The secret at the bottom of psychiatry’s rabbit hole

by Jon Rappoport

February 24, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Nightmares, out-of-control aggressive behavior, extreme sadness and passivity, confusion, hallucinations, mania, brain damage, suicide, homicide—these are just a few central effects of psychiatric drugs.

Read the staggering statistics reported by Robert Whitaker, the author of Mad in America: Bad Science, Bad Medicine, and the Enduring Mistreatment of the Mentally Ill: “The number of adults, ages 18 to 65, on the federal disability rolls due to mental illness jumped from 1.25 million in 1987 to four million in 2007. Roughly one in every 45 working-age adults is now on government disability due to mental illness.

“This epidemic has now struck our nation’s children, too. The number of children who receive a federal payment because of a severe mental illness rose from 16,200 in 1987 to 561,569 in 2007, a 35-fold increase.”

My exploration started in 1999, as I covered the Columbine school shooting.

I was already familiar with the pioneering work of Dr. Peter Breggin and his classic book, Toxic Psychiatry. I knew the drugs were toxic and that some of them could push people into violence.

It emerged that one of the Columbine shooters, Eric Harris, had been on Luvox, a violence-inducing drug, an SSRI antidepressant.

This, of course, was very troubling, because children and adults all over America were taking these antidepressants. And in Dr. Breggin’s book, I saw a summary of a review-study on Ritalin, done in 1986 by Joseph Scarnati. Ritalin, far from being a “soft” drug, was essentially speed, and it carried with it significant dangers.

It could cause hallucinations, aggressive behavior, and even psychotic breaks. Several million children in America were taking Ritalin.

What I came to call a “Johnny Appleseed specter” loomed over America. If psychiatrists dispensed enough of these drugs, seeding the population, we would be in for random shootings and killings and suicides on into the indefinite future. And psychiatrists were, in fact, handing out these drugs like candy. No one at the FDA or any enforcement government agency was ringing alarm bells.

In the wake of Columbine, I wrote a white paper, “Why Did they Do It: School Shootings Across America,” for The Truth Seeker. It gained wide online attention. The report mentioned other instances where children, on psychiatric drugs, had committed murder and suicide.

In the ensuing years, I became much more aware of the influence of drug companies in this Johnny Appleseed operation. They had, in fact, struck a deal to rescue the sinking profession of psychiatry. The arrangement was simple and potent: Big Pharma would bankroll psychiatric conferences and education, prop up flagging journals with advertising money, and generally promote the repute of psychiatry, in return for a certain kind of research:

The research would “prove” that all mental disorders were the result of chemical imbalances in the brain, and no amount of talk therapy would resolve these issues. Instead, it would take drugs, which of course would be developed and sold by Pharma.

In order for this scheme to work, the FDA, which certifies all medicines as safe and effective before releasing them for public consumption, would have to play along. That was no problem. The FDA basically serves the pharmaceutical industry.

Roughly five years after Columbine, I (and other investigators) began to see how widespread the research fraud really was. Peter Breggin was already aware of it and had published extensively on the subject.

For example, clinical trials of psychiatric drugs were being done over very brief periods of time; in some cases, the trials were as short as six weeks. This was the case with Xanax. A brief testing period would hide many of the adverse effects of the drugs.

But then I also saw how clinical trials that were failures, that revealed how badly the drugs were performing, could be hidden altogether, as if they’d never happened. The results of these trials weren’t published at all. A pharmaceutical company, running a number of studies on a drug, could cherry pick a few studies that looked good and shelve the others.

In 2009, searching the literature and interviewing several psychiatrists off the record, I came to understand that the whole idea of “chemical imbalances in the brain” was a fraud. No one had ever established a normal chemical level of balance. In other words, there was no scientific standard that, by comparison, could show what an “imbalance” was. It was a myth, and it was widely accepted, even by the public.

I began talking to parents. The full force of what was happening, on the ground, was driven home to me. Lives were being derailed and destroyed at an early age. Children were being warped by these drugs. A diagnosis of one psychiatric condition, followed by a drug prescription, often resulted in another diagnosis, and more drugs. The effects were devastating.

