelled as mentally ill.

He replied:

"Yes, and it has accelerated in the last ten years or so (possibly in connection with post financial crash austerity putting greater pressures on families and schools and therefore young people).”

We asked him if he believed that too many children were being labelled as mentally ill.
He replied:

"I reject the notion that what they have is a mental illness/disorder, as most of what we call this is simply understandable reactions to life events and family circumstances. No one has demonstrated that any neurological or genetic abnormalities are connected with any of the so-called diagnoses we make. I think this is an unhelpful way of thinking about distress or behavioural difference, as it assumes something is wrong with the internal working of the child, and often, by accident, leads to creating more long-term patients. To make progress in how we help those who experience mental distress/behavioural difference as youngsters, we must first dispense with unscientific notions such as psychiatric diagnosis/disorders.”

Finally, we asked him what he believed were the alternatives to prescription drugs.
He replied that:

"Everything else you can think of, from the variety of therapies (family, group, systemic, individual) to lifestyle (diet, exercise etc.), to focus on routines and social functioning, to everyday stuff like hobbies and spending more time with friends, etc.”

Given the fact that, according to Dr. Timimi and many others, there are many alternative therapies that professionals could be offering their patients before prescribing them antidepressants. We need to ask ourselves why so many young children are being prescribed these drugs in the first place, especially since research indicates that they can cause some children to have suicidal thoughts.

Latest Research Once Again Links Antidepressants to Suicide
In 2018, S.Stübner et al, conducted a study carefully analysing paperwork collected from 81 psychiatric hospitals during the period from 1993 – 2014. The team documented all single cases of suicidal ideations or behavior that had been judged as adverse drug reactions to antidepressant drugs.

They stated that:

"Among 219,635 adult hospitalized patients taking antidepressant drugs under surveillance, 83 cases of suicidal adverse drug reactions occurred (0.04%): 44 cases of suicidal ideation, 34 attempted suicides, and 5 committed suicides were documented. Restlessness was present in 42 patients, ego-dystonic intrusive suicidal thoughts or urges in 39 patients, impulsiveness in 22 patients, and psychosis in 7 patients. Almost all adverse drug reactions occurred shortly after beginning antidepressant drug medication or increasing the dosage. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors caused a higher incidence of suicidal ideation and suicidal behavior as adverse drug reactions than noradrenergic and specific serotonergic antidepressants or tricyclic antidepressants, as did monotherapy consisting of one antidepressant drug, compared to combination treatments.”

Although their statistics could be seen by many to be somewhat limited, the team concluded that “their findings supported the view that antidepressant drugs can, in rare cases trigger suicidal ideation and suicidal behaviour.”

The team stated that:

"… Special clinical features (restlessness, ego-dystonic thoughts or urges, impulsiveness) may be considered as possible warning signs. A combination therapy might be preferable to antidepressant drug monotherapy when beginning treatment.”

We believe that these statistics are extremely worrying, especially when you consider the fact that children as young one are being prescribed antidepressants.

However, according to evidence that we have uncovered, these links appear to have been known for many years, because, according to a special report published in 2006 by medical expert Dr. Peter R. Breggin, the FDA now require the manufacturers of antidepressants to highlight the potential risk of increased suicidality in children on their labels. He stated that:

"As of 2005, the FDA now require the drug manufacturers to place elaborate warnings on their labels concerning the potential of these drugs to cause stimulating effects, including agitation, anxiety, irritability, emotional lability, aggression, hostility, and mania. The labels must also include a warning about increased suicidality in children.”

Furthermore, in his report, which highlights the lengths that drug companies can go to conceal crucial evidence from the public, Breggin explained in detail how, after being asked to give evidence in a trial concerning the widely used antidepressant Paxil, he was “empowered by the court to examine hundreds of cartons of drug company files contained in GlaxoSmith Klines’s sealed record room.” He wrote:

"These files included Food and Drug Administration (FDA) correspondence and all of the company’s worldwide clinical trials and adverse drug reports for Paxil.

"On July 21, 2001, my report in the form of an affidavit was sent to the judicial arbitrator in the case. It addressed GSK’s practices in the development and marketing of Paxil, and in particular its alleged withholding or manipulation of information about the drug’s dangerousness. Based on GSK’s proprietary files that have to this day never been made public, my report examined many factors, including (a) how quickly after the first dose can Paxil cause severe adverse reactions; (b) the actual rates of akathisia; (c) the actual risk of overstimulation causing agitation, irritability, and manic-like symptoms; (d) the actual rates of suicidality in adults; and (e) promotional claims made for the drug.”

He stated that:

"The case against GSK was eventually “resolved” to the satisfaction of GSK and the Lacuzong family. GSK denied and continues to deny all of the allegations of negligence in developing and marketing Paxil. My impression is that a substantial amount of money was involved in the resolution of the case, although the amount was not disclosed. GSK at that time refused to unseal its records or to allow me to make public my findings, regardless of their significance for the FDA, medical profession, and public health.” (Emphasis added)

He concluded his report by adding several sections of his full report, which he has stated, can be found on his website. He stated that the sections that he had added to this report focused largely on Paxil-induced suicidality in adults.

Having read this report and his evidence, plus the evidence that we have highlighted in this article, leads us to conclude that too many young children are being prescribed dangerous, mind-altering drugs before their problems have been fully investigated.


For further research please read:

• Psychiatric Drug Facts by Peter R. Breggin M.D. https://breggin.com/

• CCHR: Exposing the Dangers of Antidepressants and Other Psychotropic Drugs—Despite FDA/Psychiatric- Pharmaceutical Cover-Ups

• Vested Interests Inventing “Chemical Imbalance” Theory to Sell Drugs https://files.ondemandhosting.info/d..._Cover-Ups.pdf

• Seroxat Secrets https://seroxatsecrets.wordpress.com/

Christina was born and educated in London, U.K. After taking an A Level in Psychology and a BTEC in Learning Support, Ms. England spent many years researching vaccines and adverse reactions. She gained a Higher National Diploma in Journalism and Media Studies and in 2016 she gained a BA Hons degree in Literature & Humanities. She currently writes for VacTruth, Health Impact News, GreenMedInfo, The Liberty Beacon, Vaccine Impact and Medical Kidnap on immunisation safety and efficacy. She has co-authored the book, Shaken Baby Syndrome or Vaccine Induced Encephalitis – Are Parents Being Falsely Accused? with Dr. Harold Buttram and Vaccination Policy and the UK Government: The Untold Truth with Lucija Tomljenovic PhD, which are sold on Amazon. Websites: Profitable Harm, Carers Against Medical Injustice

© 2018 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here //www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter. Original article.

[onawah]

Psychiatrist Shares Why No Medication Is Best for Depression
Dr. Peter Breggin "Known as 'the conscience of psychiatry,' he says 'there is no promising medical treatment and probably there never can be,' as depression is primarily rooted in this. Sadly, millions are increasing their risk of suicide, diabetes and heart attack - without even knowing."

The Little-Known Sordid History of Psychiatry
by Dr. Joseph Mercola
September 13, 2020

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...&rid=963502808

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=MOaLR-gxNL8

"STORY AT-A-GLANCE
Dr. Peter Breggin, a psychiatrist, is frequently referred to as “the conscience of psychiatry” because he's been able to successfully reform the psychiatric profession, abolishing lobotomies and other experimental psychosurgeries
Breggin refers to lobotomies as a rape of the soul, the permanent mutilation of an individual’s selfhood, as damage to one area of the brain will harm the integration of the whole brain
Breggin also had a hand in getting the word out about the dangers of Prozac
Psychiatric drugs only stifle the brain function of patients. While they might ease some of the suffering, that relief comes at the expense of brain damage
One psychiatric treatment Breggin has not been able to eliminate is electroshock treatment, which is actually starting to be used more and more. Transcranial direct current stimulation and Neuralink, a transcranial implant designed by the Elon Musk Company, pose severe risks to your brain health and function
Dr. Peter Breggin, a psychiatrist, has written more than a dozen bestselling books on psychiatry and the drug industry. He's frequently referred to as “the conscience of psychiatry” because he's been able to successfully reform the psychiatric profession, abolishing one of the most harmful practices, namely lobotomies and other experimental psychosurgeries.

He was the first to take a public stand against lobotomies as a young man, and was able to change the field as a result. He’s featured in Aaron and Melissa Dykes’ excellent documentary, “The Minds of Men.”1

Now 83 years old, Breggin has seen a lot, and in this interview, he shares his own evolution and experiences as a psychiatrist. His interest in psychiatry began at the age of 18, when he became a volunteer at a local state mental hospital.

“It was a nightmare,” he says. “It was like my uncle Dutch's descriptions of liberating a Nazi concentration camp. The place stank. People were sitting in these bare, barren concrete corridors.

They had a TV set that wasn't working … and bolted down tables and chairs so the people couldn't throw them at each other. No attention being given to them at all. Often just sitting there; some hallucinating, and somebody told me that the girl in the corner coiled up in a ball on the floor by a radiator had been a Radcliffe student ...

The doctors were callous, the aids were callous, there was just no love in the place at all. I could tell, even though I didn't really have much experience growing up with love, I could feel that what was missing was love, care, nurturing. It was so clear.”

Toxic Psychiatry
Breggin eventually became the leader of that volunteer program. He and 200 other students painted the walls and took patients for walks. He asked the superintendent to assign one patient per volunteer aid, to build real relationships. The superintendent balked at the idea, but eventually gave in. Breggin tells this story in his book, “Toxic Psychiatry.”2

“We ended up getting almost every patient out of that hospital,” he says. “We got them placed in different places that were much better. We got some back with their families. It was so clear to me that this was the way to go …

I watched electroshock and insulin coma shock where people would come in and they'd give them overdoses of insulin to send them into coma. They'd be frothing at the mouth, unconscious, having seizures and getting ready to die, literally. Then they would give them orange juice or sugar water and they would become alert again.

It was so clear to me what was going on. People would come in full of energy — angry, depressed, anxious and often resistant … They'd get this injection of insulin to knock them out, killing them, basically, but when they came awake they were like puppies. They were grateful, they said ‘Thank you, I feel like you saved me.’ They'd be docile … There's no fooling about what this was. I knew exactly what it was.

I knew what shock treatment was … I've been fighting this, but we're still doing it … It's when they put electrodes on the forehead of the brain … You get a shock of a voltage … 10 times what you need to give convulsions … and it makes docility. It makes people out of touch with themselves. It makes people unable to complain … [Elevated mood] is the artificial euphoria [caused by] brain damage. This is very brain damaging.”

All of this is what motivated Breggin to go into psychiatry, in order to help reform the profession from the inside. Interestingly, as early as 1963, Jerry Klerman, who later became the highest-ranking psychiatrist in the federal government and a professor at Harvard, told Breggin there was no future in helping people strengthen their mental resilience.

The future, Klerman told him, was in drugs, and using computers to decide which drugs to use. After his first year at Harvard medical school, Breggin left and went back to the Upstate Medical Center (University) in New York, where he had already done internship.

“Then I went on to the National Institute of Mental Health … for two years. There I saw clearly what was happening. Psychiatry was leaving the psychosocial model behind.

My volunteer program had already been described by the last big Federal Commission on Mental Health. It's mentioned two or three times and described as one of the solutions to the vast mental hospital problems … Nothing about drugs, drugging and shocking people in it.

It was much more real, much more about what was really going on with human beings and human sufferings, spiritual, psychological. I could just see this writing on the wall and I was not sure what to do. I was invited to stay at the National Institute of Mental Health.

I accepted briefly, in the child division. I was very interested in helping children. Then I thought, I can't do this. I gave them warning without even having a job that I was leaving. I didn't know what else to do, so I went into private practice.”

Breggin Spearheaded Drug-Free Psychiatry
Breggin focused on helping people without medication. “I learned very quickly that the most disturbed people would calm down and relate when somebody cared about them, wasn't afraid of them, was interested in them and made no pretense of being superior to them,” he says. Drugs, he explains, were simply stifling the patients. While they might ease some of the suffering, that relief came at the expense of brain damage.

Breggin goes on to tell the story of how he prevented the return of lobotomies and psychosurgeries — strategies in which the brain is purposely damaged through electric shocks, radium chip implants or puncturing the prefrontal area of the brain with an ice pick inserted next to the eyeball, for example.

Breggin refers to lobotomies as a rape of the soul, the permanent mutilation of an individual’s selfhood, as damage to one area of the brain will harm the integration of the whole brain. As noted by Breggin, you cannot “plop out aggression” like a pit out of an olive. The brain doesn’t work like that. It’s an integrated organ and mental processes arise from integrated processes involving many different areas of the brain.

So many people now know that drugs are dangerous and shock treatment is horrible. But, the power of psychiatry grows and the drug companies grow … and more and more people are being recruited by all the ads and all the fake science.
He decided somebody had to stop the madness. And, while he received no support from any other well-known psychiatrist or professor, and came under vehement attack by the establishment, including threats of physical violence against himself and his family that at times necessitated the use of bodyguards.

Breggin eventually succeeded. It’s a fascinating story, so I highly recommend listening to the whole interview. When asked why he took on this formidable fight, he says:

“When I saw what was being done to people, I said ‘Somebody has to do this. I have no choice about this.’ I had no idea what I was up against. I had no idea that everywhere there would be enemies; that I'd be threatened with violence.

When I was invited to speak by Harvard Medical students, that people would rip down all the signs about the meeting; that there'd be blowback on the students and stuff like that. I had no idea what I was walking into.”

The Lawsuit That Ended Lobotomies
The end of lobotomies was brought about by a lawsuit filed by a young lawyer named Gabe Kaimowitz on behalf of a chronically hospitalized patient who had been promised release from the mental hospital if he underwent experimental psychosurgery. Breggin tells the story:

“[Kaimowitz] found out they were going to do a psychosurgery experimentation in the state hospital with a local university, Wayne's State. It was all set up to go. He intervened. In fact, the case is called by his name, which is unusual … Kaimowitz v. The Department of Mental Health Wayne State University.

A three-judge panel met about the case. This [patient] had been interviewed by the Commissioner of Mental Health. He had been chronically hospitalized and then allegedly had sexually assaulted a nurse or something, but there was no record of it and certainly no adjudication about it; no meetings about it. He was a lifetime patient.

The Commissioner told him he could get out if he underwent the psychosurgery. Well, the judges looked over his case and decided that, first, he was going to be discharged because he was being held illegally. They discharged John Doe. Then the state said, ‘Well, the case is over.’ They said ‘No. You guys have set up this whole thing. We're going to look at it.’

Well, I was the go-to person as … [Kaimowitz] brought me in. I couldn't testify the first day because they were filibustering me. They wanted to force me to stay overnight so that … they'd have the whole weekend to review the case with the surgeons. Follow me?

Of course, they're forcing me into testifying in the afternoon, filibustering in the morning. Gabe said, ‘This is really too bad because now they're going to have the whole weekend to talk about your testimony with the surgeons.’ I said, ‘No, no, no. We'll filibuster back. I'll testify on something else for the afternoon.’ He said, ‘How are you going to do that?’

I said, ‘Well, I'll talk about the history of psychiatry. I'm going to tie it into the extermination camps, which were very much modeled on state mental hospitals. Show the comparison and hopefully the judges will invoke the Nuremberg Code, which says that, of course, that man couldn't volunteer in a state mental hospital because he's in a total institution, just like the Nuremberg Code was applied to.

He said, ‘OK.’ I gave him a few questions and we went that afternoon and did that. Then on the following Monday, I started to talk about psychosurgery. They were so unprepared that all they could do was go through this 100-page paper that I had written …

We won the trial and it stopped, on the spot, all psychosurgery in the state hospitals in the federal programs. NIH stopped; VA stopped and all the state hospitals stopped. This was 1972-1973.”

It’s important to realize just how important this was, to put a stop to the return of lobotomies and experimental psychosurgeries. It was widely accepted as a practical solution for all sorts of problems, including race riots and behavioral problems among young children.

The beginning of the end of psychosurgery was the early 1970s. At that time, Breggin, who for most of his career struggled to get support, got the support of the Congressional Black Caucus, who could see the social consequences of psychosurgery being used on black children, as well as certain conservative Senators who thought it was immoral.

“I was the first person to criticize lobotomies in public, let alone the first psychiatrist. It was crazy. I still don't understand human beings. I work hard about it, but I keep falling short. I couldn't believe that I was so alone doing this,” he says.

The Dangers of Speaking Out Against Prozac
Breggin also had a hand in getting the word out about the dangers of Prozac. In his 1991 book, “Toxic Psychiatry,” he briefly mentioned Prozac is likely to do a lot of harm, and that there were already reports of the drug causing violent aggression.

He was later asked to be the sole scientific expert to put together the science for several dozen lawsuits against Eli Lilly, in which patients or their families claimed the drug had caused violent episodes, suicide, homicide, mania or psychosis. The drama and intrigue surrounding this trial rivals any good spy novel, so for more details, listen to the interview.

As just one example, at the time of his deposition against Eli Lilly, he, his wife and daughter all developed severe illness. By chance, a plumber they’d called in to fix a problem in the basement discovered the stovepipe for the gas heater had been disconnected and was laying out of sight, as if purposely hidden, pumping gas into the house.