The time of childhood, of innocence, was being destroyed. It was all in the service of carving up behavior into categories of mental disorders and then selling drugs behind those diagnoses.

Children’s brains were being twisted.

There was a growing trend to diagnose children at six, at four, or even earlier, with mental conditions—and give them drugs. Papers and books were being written to justify this. The publications were called “breakthroughs.” A whole industry of “bipolar children” was created out of thin air, and the scientific fraud was accepted as holy writ.

This was not just fraud. It was evil. It was remorseless evil, perpetrated by elite academics and researchers. These were people who should have been put in prison for the rest of their lives. But nothing was happening to them. They were praised instead, and celebrated.

Where was the national conscience? Where were the people in the Department of Justice, who should have been serving warrants and making arrests and building court cases?

What I saw was obvious, and it had been in front of my face for more than a decade. The federal government was supporting and certifying psychiatry/psychology as the single science of mental health. This wasn’t just a wink and a nod; it was rock solid.

Where in the Constitution was there any basis for that? Nowhere. The very idea, when you isolated it and held it in your hand and looked at it, was preposterous. The federal government has no conceivable right to enable psychiatry in any way.

Yet, it was happening. It was happening to such a degree that nothing was being done to punish the whole profession for destroying countless lives with toxic drugs. Indeed, this was government-approved behavior.

It still boggles my mind to think about that. Yes, one can offer many excuses and rationalizations, but at the end of it all, that’s what we’re left with: the government is certifying the destruction of millions of lives.

Read Toxic Psychiatry, and Dr. Breggin’s later book, Medication Madness. Read Robert Whitaker’s Mad in America and Anatomy of an Epidemic. That will get you started. You’ll find lucid evidence of the many destructive effects the drugs produce, all the way from mania to motor brain damage.

I thought I had reached the end of the road. What more was there to discover? What more did anyone need to know? No matter which way you sliced it, psychiatric destruction was a government-certified program.

But then, several years ago, I realized I didn’t know how many mental disorders existed. I knew, of course, there was a bible of the psychiatric profession. It is called the DSM, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. So far, there have been four editions. A fifth is due out in the spring of 2013.

The editions of the DSM are put together by committees of psychiatrists. The DSM, published by the American Psychiatric Association, lists and defines every officially-certified mental disorder. It is used by psychiatrists to bill insurance companies.

So I quickly found out there are 297 mental disorders. This is absurd on the face of it. Reading the descriptions of these disorders, one sees they are menus of behaviors.

I assumed some of these disorders were based on nothing but speculation. They were inventions. Concoctions.

But after a few conversations with psychiatric sources, I saw I had been underestimating the extent of the fraud.

In fact, all 297 mental disorders are arrangements and clusters of behaviors. The DSM committees hold meetings and argue and hash out the composition of the clusters and the accompanying mental-disorder labels.

Then I found an article: Wired Magazine, December 27, 2010, “Inside the Battle to Define Mental Illness,” by Gary Greenberg. It was an interview with a psychiatrist, Dr. Allen Frances.

Frances wasn’t just any psychiatrist. He was a star of stars. He had been in charge of assembling the fourth edition of the bible, the DSM.

In an April 19, 1994, New York Times piece, “Scientist At Work,” Daniel Goleman called Frances, “Perhaps the most powerful psychiatrist in America at the moment…”

Long after the DSM-IV had been put into print, Dr. Frances, talking to Wired’s Greenberg, said the following:

“There is no definition of a mental disorder. It’s bullshit. I mean, you just can’t define it.”

This was on the order of the Pope asserting there was no real reason to believe in God.

After a pause, Dr. Frances remarked, “These concepts [of distinct mental disorders] are virtually impossible to define precisely with bright lines at the borders.”

Frances might have been referring to the fact that his DSM-IV had expanded earlier definitions of ADHD and Bipolar, to permit many more diagnoses, leading to a vast acceleration of drug-dosing with highly powerful and toxic compounds, like Valproate and Lithium.