Before that, the family had received death threats, and Breggin had called the FBI. Agents claiming to be FBI had visited his family, but something obviously wasn’t right.

“When I called the FBI back, they said they had no record of coming to see me,” Breggin says. “It got very weird … We were in this strange world. People would get angry at me in the audiences. By the way, that never happens, anymore … I want people to know, the environment has changed completely.

So many people now know that drugs are dangerous and shock treatment is horrible. But, the power of psychiatry grows and the drug companies grow … and more and more people are being recruited by all the ads and all the fake science. It is all fake science. You can look at any of my books. If you want it quicker, look up my YouTube channel.”

In broad strokes, the Eli Lilly trial turned out to be fixed in Eli Lilly’s favor and Breggin was set up to fail in his investigation. The plaintiffs lost the case and Eli Lilly was cleared of charges. Eventually, however, evidence emerged showing Eli Lilly lawyers had bribed some of the plaintiffs and arranged for a secret settlement provided they lost the case.

A Supreme Court judge in Kentucky declared the trial a fraud and changed the verdict to “a secret settlement with prejudice.” When the judge decided to disclose the amount of the secret settlement, he was removed and replaced with another judge who decided the settlement amount was not to be disclosed as it might hurt Eli Lilly. The full details of this remarkable case can be found in Breggin’s book, “Medication Madness.”3

Electroshock Treatment — A Real-World Conspiracy
One psychiatric treatment Breggin has not been able to eliminate is electroshock treatment (ECT), which is actually starting to be used more and more. Breggin says:

“I've worked on denting shock treatment. Then finally, a class action suit was brought against the manufacturers. They lost against the first manufacturer. There are only two [manufacturers] in North America, and I wasn't involved. Then they called me in. Of course, they expected, again, to just get it thrown out of court.

I did a scientific brief for the judge on brain damage from ECT. The judge decided that there was sufficient evidence for brain damage to make it a jury question. This was huge. The judge focused on the single most important thing he could.

The drug company, within days, settled and put out a statement to the FDA that ECT can cause brain damage and severe memory loss. All that's up on my website, and I've written blogs about it … to show you the nature of what is definitely a conspiracy of people working together toward the same aim and being evil about it.

Within days, the FDA approved ECT for the first time for treatment-resistant depression, which means nothing. It’s used more and more. It's not less. I don't think we slowed it down with this, but we made a big gain. We now have a record of a drug company admitting to the FDA it causes brain damage and so on.

Then the FDA with all its power comes right back and then approves ECT for the first time. They had never approved it. They tried to and there was so much opposition they didn't do it. Then when the drug companies got hurt, it was within days that they approved it. Wow.”

On Neuralink and Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation
Breggin also discusses the hazards of transcranial direct current stimulation and Neuralink, a transcranial implant designed by the Elon Musk Company. Elon is probably doing this because he’s concerned about the integration of artificial intelligence, which is coming.

He fears the human race could become subservient to artificial intelligence. He thinks one of the preservation strategies is to allow us to sort of keep pace with these advances. Breggin comments:

“This is the new cutting edge that I'm trying to get across to people. I have a new show. If you go to my YouTube channel and look at [my interview with] the Dykes … I did a show about this saying that this is worse than the psychiatry we have now. I'm focusing on all the electronics.

The FDA has approved electrodes on the heads of children to leave them on all night long to give them low voltage stimulation, which is going to go through the skin, back up the nerves, all the way to the frontal lobes in an entirely disruptive hammer-like, crushing way. It's going to blunt the kids. It's horrible. They studied it for four weeks and approved it, if you can imagine that.

It's low voltage, but we know it disrupts brain waves. It's bizarre that they approved this. I started to take this on and then, or actually through Aaron and Melissa, I found out about what was being done by Elon Musk. What's interesting to me is that while Musk is so brilliant, he's stupid about the brain. That's probably because the neurosurgeons and psychiatrists he consults are stupid about the brain.

I mean they're just stupid. He wants to put in multiple threadlike electrodes into the brain, into webs of neurons, and put in low voltage stimulation. This is insane. The brain can't tolerate this. He hopes to [be able to] communicate but there's not going to be any communication.

The brain isn't going to talk to these electrodes. That's not how the brain works. The brain talks to itself. It's not going to talk to Elon Musk [or anyone else] and he's going to disrupt the brain talking to itself. It's a terrible thing to do.

I wish somebody who knows Elon Musk would say, ‘You ought to talk to Peter Breggin. He says your consultants are stupid.’ He's already planning to try to get FDA approval for some neurological disorders and that'll be the beginning of the onslaught.

Here's the really deadly part — a part to really think about and close with — and that is that the defense department, DARPA, is funding Musk.

The Dykes found out that the machine is going to be used to sew in these electrodes … through the funding of DARPA and work through UCLA, which has always been murderers of the brain. We shut down programs at UCLA going way back. We shut down a lot of different kinds of programs in my anti-psychosurgery campaign.” "

[Gwin Ru]

...

... here we go...

Updated Psychiatric Manual Makes Grief, Racism, and Childhood “Mental Disorders” to be Treated with Drugs

by Brian Shilhavy
Editor, Health Impact News
March 23, 2022

Americans love their drugs.

We are some of the most medicated people on the face of the planet, which means that this will not be a popular article, because I will expose people’s idols, showing how evil Big Pharma is, and how they maintain control over the U.S. population through people’s addiction to these prescription drugs.

[...]

Full article (with videos): https://healthimpactnews.com/2022/up...ed-with-drugs/

[onawah]

How Big Pharma Makes Healthy People Sick | ENDEVR Documentary
ENDEVR
735K subscribers
3,313 views Jun 25, 2023

"Medicating Normal: How Big Pharma Makes Healthy People Sick | ENDEVR Documentary

Opioid Tragedy - Inside the Fentanyl Crisis:

• Opioid Tragedy: I...

Millions of people worldwide are physically dependent on commonly prescribed psychiatric drugs. While these drugs can provide effective short-term relief, pharmaceutical companies have hidden -from both doctors and patients - their dangerous side effects, addictive nature, and long-term harm.

Combining cinema verité and investigative journalism, Medicating Normal follows the stories of those whose lives have been torn apart by the very medications they believed would help them. Expert testimony and undercover footage reveal a systemically corrupt industry. Medicating Normal is the untold story of the disastrous consequences that can occur when profit-driven medicine intersects with human beings in distress."

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=78soEdii12U

[onawah]

"[/B]Deadly Drugs: What Happens When Antidepressants Trigger Killer Instincts? [/B]
by Brenda Baletti, Ph.D.
October 9, 2024
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/d...tm_id=20241009

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=fIw3Vnkgng0

"In his “Mad in America” webinar, Dr. David Healy presented a series of tragic cases involving people who were living stable lives until they were prescribed antidepressants that led them to become aggressive and in some cases homicidal.
The issue of antidepressant-induced homicide brings into focus the broader problems with prescription drugs, psychiatrist Dr. David Healy said during an Oct. 5 webinar.
Those problems include the failure of medical professionals to recognize serious side effects of drugs, and the justice system’s tendency to protect pharmaceutical companies — not people.

Healy, one of the United Kingdom’s foremost experts on serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) has studied antidepressants for 40 years as a researcher, clinician and consultant for Big Pharma.
In the webinar, he presented cases involving people who were living stable and healthy lives — until they were prescribed antidepressants, after which they became aggressive, delusional and homicidal.
Those impulses subsided once the people stopped taking the drugs. However, in many of the cases Healy highlighted, by the time they stopped taking the drugs, they had already committed homicide.

One well-documented case involved 12-year-old Christopher Pittman. Pittman began exhibiting aggressive behavior — fighting with other children and acting extremely agitated in church — almost immediately after taking Zoloft.
Less than one month after starting the drug, he said he heard a voice tell him to kill his grandparents, with whom he lived. That night, he shot them and burned down their house.
In 2005, Pittman was sentenced to 30 years in prison, after a jury declined to find that Zoloft had caused his homicidal behavior. However, U.S. Circuit Judge Daniel Pieper gave him the most lenient sentence possible.

Healy quoted Pieper’s statement during sentencing:
“It seems to turn the whole medical system on its side if you can’t rely on the medication your doctor prescribes. It potentially forces you into a situation of lifetime commitment if that drug induces an effect of which you are unaware when you go on it. There’s something disconcerting about that … probably of a legal nature, that’s troubling me.”

That same year, just before the verdict, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) began requiring SSRIs like Zoloft to carry suicide warnings, The New York Times reported. In Canada, SSRIs also carry an additional warning: a potential increase in hostility, aggression and “harm to others.”
Zoloft’s manufacturer, Pfizer, maintained the drug was safe. However, according to the Times, Pfizer also reported immediately following the verdict that 14 other criminal cases blamed Zoloft for people’s actions.
Eli Lilly, the manufacturer of Prozac, confirmed the drug had been blamed in over 75 criminal cases. The drugmaker said it was unaware of any cases in which the defense had succeeded.

That’s precisely the problem, according to Healy. Today, nearly 20 years after Pittman’s case, no jury has acquitted a person who claimed antidepressants caused them to commit a murder.
However, there were a few cases in which courts recognized the link between antidepressants and homicide, Healy said.
In one case, a man killed his wife, children and himself 48 hours after being put on GSK’s SSRI, Paxil. One of the daughter’s husbands sued GSK in Wyoming and won financial damages.

In Australia, the case of a man who killed his wife after he was prescribed Zoloft was heard by a judge — not a jury. The judge dismissed the charges, ruling that Zoloft had caused the man’s behavior.
Healy said that when these defenses — blaming antidepressants for violent behavior — first emerged, Pfizer and GSK developed a strategy to combat them. The Zoloft prosecutor’s manual, which Healy said was later refined and revised, was a playbook for prosecutors to rebut the “Zoloft defense.”

The manual’s rebuttal hinges on the claims that violence is common in the U.S. and that the FDA has found the drug to be safe. It also advises lawyers to emphasize the lack of statistically significant evidence from double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials causally linking Zoloft to aggressive behavior or to akathisia, which are strong subjective feelings of distress or discomfort that could also induce violent behavior.

Pharma knew the dangers but manipulated the data
During the “Mad in America” webinar, Healy outlined a long history of the link between drugs and “automatism” — when drugs produce involuntary actions in people taking them. Those involuntary actions can range from pacing to sleepwalking to homicide.
Swedish neuropharmacologist and Nobel Prize winner Arvid Carlsson, M.D., Ph.D., created the first SSRI, Zelmid, which went on the market in 1982. Carlsson recognized from the outset that the drugs would have positive effects for some people and negative effects for others, Healy said.

When Pfizer started marketing Zoloft in 1992, Carlsson — knowing that SSRIs affect people differently — advised the company to carefully monitor how different people responded to the drug. But that approach ran counter to Pfizer’s ambitious plans to have the drug prescribed widely, replacing addictive drugs like valium, Healy said.
According to Healy, at the time, Pfizer already knew that Zoloft had caused suicidal and homicidal impulses, even in healthy trial volunteers.

The challenge of identifying these serious adverse effects is compounded by the fact that “doctors today have great trouble” monitoring how a drug actually affects each patient, as opposed to how the doctor believes the drug should work.
“They are people of the book increasingly and not able to see and hear what’s happening when you’re on these drugs,” he said.
Healy believes most people mistakenly think SSRIs act on the brain, but that most of their effects occur in the body.

The drugs are meant to produce a “serenic effect,” or anti-aggressive effect, which they often do. The problem is that in some people, they have the opposite effect.
SSRIs reduce sensory input from the body to the brain, which can cause feelings of physical and emotional numbness, Healy said. That’s also why SSRIs are often associated with loss of libido and sexual dysfunction.

The drugs work less by treating an illness and more by changing personality, he said. The emotional muting and feelings of aggression and akathisia are what can make the drugs induce suicide or homicide.
Healy walked through a range of examples, including cases documented in the scientific literature and cases he has seen in his own clinical practice of people who experienced dramatic and violent personality changes — changes that disappeared once they stopped taking the drugs.

He also said that companies like Pfizer and GSK — with the FDA’s full knowledge — manipulated and buried much of the data indicating drugs like Zoloft were either ineffective for the conditions they were supposed to treat or induced aggressive behaviors toward self or others.
The drugmakers’ altered studies were then published in journals like the New England Journal of Medicine, Healy alleged.
Healy said he believes most people have great faith in these institutions. This makes it difficult for them to accept that the FDA could license a drug that could cause a person to commit murder, or that top journals could publish trial results manufactured by Big Pharma.

“The greatest concentration of ‘fake news’ on this earth centers on the drugs your doctor gives you. Not just the SSRIs, but all of them,” he said.
Healy called for a return to a clinical practice of medicine where doctors and patients engage in dialogue, and together analyze how a drug affects each patient. He also called for a legal system that recognizes when drugs have caused serious problems."

Brenda Baletti, Ph.D., is a senior reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master's from the University of Texas at Austin.

[onawah]

The Dark Side of Antidepressants
Analysis by A Midwestern Doctor
January 24, 2025
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...&rid=212252708

https://media.mercola.com/ImageServe...ssants-pdf.pdf

(Hyperlinks in the article not embedded here)

"Story at-a-glance
SSRI antidepressants are among the most harmful medications on the market, impacting society due to their widespread (and frequently unjustifiable) use
Common side effects of SSRIs (and SNRIs) include sexual dysfunction (which is often permanent), emotional numbness, severe agitation, violent psychosis, cognitive decline, and birth defects
The most concerning SSRI side effect is their tendency to cause grisly suicides and homicidal violence which includes mass shootings
Psychiatry's denial of SSRI-related issues often leads to misinterpretation of side effects as signs of pre-existing mental illness, resulting in more medication and catastrophic consequences
SSRIs, like other stimulant drugs (e.g., cocaine), can create aggressive behaviors and are highly addictive so many SSRI enter severe withdrawals once they stop them. Unfortunately, few resources exist for patients struggling to quit SSRIs

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs and SNRIs) have long been marketed as the magical solution to depression and anxiety, promising relief in a convenient little pill. But behind the glossy pharmaceutical ads and doctor endorsements lies a far more troubling reality. These drugs don’t just alter your brain chemistry — they can hijack your emotions, disrupt your life, and lead to consequences far worse than the conditions they claim to treat.

In fact, there’s a dirty secret of the SSRI antidepressants — they cause psychotic violence which typically results in suicide and sometimes in horrific homicide (e.g., mass shootings). Remarkably, this side effect was discovered throughout their clinical trials, covered up by the drug companies, and then covered up by the FDA after the agency received a deluge of complaints1 (39,000 in the first nine years2) once the first SSRI, Prozac, hit the market.

Initially, the media would report on the prescriptions (SSRIs) mass shooters took. However, a gag order went out, it became impossible to know what medications shooters were on, and the topic became taboo to discuss. Fortunately, that recently changed (e.g., after an article I wrote compiling the evidence they cause mass shootings went viral, Tucker Carlson did a 2022 segment on it and prominent conservatives gradually began speaking openly about SSRI mass shootings3).

https://x.com/i/status/1876545283984937202

Midwestern Doctor
@MidwesternDoc
In July 2022
@TuckerCarlson
broke a major taboo by discussing the link between antidepressants and mass shootings—a problem that did not exist until SSRIs entered the market.
Despite being written off as a "conspiracy theory" industry studies consistently showed that SSRIs cause aggression, bipolar disorder, and a loss of one's grip on reality—much of which was only learned after lawsuits from SSRI victims forced the industry to reveal that unpublished data.
In many cases, this leads to psychotic violence which is typically suicidal in nature, but sometimes also homicidal (e.g., a sweet elderly man stabbing his wife 200 times).
Once the school shooting epidemic began, activists quickly noticed the shooters were on SSRIs. To "solve" this, the entire media suddenly stopped reporting what medications the shooter was on, it became taboo to ever suggest any link existed between the two, and every school shooting became a polarized discussion over banning guns.
So, on May 26 2022, (two days after the tragic Uvalde shooting), I published an article (listed below) which compiled the shocking and extensive evidence linking SSRIs to mass shootings in susceptible individuals and showed that those incidents followed a clear and consistent pattern.
It struck a chord (as many could see our "approach" to mass shootings was doing nothing to stop them), quickly went viral, and a few days later on July 5, Tucker, at great risk, aired his groundbreaking segment and permanently changed the media landscape.
Since then, many other prominent figures (e.g.,
@mtgreenee
,
@MattWalshBlog
and
@RobertKennedyJr
) have begun broaching this subject as well and significant doubts have begun emerging around SSRIs.
Likewise, while the data on a shooter's psychiatric medications are rarely made available to us, a CDC official privately shared with one of us that the CDC has continued to secretly track the link between mass shootings and found it's consistently there but has declined to share it due to the political ramifications of that decision.
In this thread, I will provide the evidence SSRIs cause psychotic violence, show how the FDA covered it up in an identical manner to the dangers of other problematic pharmaceuticals (e.g., the COVID vaccines) and highlight how the risks of the SSRIs greatly exceed their "benefits."