Finally, at the end of the Wired interview, Frances flew off into a bizarre fantasy:

“Diagnosis [as spelled out in the DSM-IV] is part of the magic…you know those medieval maps? In the places where they didn’t know what was going on, they wrote ‘Dragons live here’…we have a dragon’s world here [with the DSM]. But you wouldn’t want to be without the map.”

Frances was basically admitting that the nice neat definitions of mental disorders were a delusion. But to justify it, he called the whole enterprise an exercise in partial map-making.

The Wired interview was explosive, to say the least. The most influential psychiatrist in America was confessing that you couldn’t clearly define mental disorders.

But no, that wasn’t all. There were a few more steps to the bottom of the rabbit hole. They were taken by Dr. Russell Barkley, professor of psychiatry and neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center.

In an episode of the PBS Frontline series, titled “Does ADHD Exist,” the Frontline interviewer stated: “Skeptics say that there’s no biological marker—that it [ADHD] is the one condition out there where there is no blood test, and that no one knows what causes it.”

Dr. Barkley replied: “That’s tremendously naïve, and it shows a great deal of illiteracy about science and about the mental health professions. A disorder doesn’t have to have a blood test to be valid. If that were the case, all mental disorders would be invalid…There is no lab test for any mental disorder right now in our science. That doesn’t make them invalid.”

First of all, Dr. Barkley’s comments are not unique. I have heard his points echoed by many psychiatrists. It’s time to take this assertion apart, because it is truly staggering.

The “illiteracy about science” belongs to Dr. Barkley. The scientific method requires that when a researcher draws a conclusion, he provides the evidence for it. The burden of proof is on him.

If a committee of psychiatrists says disorder X exists, it must demonstrate that.

Barkely confirms that no mental disorder has a lab test to back up a diagnosis. It doesn’t matter what disorder you pick. Schizophrenia, ADHD, Bipolar, clinical depression. None of them can be tested for.

No blood test, no urine test, no saliva test, no brain scan, no genetic assay.

That is a titanic fact.

And being a fact, it destroys the whole DSM and everything it stands for. It destroys the validity of every one of the 297 official mental disorders.

Science requires that the claim for the existence of a mental disorder must be backed up by hard evidence. Since there is no evidence, and since the burden of proof is on the psychiatric profession, the inevitable inference is clear:

Retract every one of the 297 mental disorders. Erase their names. It’s over. There is no proof any of these disorders exist. They only have the status of fictions. Psychiatry doesn’t have some special dispensation to do “a different brand of science.”

When this was finally made clear to me, I knew I had reached the bottom of the rabbit hole. There were other paths to follow, concerning the issue of conscious intent to do harm to millions of people, but as far the science was concerned, that was It.

Of course, those who are confused by this bottom-line revelation will say that many people are suffering from mental illness. They will say it is obvious.

No, what is obvious is that many people have problems. Many people suffer. Many people are desperate. Many people experience emotional and physical pain. The actual causes for all this can’t be neatly categorized and labeled. To make a meaningful diagnosis or assessment involves much deeper investigation—and also an appreciation of what is front of one’s own eyes.

When it comes to human suffering and emotional distress, we could be talking about causes ranging from severe malnutrition to brain lesions; from environmental poisoning to a history of toxic medical drug and vaccine-use; from extreme poverty and hopelessness to false arrest; from oxygen deprivation at birth to physical abuse and imminent danger in the immediate household, or in the community; from massive food sensitivities and other allergies to blood-sugar problems; from guilt at having committed crimes to being on the receiving end of political oppression. The list goes on.

This is a partial collection of real causes—instead of the false, non-existent mental disorders, which are excuses to drug people.

The whole profession of psychiatry is an outright fraud and an ongoing crime of the highest order.

At the same time, as long as psychiatrists sit in offices and the drugs are available, and no one is prosecuted and sent to jail for dispensing these “medicines,” adults have the freedom to choose to take the drugs or not. And if some of them say they have benefited, that’s also their decision.

But without knowledge and authentic informed consent beforehand, the landscape is rife with danger.

When it comes uninformed or uncaring parents dealing away their children’s lives to psychiatrists, that is an ever-expanding tragic nightmare.

Each day that the profession of psychiatry continues to practice its sophisticated brand of poisonous fakery, and each day that the federal government of the United States continues to back it up and support it and fund it and give it primacy and monopoly, there is an ongoing RICO crime in progress. A crime of gangsters and thugs organized as a mob.

It is as if the Mafia declared its shootings and beatings to be scientifically based. It is exactly like that.

Here are several quotes, out of hundreds I could offer, on the subject of the adverse and chilling effects of psychiatry:

Dr. Peter Breggin, the eminent psychiatrist and author (Toxic Psychiatry, Talking Back to Prozac, Talking Back to Ritalin): “With Luvox [an antidepressant] there is some evidence of a four-percent rate for mania in adolescents. Mania, for certain individuals, could be a component in grandiose plans to destroy large numbers of other people. Mania can go over the hill to psychosis.”

Dr. Joseph Tarantolo is a psychiatrist in private practice in Washington DC. He is the past-president of the Washington chapter of the American Society of Psychoanalytic Physicians. Tarantolo states that “all the SSRIs [including Prozac and Luvox] relieve the patient of feeling. He becomes less empathic, as in `I don’t care as much,’ which means `It’s easier for me to harm you.’ If a doctor treats someone who needs a great deal of strength just to think straight, and gives him one of these drugs, that could push him over the edge into violent behavior.”

In his landmark book, Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Breggin mentions that the Donahue show (Feb. 28, 1991) “put together a group of individuals who had become compulsively self-destructive and murderous after taking Prozac and the clamorous telephone and audience response confirmed the problem.”

Breggin also cites a troubling study from the February 1990 American Journal of Psychiatry (Teicher et al, v.147:207-210) which reports on “six depressed patients, previously free of recent suicidal ideation, who developed `intense, violent suicidal preoccupations after 2-7 weeks of fluoxetine [Prozac] treatment.’ The suicidal preoccupations lasted from three days to three months after termination of the treatment. The report estimates that 3.5 percent of Prozac users were at risk. While denying the validity of the study, Dista Products, a division of Eli Lilly, put out a brochure for doctors dated August 31, 1990, stating that it was adding `suicidal ideation’ to the adverse events section of its Prozac product information.”

A shocking review-study published in The Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases (1996, v.184, no.2), written by Rhoda L. Fisher and Seymour Fisher, called “Antidepressants for Children,” concludes: “Despite unanimous literature of double-blind studies indicating that antidepressants are no more effective than placebos in treating depression in children and adolescents, such medications continue to be in wide use.”

“Emergence of self-destructive phenomena in children and adolescents during fluoxetine treatment,” published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (1991, vol.30), written by RA King, RA Riddle, et al, reports self-destructive phenomena in 14% (6/42) of children and adolescents (10-17 years old) who had treatment with fluoxetine (Prozac) for obsessive-compulsive disorder.

The well-known Goodman and Gilman’s The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics states that Ritalin is “structurally related to amphetamines … Its pharmacological properties are essentially the same as those of the amphetamines.”

In Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Breggin discusses the subject of drug combinations: “Combining antidepressants [e.g., Prozac, Luvox] and psychostimulants [e.g., Ritalin] increases the risk of cardiovascular catastrophe, seizures, sedation, euphoria, and psychosis. Withdrawal from the combination can cause a severe reaction that includes confusion, emotional instability, agitation, and aggression.”

In 1986, The International Journal of the Addictions published a most important literature review by Richard Scarnati. It was called “An Outline of Hazardous Side Effects of Ritalin (Methylphenidate”) [v.21(7), pp. 837-841].

Scarnati listed over a hundred adverse affects of Ritalin and indexed published journal articles for each of these symptoms.