Note: I recently learned through a CDC official that the CDC has been silently tracking what mass shooters are on and found the SSRI link continues but has not disclosed it due to political earthquakes this admission would cause.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=CREPVbPB7aU

The Toxicology Bell Curve
In toxicology, you will typically see severe and extreme reactions occur much less frequently than moderate reactions:



Because of this, when a very concerning and unmistakable adverse reaction occurs (e.g., the COVID-19 vaccines causing sudden deaths in young healthy athletes), that suggests you’re only seeing the tip of the iceberg and far less severe injuries are also occurring much more frequently.

For example, one estimate4 found that of those vaccinated for COVID, 18% were injured, 0.93% were disabled, and 0.05% to 0.1% died, while another survey5 found 41% of those vaccinated were injured, with 7% being severely injured.

In the case of the SSRIs, the psychotic violence they can create, sadly, is also just the tip of a very large iceberg, and there are many less severe ways they warp your mind, body, and emotions.

The Hidden Side Effects of SSRIs
Many datasets show the harm SSRIs cause greatly outweighs any benefits. For example, in a survey of 1,829 patients6 on antidepressants in New Zealand:

62% reported sexual difficulties

60% felt emotionally numb

52% felt not like themselves

39% cared less about others

47% had experienced agitation

39% had experienced suicidal ideation

In that survey, other less common reported side effects (in order of decreasing frequency) included: insomnia, nightmares, "fuzzy"/"zombie," jaw grinding, sweating, blurred vision, constipation, disturbed/restless sleep, anxiety, heart palpitations, difficulty thinking, fatigue/exhaustion, strange/vivid dreams, stiff muscles/joints, "brain zaps," mania, excessive yawning, panic attacks, memory loss, decreased motivation, night sweats, and decreased appetite.

This list matches what I’ve seen in many other datasets7 (although others like feeling agitated, shaky, or anxious, indigestion, stomach aches, and diarrhea are also commonly reported).

Note: Another major issue with SSRIs (which is unlikely to be detected on a symptom-based survey) is that SSRIs frequently cause bipolar disorder.
Psychotic Violence — A Suppressed Truth
When Prozac was first brought to market in the mid-1980s, the pharmaceutical industry had not yet convinced the world that everyone was depressed and needed an antidepressant. So, instead (given that SSRIs work in a similar manner to a stimulant like Cocaine8) Prozac was initially marketed as a "mood-lifter."

Likewise, in 1985 when the FDA’s safety reviewer scrutinized Eli Lily’s Prozac application, they realized Lily had "failed" to report psychotic episodes of people on the drug and that Prozac’s adverse effects resembled that of a stimulant drug.

In turn, the warnings on the labels for SSRIs,9 such as anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility, aggressiveness, impulsivity, akathisia, hypomania, and mania, match the effects commonly observed with stimulant street drugs such as cocaine and methamphetamine.

Note: A large survey of found 44% stopped a psych med because of side effects, a quarter of which were due to SSRI agitation.10

In light of this, and SSRI violence commonly being blamed on a "pre-existing mental illness" I thus compiled numerous studies (including ones industry tried to bury) showing the drugs themselves cause violence. For example:

•A Cochrane review11 assessed 150 studies where healthy volunteers were given SSRIs and found approximately one-third of them deliberately omitted discussing SSRI side effects, and about half of the studies were never made publicly available (presumably to hide their concerning data).

Ultimately, 14 of the 150 studies were eligible for meta-analysis (since enough information existed in them for the researchers to know what actually happened), and in these 14 studies, SSRIs were found to double the risk of suicide.

•In 2000, David Healy published a study12 he had carried out with 20 healthy volunteers — all with no history of depression or other mental illness — and to his big surprise two (10%) of them became suicidal when they received Zoloft. One of them was on her way out the door to kill herself in front of a train or a car when a phone call saved her.

Both volunteers remained disturbed several months later and seriously questioned the stability of their personalities.

•Eli Lilly showed in 197813 that cats who had been friendly for years began to growl and hiss on Prozac and became distinctly unfriendly. Once Prozac was stopped, the cats returned to their usual friendly behavior in a week or two.

Note: The FDA hypothesized that SSRIs could reduce violence in some but cause an increase in violence in others.14 Likewise a review of 84 animal studies showed that reduced aggression upon treatment with SSRI was most commonly observed, but sometimes the animals instead became more aggressive.15

Sexual Dysfunction
One of the side effects that I feel best illustrates the poor risk-reward ratio of SSRIs is sexual dysfunction — as not being able to have sex is quite likely to make someone depressed (and in some cases suicidal16) — hence often completely invalidating the justification for taking an SSRI to "feel happy again."

For example, a Spanish study17,18 of five of 1,022 patients on the most commonly prescribed SSRIs found:

The drugs caused sexual disturbances in 59% of them and 40% considered that dysfunction unacceptable
57% experienced decreased libido
57% experienced delayed orgasm or ejaculation
46% experienced no orgasm or ejaculation
31% experienced erectile dysfunction or decreased vaginal lubrication
Note: Similar results have been obtained in other studies,19 and I’ve met many men and women who continued to experience sexual dysfunction long after they stopped the SSRI (as this dysfunction is often permanent).

What I find the most amazing about SSRI sexual dysfunction is that while psychiatrists tend to downplay or ignore it, they simultaneously market SSRIs to treat premature ejaculation — which is yet another example of the drug industry trying to have its cake and eat it (especially given that many of the SSRI manufacturers also sell drugs for erectile dysfunction).

Note: One reason this side effect is under recognized is that embarrassed patients often won’t report it unless they are specifically asked about it (e.g., in the Spanish study, while 59% of SSRI users reported sexual dysfunction, only 20% did so without prompting20 — something unlikely to be done in a drug trial aimed at getting a medication to market).

Emotional Blunting — Losing the Essence of Life
Once the SSRIs hit the market, I immediately noticed that SSRIs sometimes dramatically altered the personality of those who took them. For example, they often destroyed the drive people had to make something of their life — and in some cases, I sadly watched that derailment continue for decades.

Likewise, I began to hear stories of people describing how their experience of life was deadened, often in a manner not too different from how the drugs "numb" your sexuality. Some of the common stories included:

•Not having emotional responses to things you should have responses to — For example, I saw numerous cases of people being in unhealthy jobs or relationships, seeing a doctor for help with their depression, quickly being put on Prozac, and then wasting a decade of their life because Prozac (or another SSRI) removed their drive to leave that toxic situation. Likewise, I heard many people state that Prozac took away the joy they felt in life.

•Losing the depth and richness of life — This comment for instance, does an excellent job of illustrating that:



Note: In psychiatry, this emotional anesthesia (not finding things as enjoyable as one used to) is known as "emotional blunting." Depending on the study (e.g., those mentioned above) between 40% to 60% of those who take SSRIs experience this side effect, and it’s sometimes rationalized as a necessary trade-off for removing the emotional pain associated with depression.

One of the greatest problems with our society is the belief that the media has marketed to us that we should never have to feel negative emotions. In reality, they are a critical component of the human experience and are frequently necessary for our growth and identifying the correct direction for our lives. Unfortunately, to market depression (and SSRIs) it was necessary to pathologize normal facets of life and turn them into permanent illnesses requiring indefinite treatment.

Birth Defects — A Hidden Consequence
Once a drug gets approved, pharmaceutical companies will always try to expand their market for it (e.g., this is why after adults stopped wanting the initial COVID-19 vaccine, they pivoted to pushing it on children — even though children have an almost 0% chance of dying from COVID-19).

With SSRIs, the industry has likewise worked to push them on vulnerable groups (e.g., foster children, "struggling" students, prisoners or parolees, pregnant mothers, and the elderly), and each group has suffered significant consequences from these practices — particularly since many are not allowed to decline the drugs. This excellent skit by Peter Gøtzsche illustrates the absurdity of pushing them on pregnant women:
https://x.com/MidwesternDoc/status/1876545296672690358/

A Midwestern Doctor
@MidwesternDoc
Because the SSRI's have been shielded from scrutiny, they are frequently pushed on patients (sometimes against their consent) when the drugs risks greatly outweigh their benefits. This skit for example highlights the unconscionable SSRI advice pregnant women frequently receive:
1:35 / 3:38
2:23 AM · Jan 7, 2025
·
2,119
Views

A Midwestern Doctor
@MidwesternDoc
·
Jan 7
To sell SSRIs, industry relabeled a variety of normal experiences as "unacceptable depression" and (despite evidence showing the opposite) made up the mythology depression was due to a "chemical imbalance" while the actual cures for depression were buried
From midwesterndoctor.com
A Midwestern Doctor
@MidwesternDoc
·
Jan 7
Lastly, changing an SSRI dose will cause awful withdrawals (that sometimes lead to psychotic violence), but doctors misinterpret this to mean the SSRI was helping and must continue.
Here I explain how to safely taper them off. Never suddenly stop an SSRI.

Pushing SSRIs on pregnant women is rationalized by the fact women frequently get depressed during or after their pregnancies (which is often due to excessive copper levels — something quite easy to treat naturally). Unfortunately, there are a variety of reasons why SSRIs are not safe during pregnancy. These include:

•SSRIs increase the risk of premature births,21 with the greatest risk (a doubling) occurring if an SSRI is taken during the third trimester.

•SSRIs significantly increase the risk of septal defects22 (which often require heart surgery to repair). One study of 500,000 infants in Denmark found mothers taking a single SSRI while pregnant caused the likelihood of a septal defect in their child to go from 0.5% to 0.9% and taking two or more increased it to 2.1%. Additionally, while on average taking an SSRI doubled the risk of a birth defect, the increased risk ranged from 34% to 225%, depending on the SSRI.

•SSRIs significantly increase the risk of persistent pulmonary hypertension in a newborn baby. One study of 1,173 babies found SSRIs increased the risk of it by 6.1 times,23 while another found the risk increased by 4.29 times,24 while another found it increased by 2.5 times.25

Given that this condition affects 1 to 2 out of 1,000 births and is often fatal, this "small" risk adds up quite quickly (but nonetheless this was not enough for the FDA to reconsider its advocacy of these drugs for pregnant women26).

Note: Other newborn complications linked to SSRIs include irritability, tremor, hypertonia, and difficulty sleeping or breastfeeding.

Sadly, after birth SSRIs continue to affect the development of a child. For example, the package insert for Prozac states that after only 19 weeks of treatment, children lost 1.1 cm (0.43 inches) and 1.1 kg in weight (2.43 lbs.) compared to children treated with placebo.27

The Role of Marketing in SSRI Popularity
Much in the same way, the pharmaceutical industry spends exorbitant amounts of money dishonestly marketing drugs, it will frequently concoct elaborate ways to make a useless (or worse) drug appear to be worth selling to all of America (in my opinion best encapsulated by the idiom "Putting Lipstick on a Pig"28).

Since "depression" is so subjective, it is even easier to game this research. As a result, when the "successful" studies of antidepressants are carefully examined, like many other pharmaceuticals (e.g., the COVID and HPV vaccines), the benefits are relatively inconsequential while the far greater risks are concealed with elaborate reclassifications.

Note: Antidepressants do work for a metabolic subset of patients (whose metabolic dysfunction can also be treated naturally). Unfortunately, physicians are never trained to screen for those patients, as that screening would eliminate the majority of potential SSRI customers.

Fortunately, there are a few metrics you cannot cover up. One of the most well-known ones is overall mortality (how many people in total on vs. off the drug died) since you can’t reclassify death. Another is how many patients voluntarily chose to stop taking a medication:

•A review of 29 published and 11 unpublished clinical trials containing 3,704 patients who received Paxil and 2,687 who received a placebo, found an equal proportion of patients in both groups left their study early (suggesting Paxil’s benefits did not outweigh its side effect), and that compared to placebo, 77% more stopped the drug because of side effects and 155% more stopped because they experienced suicidal tendencies.29

•A study of 7,525 patients, found that 56% of them chose to stop taking an SSRI within 4 months of being prescribed it.30

•An international survey of 3,516 people from 14 patient advocacy groups found that 44% had permanently stopped taking a psychiatric drug due to its side effects.31

•A survey of 500 patients found 81.5% were unsure if their antidepressants were necessary.32

Put differently, if most patients feel worse on a medication they are taking to "feel good" than they do without it, that means the trials proclaiming the medications made patients feel better were fraudulent.

In turn, thousands of remarkably similar stories can be found online.33 Patients experience a range of previously unimaginable side effects that shake the very foundation of their world, assume something must be wrong with them (hence going through a period of disbelief), find no support or understanding within the medical field — and then eventually realize they’d been trusting their doctors to have a certain amount of knowledge they don’t actually have.

"And you know, this is heartbreaking. I went through this, and I felt that the world had fallen out from underneath me. There wasn’t any medical safety net. So the sociological phenomenon exists, and has not yet filtered into medicine. Medicine has its own ways of gathering information, and in psychiatry, for some reason, they keep asking each other what the truth is instead of asking their patients. The patient voice is not very well recognized in psychiatry at all."34

Note: This SSRI experience mirrors many other pharmaceutical injuries (e.g., I’ve heard almost identical stories from countless individuals injured by the COVID-19 vaccines).

Most importantly, many patients report that their prescribers do not warn them about many of the SSRI side effects. In short, many people I know have not only needlessly been severely impacted by these drugs but also gaslighted35 by the doctors they sought care from.

Conclusion
Over the years, I have asked countless holistic doctors what they consider to be the five most dangerous, widely prescribed drugs in the marketplace, and without exception, SSRIs always make that list. In this article, I have attempted to illustrate some of the most frequent harms of these drugs, but sadly it only touches on the surface.

For example, because of how they are dosed, SSRIs are incredibly addictive, and once they’re partially decreased, a variety of severe symptoms can onset (e.g., dose changes commonly proceeds SSRI suicides and homicides,36 which is why you should never abruptly stop taking them).

Tragically, doctors are not trained to recognize these withdrawals (doctors typically instead interpret them as a pre-existing illness no longer being counteracted by the SSRI and continue to push the drugs), and very few know how to safely taper patients off SSRIs.

Fortunately, with the MAHA movement, this is beginning to change. For example, consider what RFK Jr. stated37 when he shared this article:



As such, for the first time in my life, I am sincerely hopeful this nearly 40 year tragedy at last will end.38 As such, it is now imperative each of us do all we can to expose the Forgotten Sides of Medicine so we can create public pressure to end these pharmaceutical atrocities and bring back the incredible natural therapies that were removed from the market to protect these grotesque pharmaceutical monopolies.

Author's note: This is an abridged version of a longer article which discusses the above points in much more detail and discusses how to safely withdraw from SSRIs. That article and its additional references can be read here. Additionally, a companion article about the depression industry and effective natural therapies for depression can be read here.

A Note from Dr. Mercola About the Author
A Midwestern Doctor (AMD) is a board-certified physician from the Midwest and a longtime reader of Mercola.com. I appreciate AMD's exceptional insight on a wide range of topics and am grateful to share it. I also respect AMD’s desire to remain anonymous since AMD is still on the front lines treating patients. To find more of AMD's work, be sure to check out The Forgotten Side of Medicine on Substack."

- Sources and References
1, 38 The Forgotten Side of Medicine, December 10, 2023
2 Amazon, Anatomy of an Epidemic
3, 8, 36 The Forgotten Side of Medicine, November 3, 2023
4 Phinance Technologies, Humanity Projects, March 2023
5 Rasmussen Reports, December 7, 2022
6 Psychiatry Res. 2014 Apr 30;216(1):67-73
7, 19, 33 The Forgotten Side of Medicine, November 26, 2023
9 Amazon, Medication Madness
10, 31 Med Care. 2000 Sep;38(9):926-36
11 Cochrane Review, Vienna, 2015
12 New York University Press, Let Them Eat Prozac, 2004 (Archived)
13 Neuropharmacology. 1978 Jun;17(6):383-9
14 BMJ. 2009 Aug 11:339:b2880
15 Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2009 Aug;205(3):349-68
16 Deadly Psychiatry and Organised Denial, 2015 (Archived)
17, 20 J Clin Psychiatry. 2001:62 Suppl 3:10-21
18 JClin Psychiatry, 2001:62 (Suppl 3) [Archived]
21 PLoS One. 2014 Mar 26;9(3):e92778
22 BMJ. 2009 Sep 23;339:b3569
23 N Engl J Med. 2006 Feb 9;354(6):579-87
24 Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2017 Jan 18;83(5):1126–1133
25 BMJ 2012;344:d8012
26, 27 FDA, February 13, 2018
28 Wikipedia, Lipstick on a pig
29 CMAJ. 2008 Jan 29;178(3):296-305
30 Eur Psychiatry. 2010 May;25(4):206-13
32 Psychol Med. 2005 Aug;35(8):1205-13
34 Mad in America, November 1, 2020
35 The Forgotten Side of Medicine, February 9, 2023
37 X, Robert F. Kennedy Jr, January 3, 2024

[onawah]

Antidepressant Use Associated with Higher Risk of Sudden Cardiac Death
Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola
May 31, 2025
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...&rid=305413888

https://media.mercola.com/ImageServe...-death-pdf.pdf

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=uysZravC5vQ

"Story at-a-glance
Long-term antidepressant use significantly increases the risk of sudden cardiac death, with risk doubling after six or more years of use according to Danish research
Younger adults face an even higher risk, with those aged 30 to 39 showing five times greater likelihood of sudden cardiac death after six years on antidepressants
Antidepressants disrupt heart rhythm by affecting ion channels, triggering fatal irregular heartbeat
Research shows antidepressants only benefit about 15% of patients beyond placebo effect, primarily those with severe depression rather than general low mood
Effective alternatives for managing depression include exercise, sunlight exposure, gut health optimization and techniques for nervous system regulation

More people are taking antidepressants than ever before — often for years, sometimes for life. If you're one of them, you've likely been told they're safe, effective and essential for your mental health. But there's a growing body of evidence suggesting long-term use increases your risk of something far more dangerous than the symptoms you're trying to manage — sudden cardiac death.