For every one of the following (selected and quoted verbatim) Ritalin effects then, there is at least one confirming source in the medical literature:

• Paranoid delusions

• Paranoid psychosis

• Hypomanic and manic symptoms, amphetamine-like psychosis

• Activation of psychotic symptoms

• Toxic psychosis

• Visual hallucinations

• Auditory hallucinations

• Can surpass LSD in producing bizarre experiences

• Effects pathological thought processes

• Extreme withdrawal

• Terrified affect

• Started screaming

• Aggressiveness

• Insomnia

• Since Ritalin is considered an amphetamine-type drug, expect amphatamine-like effects

• psychic dependence

• High-abuse potential DEA Schedule II Drug

• Decreased REM sleep

• When used with antidepressants one may see dangerous reactions including hypertension, seizures and hypothermia

• Convulsions

• Brain damage may be seen with amphetamine abuse.

In commenting on Dr. Lawrence Diller’s book, Running on Ritalin, Dr. William Carey, Director of Behavioral Pediatrics, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, has written, “Dr. Diller has correctly described … the disturbing trend of blaming children’s social, behavioral, and academic performance problems entirely on an unproven brain deficit [ADHD]…”

The 1994 Textbook of Psychiatry, published by the American Psychiatric Press, contains this review (Popper and Steingard): “Stimulants [such as Ritalin] do not produce lasting improvements in aggressivity, conduct disorder, criminality, education achievement, job functioning, marital relationships, or long-term adjustment.”

In his book, Talking Back to Ritalin, Peter Breggin expands on the drug’s effects: “Stimulants such as Ritalin and amphetamine … have grossly harmful impacts on the brain-reducing overall blood flow, disturbing glucose metabolism, and possibly causing permanent shrinkage or atrophy of the brain.”

Dr. David Healy, professor of psychiatry and former Secretary of British Association for Psychopharmacology, author of Let Then Eat Prozac and Mania: “I approached ACLU about the fact that there are people in prison who are likely there because their drugs caused them to become violent but didn’t even get an acknowledgment from ACLU that I had written.

“In the same way the Boston Women’s Collaborative don’t want to hear that antidepressants could cause birth defects or mental handicap in children. They only want pregnant women to have access to antidepressants and are part of a movement that has pushed the use of antidepressants in pregnancy up to record levels.”

Dr. David Healy: “In the case of prescription [antidepressant] drugs, what defence does a doctor have to fall back on? The risk of violence on these drugs has been known for 50 years. It’s known that even giving these drugs to healthy volunteers can cause them to become violent. The data has been out there in warnings in many countries for 10 years. It may be disputed but there is no doctor who can say that they simply couldn’t have been aware of this issue. If there are, they are simply not professional.”

Dr. David Healy: “About 4000 families in the US have children born with major birth defects each year because of antidepressants taken in pregnancy. Up to 20,000 women per year have a miscarriage because of these drugs and a large number have voluntary terminations linked to antidepressants.”

Robert Whitaker, author of Mad in America and Anatomy of an Epidemic: “…the prescribing of psychiatric medications to children and adolescents took off during this period (1987 to 2007), and as this medical practice took hold, the number of youth in America receiving a government disability check because of a mental illness leapt from 16,200 in 1987 to 561,569 in 2007…”

Robert Whitaker: “[See] Coryell, W. American Journal of Psychiatry 152 (1995):1124-9.NIMH-funded investigators tracked the outcomes of medicated and unmedicated depressed people over a period of six years; those who were ‘treated’ for the illness were three times more likely than the untreated group to suffer a ‘cessation’ of their ‘principal social role’ and nearly seven times more likely to become ‘incapacitated.’ The NIMH researchers wrote: ‘The untreated individuals described here had milder and shorter-lived illness (than those who were treated), and, despite the absence of treatment, did not show significant changes in socieoeconomic status in the long term.’”

Dr. Thomas Szasz, psychiatrist and author of The Myth of Mental Illness: “Psychiatrists look for twisted molecules and defective genes as the causes of schizophrenia, because schizophrenia is the name of a disease. If Christianity or Communism were called diseases, would they then look for the chemical and genetic ’causes’ of these ‘conditions’?”