Sudden cardiac death is a fast and fatal collapse that often happens with no warning signs. While it's more common in older adults, it's not limited to them. In younger adults, sudden cardiac death is usually tied to electrical malfunctions or a thickened heart muscle. In older adults, it's most often the result of narrowed arteries. Either way, the outcome is the same: a person collapses and dies within minutes, often with no time for intervention.

However, the risk profile is shifting, and some of that shift appears to be tied to medications millions rely on every day. If you're taking antidepressants, this information could save your life. Because once you understand the risks that come with long-term antidepressant use, you can start taking steps to protect your heart and improve your mental health at the same time.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=dsxSKhOjTP4

Longer Antidepressant Use Sharply Increases Your Risk of Dying from a Heart Event
New research presented at the 2025 European Heart Rhythm Association annual meeting examined how antidepressant medications are linked to fatal heart events.1 For the study, researchers reviewed the death records of every adult aged 18 to 90 living in Denmark in 2010.

Out of 45,701 total deaths recorded, 6,002 were confirmed as sudden cardiac deaths. The researchers wanted to know: were people taking antidepressants more likely to die this way? The short answer is yes — and the longer they took the drugs, the higher their risk climbed.

•Researchers specifically looked at antidepressant exposure over time — People were considered "exposed" to antidepressants if they had filled at least two prescriptions within one year, at any point during the 12 years leading up to the study. That exposure was then divided into two categories: short-term (one to five years) and long-term (six or more years).

•Risk increased the longer people stayed on antidepressants — Compared to people who had never used these drugs, those on antidepressants for one to five years had a 56% higher risk of sudden cardiac death.

But the danger didn't plateau. It escalated. Individuals who had been on antidepressants for six or more years had more than double the risk of sudden cardiac death — specifically, a 2.2 times greater likelihood of dying suddenly from heart-related causes.

Younger Adults Face Even Steeper Risk Than Older Users
This wasn't just a problem for older adults. Among those aged 30 to 39, people who used antidepressants for one to five years were three times more likely to die from sudden cardiac death. If they had been using antidepressants for six or more years, their risk jumped to five times higher than unexposed peers. In people aged 50 to 59, the risk doubled after one to five years of use, and quadrupled after six or more years.

•Risk levels were lower but still elevated in people over 70 — In those aged 70 to 79, taking antidepressants for one to five years was associated with an 83% increase in sudden cardiac death risk. With six or more years of use, the risk rose to 2.2 times higher than in people not using antidepressants.

Interestingly, for the youngest group (18 to 29) and the oldest group (80 and up), the data didn't show a statistically significant increase, though the sample size may have been too small to detect it.

•The study showed a clear dose-response relationship with time — The longer you stay on antidepressants, the more likely you are to die suddenly from a heart-related cause. For instance, in people aged 40 to 49, those with six or more years of use had a 70% higher risk compared to those with one to five years. The pattern continued:

◦50 to 59 years old — 100% increased risk

◦60 to 69 years old — 40% higher risk

◦70 to 79 years old — 20% higher risk

•Biological and behavioral factors are driving this connection — Study co-author Dr. Jasmin Mujkanovic from Copenhagen University Hospital explained that there are multiple possible reasons for the higher risk. One factor is direct drug effects. Some antidepressants alter how electrical signals travel through your heart, which could trigger fatal rhythm disturbances.

Another possibility is that antidepressant use is a marker of more severe psychiatric illness, which itself is known to increase cardiovascular risks. Depression is also linked to delayed medical care, unhealthy behaviors and poor heart health.

•Heart rhythm disruption is a likely mechanism of action — Many antidepressants, especially selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), affect ion channels in the heart.

These ion channels control how electrical impulses flow, which tells your heart when to beat. When these signals are disturbed, your heart slips into an abnormal rhythm known as arrhythmia. Some arrhythmias lead to sudden death if not corrected within minutes.

Antidepressants Don't Work for Most People

Antidepressants are still handed out as a first-line treatment for everything from sadness to burnout, despite growing evidence that they rarely address the actual cause of these problems.

If you're someone who's been prescribed one, odds are you weren't diagnosed with a severe mental illness like schizophrenia or psychosis. Instead, you're likely dealing with grief, anxiety or general low mood — common human experiences that often signal deeper physical or emotional imbalances.

•Symptoms like sadness or anxiety are your body's way of signaling that something needs attention — Feeling emotionally low isn't always a disorder. It's often a sign your system is under stress. You could be low in important nutrients or getting too little sunlight or too much blue light.

You could also be disconnected from your purpose, your relationships or your body. In any of these cases, masking the symptoms with medication ignores the deeper message — and leaves the root problem untouched.

•Two-thirds of people taking antidepressants don't get any real benefit — Even though antidepressants are routinely offered as the go-to solution for depression, the success rate is low. About 66% of people prescribed these medications do not experience meaningful symptom relief.2 And for many, the side effects — like increased risk of Type 2 diabetes,3 dementia4 and even suicide — are worse than the symptoms they started with.

•A 2022 review showed antidepressants only work for a tiny group of people — Researchers from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) conducted the largest-ever review of antidepressant studies.5

They analyzed data from 232 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials submitted to the FDA between 1979 and 2016, including unpublished trials that drug companies never released. In total, the data covered 73,388 patients with diagnosed depression.

•Only 15% of patients benefited beyond the placebo effect — The analysis found that antidepressants outperformed placebo in just 15% of patients. That benefit was almost entirely limited to people with the most severe forms of depression. For everyone else, the improvement they felt was likely due to belief and expectation, not the drug itself.

How to Begin Tapering Off Antidepressants Safely
If you're on an antidepressant and you're ready to stop, don't do it alone. Your first step is to get your prescribing doctor on board. But if they're dismissive or untrained in tapering protocols, look for someone who takes a more biologically informed approach.

The American College for Advancement in Medicine (www.acam.org) has a referral list of physicians who combine conventional training with nutritional and metabolic insight. A holistic psychiatrist can guide you through the process and offer alternatives that support your brain, not just medicate it.

•Use trusted resources to educate yourself and plan a slow taper — You need a clear strategy. That's where books like "Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal: A Guide for Prescribers, Therapists, Patients and Their Families" by Dr. Peter Breggin and "The Antidepressant Solution: A Step-by-Step Guide to Overcoming Antidepressant Withdrawal, Dependence, and Addiction" by Dr. Joseph Glenmullen come in.

These guides walk you through the process, explain what to expect and offer real-life strategies to manage symptoms. The goal is to support your nervous system during the transition so you don't rebound or crash. Once you've got the right support in place, taper gradually. Your doctor should know the safest dosing schedule based on your medication.

•Help loved ones build momentum when they can't do it alone — If you have a friend or family member struggling with depression, the best thing you can do is show up — literally. Invite them outside. Offer to cook. Take a walk together. Depression makes basic decisions feel overwhelming. But the presence of another person, especially someone gently nudging them toward light, movement and connection, is often enough to change the trajectory of their day.

•In a true crisis, act fast and get help immediately — If you're in a place where you're not just sad but desperate — or thinking about ending your life — this isn't the moment to map out a supplement plan or search for a new doctor. You need to get to safety first. Call the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline or 1-800-273-TALK (8255), or head straight to your nearest emergency room. Stabilize now. The healing comes after.

Strategies for Depression That Actually Work
If you're on antidepressants now, you don't have to stay there forever. If you're looking for safe, effective ways to support your mental health, without adding to your heart risk, there are many science-backed strategies worth trying. These methods support your mood at the root level by stabilizing nervous system function, reducing inflammation, nourishing your brain and restoring biological balance. Here's how to take action:

1.Move your body in ways that support your brain:

•Exercise does more than burn calories; it builds mental resilience — Aerobic movement, even at moderate levels like walking, helps your brain produce calming neurotransmitters like GABA while also increasing dopamine, and norepinephrine, all of which are linked to improved mood and emotional stability.

•You don't need to go hard to see results — Research has shown that even gentle practices like yoga are effective. One study found that 90-minute yoga sessions three times a week cut major depression symptoms in half.6

2.Adjust your diet to reduce inflammation and stabilize mood:

•Inflammation makes everything worse, including your mental health — Begin by identifying and removing personal food triggers. If you're sensitive to gluten or lectins, removing them from your diet may make a significant difference. A whole food diet that limits linoleic acid (LA) in vegetable oils to 5 grams a day or less also supports your mitochondria for long-term energy and resilience.

•Refined sugar directly impacts your mood — In one study, men consuming over 67 grams of sugar per day were 23% more likely to develop anxiety or depression than those consuming under 40 grams.7 While natural fructose in whole fruit is not a problem, processed fructose, like high-fructose corn syrup, should be avoided.

Nutrients to prioritize:

•B vitamins, especially folate (B9) and B12, which play a direct role in brain chemistry.

•Magnesium, which has been found to improve symptoms in people with depression.8 I favor magnesium glycinate and magnesium malate, as they're well-absorbed and easy on the digestive system.

3.Get real sunlight, not just vitamin D pills:

•Low vitamin D levels are strongly tied to depression9 — Sensible sun exposure is your best source of vitamin D and also boosts melatonin production in your mitochondria and enhances circadian rhythms.

Be aware that if you've been eating vegetable oils, your skin is full of fragile fats that oxidize in the sun, raising your sunburn risk. So, it's best to avoid direct sunlight during peak hours (10 a.m. to 4 p.m.) until you've cut back on LA for at least six months.

•Supplement only if needed — Use a vitamin D blood test to confirm your levels are in the optimal range of 60 to 80 ng/mL. If you can't get enough vitamin D from sun exposure alone, then consider a vitamin D3 supplement.

4.Use tools that regulate your nervous system without side effects:

•Light therapy has been shown to be more effective than Prozac in treating moderate to severe depression.10 Spending time in natural daylight is free and often more powerful than artificial lightboxes.

•Gut health is directly tied to mood. Optimizing your gut microbiome supports the production of calming brain chemicals like GABA. Simple dietary changes support gut health, including proper carbohydrate intake (250 grams daily), increasing fiber gradually if your gut is healthy and avoiding processed foods and vegetable oils.

•EFT (Emotional Freedom Techniques) is a practical self-help tool. It combines tapping on acupressure points with verbal affirmations and has been shown to reduce anxiety and depression symptoms. You can learn this at home without needing a specialist.

5.Clean up your environment and reset your nervous system:

•Minimize EMF exposure — Wireless devices like phones, tablets and Wi-Fi routers increase free radical production and neurotransmitter imbalances by overstimulating calcium channels in your brain. Simple fixes like turning off Wi-Fi at night, using airplane mode on your phone and keeping devices out of your bedroom go a long way.

•Improve sleep quality — Poor sleep raises cortisol and damages mental health. If you're struggling to fall asleep or stay asleep, use these 50 tips for a better night's rest.

•Train your mind with visualization and cognitive behavioral tools — Guided imagery and cognitive behavioral therapy have all shown benefits in shifting thought patterns that contribute to low mood.

•Don't ignore low cholesterol — Brain serotonin receptors are made of cholesterol. If your levels are too low, it could be impairing your ability to regulate mood and suppress aggression. Low cholesterol is linked to increased suicide risk for this reason.

These strategies are not add-ons — they're replacements. Every one of these tools moves your body toward better function and away from the kind of imbalance that puts stress on your heart and brain. If antidepressants have failed you, or you're ready to build a healthier life from the ground up, this is where you start.

FAQs About Antidepressants and Sudden Cardiac Death
Q: Does taking antidepressants really increase the risk of sudden cardiac death?

A: Yes. A large study presented at the 2025 European Heart Rhythm Association meeting found that long-term antidepressant use is strongly associated with a higher risk of sudden cardiac death. The risk increased by 56% for those who had taken antidepressants for one to five years, and more than doubled for those with six or more years of use. The longer the use, the greater the risk — especially in adults under 60.

Q: Who is most at risk for heart complications from antidepressants?

A: Adults between the ages of 30 and 59 face the greatest increase in risk. For example, people aged 30 to 39 who used antidepressants for six or more years had a fivefold increase in sudden cardiac death risk compared to those who never used them. While risk is elevated across most age groups, it's especially high in midlife.

Q: Do antidepressants actually work for depression?

A: In most cases, no. According to the largest-ever review of antidepressant clinical trials — covering 232 studies and over 73,000 patients — only 15% of users experienced a benefit beyond placebo. The drugs showed noticeable effects almost exclusively in people with the most severe depression. For the majority, the perceived improvement comes from the placebo effect, not the drug itself.

Q: How can I safely taper off antidepressants if I've been on them for a long time?

A: Start by working with a prescriber trained in tapering protocols, ideally a holistic or integrative practitioner. Lower your dose gradually to reduce withdrawal symptoms. Nutritional support, such as B vitamins and magnesium, helps stabilize your nervous system during this process.

Q: What are safer, natural alternatives for managing depression?

A: Effective strategies include daily movement, circadian rhythm alignment through morning sunlight, dietary changes to reduce inflammation and tools like light therapy, EFT (tapping) and guided visualization. Supporting gut health, reducing EMF exposure, improving sleep quality and checking for low cholesterol or nutrient deficiencies are also key steps in addressing depression without adding cardiovascular risk."

- Sources and References
1 European Society of Cardiology March 30, 2025
2 Translational Psychiatry June 3, 2022, Introduction
3 Diabetol Metab Syndr. 2023 Aug 31;15:179
4 BMC Medicine February 25, 2025
5 BMJ 2022; 378: e067606
6 Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine March 1, 2017; 23(3)
7 Scientific Reports July 27, 2017; 7, Article Number: 6287
8 Frontiers in Psychiatry December 21, 2023
9 Pharmacol Res. 2023 Jan:187:106605. doi: 10.1016/j.phrs.2022.106605. Epub 2022 Dec 9
10 JAMA Psychiatry November 18, 2015. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2015.2235

[onawah]

Laura Delano: The Dark Truth About Antidepressants, SSRIs, and the Psychiatrists Lying for Profit
Tucker Carlson
1.07M followers
6/6/25

"Doctors told a teenage Laura Delano she had something they called bipolar disorder, and then proceeded to make her legitimately crazy with psych drugs. She’s one of the few who recovered.

Laura Delano is an author, speaker, and consultant, and the founder of Inner Compass Initiative, a nonprofit organization that helps people make more informed choices about taking and safely tapering off psychiatric drugs. She is a leading voice in the international movement of people who’ve left behind the medicalized, professionalized mental health industry to build something different. Laura has worked as an advocate within and beyond the mental health system, and has spent the past 13 years working with individuals and families around the world who are seeking guidance and support for psychiatric drug withdrawal. Her book, Unshrunk: A Story of Psychiatric Treatment Resistance, was published in March 2025.

Unshrunk: A Story of Psychiatric Treatment Resistance: https://unshrunkthebook.com
Laura’s website: https://www.lauradelano.com
Inner Compass Initiative: https://www.theinnercompass.org
Laura on X: https://x.com/LauraDelano "

Chapters:
0:00 Introduction
1:16 Why Is the New York Times Mad at Delano for Getting off Antidepressants?
4:48 Delano’s Battle With Mental Health
14:32 The Major Problem With Psychiatry Diagnoses
23:39 When Was Delano Put On Psych Drugs?
26:42 Is There Really Such a Thing as a “Chemical Imbalance” in the Brain?
30:43 How Many Americans Are on Psychiatric Drugs?
34:06 The Terrifying Side Effects of SSRIs They Refuse to Warn You Of
49:09 The Drugs That Kill Your Life-Force
56:17 The Loss of Sexual Function After the Use of Psychiatric Drugs
59:26 Is There a Connection Between SSRIs and Mass Shootings?
1:07:38 Alcohol’s Impact on Your Mental Health
1:10:31 How Therapy Is Used to Replace Family and Friendship
1:19:21 Big Pharma’s Newest “Treatment Resistance” Scam
1:26:02 Why the System Is So Afraid of Delano’s Story
1:45:14 How the Medical Industry Brainwashes Doctors
1:54:57 The Moment Delano Lost Faith in the Psychiatric System
2:05:19 They Want You Dependent on Prescription Drugs
2:11:51 Delano’s Mission to Help Others


Source: https://www.rumble.com/video/v6s7b93/?pub=4