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

The insane parade: Obama, guns, psychiatric drugs, Adam Lanza, Asperger’s

Dec20

The insane parade: Obama, guns, psychiatric drugs, Adam Lanza, Asperger’s

by Jon Rappoport

December 20, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

American society is now a funnel that slides millions of people into toxic psychiatric treatment. Obama thinks we need a bigger funnel.

At the same time, of course, he’s pushing for greater gun restrictions.

At his December 19 press conference, he said, “We are going to need to work on making access to mental-health care as easy as access to a gun.”

“Mental health” is always the go-to institution whenever a mass murder occurs. It’s like “we need more medical research on the problem.” Generalities are spouted by people who don’t have a clue what they’re talking about.

Mental heath in America now means more psychiatric drugs, especially those, like the SSRI antidepressants, that can and do cause violence. Suicide, homicide.

So Obama’s solution to Sandy Hook is empowering and creating more killers. Brilliant.

Could he have chosen a worse idea? No.

Psychiatry is a non-science parading as truth. Nothing abut it is true.

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2012/02/27/the-liars-liar/

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2012/09/05/more-evidence-psychiatry-is-a-fake-science/

It also creates violent people, including children.

http://www.breggin.com/31-49.pdf

As for guns, the grabbers like to point to statistics that compare: numbers of crimes committed with guns versus crimes prevented by citizens using guns.

This is a specious con game. The two situations are not related. On the one hand, we have those people who, with weapons, successfully defend themselves and their families and property from violent criminals. That’s a good thing.

On the other hand, we have people who use guns to commit crimes. They’re called criminals.

The specious comparison is like saying, “Because we can see the Devil is influencing more people than God is, legally ban all religion.”

At any rate, the forced decline of gun ownership and the forced upswing in psychiatric drugging is an elite agenda, at its core. It’s not just a “mistake.”

It’s a plan for the future of this country.

Diagnose and drug more people, take away the guns.

Added together, they produce a prison. But it’s all done under the heading of “we care.”

The agenda can be sold to people in wake of mass killings like Sandy Hook.

Obama is the current mouthpiece.

If you think the fiscal cliff is a long fall to the rocks, this dual-agenda cliff (fewer guns, more psychiatric drugs) is a far more destructive leap.

Now let’s consider the psychiatric babble about Adam Lanza.

Believing in these psychiatric conditions is a loser’s game. There are no definitive diagnostic tests for any of them. No blood tests. No saliva tests. No urine tests. No brain scans. No X-rays. That’s a fact.

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2012/02/27/the-liars-liar/

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2012/09/05/more-evidence-psychiatry-is-a-fake-science/

There are menus of behaviors, which are arbitrarily compiled by committees of psychiatrists and given various names, like autism and Asperger’s.

Making delicate distinctions between them is a fraud, since there are no diagnostic tests to begin with.

Now, what was wrong with Adam Lanzer, the accused Sandy Hook shooter, is matter for speculation. He could have had a severe reaction to a vaccine. He could have been poisoned by an environmental chemical, or by chemicals in food. He could have had a severe nutritional deficit. He could have been deprived of oxygen at birth.

Calling it Asperger’s is a way for the psychiatrist to bill an insurance company and impress and assuage parents with his “superior knowledge.” There is no knowledge.

“The Asperger’s child” is a fiction. Every child is different.

Having gotten that out of the way, we can see there is no predictive capacity to say whether a boy with “Asperger’s” is prone to violence. That’s a fairy tale.

But we can say something about the drugs used to treat people diagnosed with Asperger’s, because then we know exactly what chemicals we’re talking about, and there are histories of what happens to people who are given those drugs.

We have the SSRI antidepressants and so called anti-psychotics, like Risperdone and Zyprexa. The SSRIs definitely can and do cause violent behavior. Suicide, homicide.

http://www.breggin.com/31-49.pdf

http://ssristories.com/

The anti-psychotics are brain hammers that tend toward motor-brain damage. (See Dr. Peter Breggin, Toxic Psychiatry, www.breggin.com)

So if Lanza really was the shooter, and there are very serious reasons to doubt that, the drugs he was prescribed could have pushed him over the edge into murder.

A neighbor speculates that Adam went on a rampage because his mother was seeking to institutionalize him. Out of revenge, he killed 26 people at the school because she loved the school. So now we have several contradictory accounts: the mother was teacher; no, she was a volunteer; no, the school officials had no knowledge she was in any way connected to the school.

Meanwhile, the psychiatric game is always to “blame the disorder.” If the patient goes crazy on the medications, if he develops serious illnesses from the meds, if he kills himself or kills other people because of the meds, the “worsening disorder” caused it. That’s the con game and the out. Be aware of it.

We still don’t know who Adam Lanza’s doctor was. People in Newtown and Sandy Hook undoubtedly do. They could knock on his door and question him, but apparently they’re too cowed by the “priest in the white coat” syndrome to take the bull by the horns and find out what’s what.

Fifteen years ago, I met the mother of a 15-year-old boy to interview her about an unusual treatment she had opted for, for her son. We sat outside a clinic in Los Angeles and discussed it for a few minutes. Then her son walked up.

His gait was stiff and jerky. He had a big smile on his face. We shook hands. He began talking to his mother. I couldn’t understand what he was saying. His words were oddly pronounced. But his mother could understand him.

At first glance, he certainly fit the definition of “a developmental disorder.” Various psychiatric labels could have been applied. But I knew his real story.

Several years earlier, he had gone swimming in the family pool and drowned. Rushed to the hospital, he was put on machines. The doctors told his mother there was no hope. He had suffered oxygen deprivation and brain damage. He was a vegetable. He was going to die. She should allow the doctors to unhook him from the machines.

The mother refused. She went on a relentless search for help. Eventually, she found a doctor who was a pioneer in hyperbaric oxygen therapy. He said there might be a chance with many treatments in the hyperbaric chamber.

After 50 or 60 treatments, her son was back.

http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/showthread.php?t=13987

These psychiatric labels mean nothing. Every person is different, and the causes for their problems vary.

Categorizing people and then making authoritative statements about their “condition”….doing that is a sign of insanity.

So when you Dr. Hognutloonidiot on television, making statements like, “Normally, with Asperger’s we don’t see violent behavior, although in some instances it might be possible,” realize you’re looking at a straight-out con man who is also crazy.

If five or 10 TV anchors said, “The drugs you give for Asperger’s do in fact cause people to kill,” and if they offered evidence and stuck to their guns, the whole landscape in America would begin to shift.

Jon Rappoport

Don’t let your child see a psychiatrist. Ever.

Dec13

DON’T LET YOUR CHILD SEE A PSYCHIATRIST. EVER.

By Jon Rappoport

December 13, 2012

If you have a child, don’t let him/her see a psychiatrist. Ever.

Read Mike Adams’ new article about psychiatry. It’s one of the best I’ve ever read, and I’ve been researching this pseudoscience for 20 years.

http://www.naturalnews.com/038322_DSM-5_psychiatry_false_diagnosis.html

Then read this one, too. It’s also excellent. I wrote it.

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2012/02/27/the-liars-liar/

Yes, I know, I’m bragging, which is a sign of a mental disorder: Self-Inflation at the Expense of Sacred Psychiatry Disorder. The preferred treatment is electroshock therapy and MKULTRA re-programming. I’m opting for a walk in the park coupled with two doses of outrage at these fake doctors who poison brains and believe they’re healers.

Here is a clue. The government gives psychiatry its fake legitimacy. That’s how the game works. The government blesses the medical licensing boards that award psychiatrists permission to drug your children, alter their brains, poison them, and of course make all the fake diagnoses in the first place.

Without the government, these fakes would sink into the waves and be gone forever. Nobody in his right mind or wrong mind would ever step into a psychiatrist’s office. It would be like volunteering to stumble out on to a mine field seeded with explosives.

Media, naturally, go along with the psychiatric hoax. Thousands of articles keep coming out of the hopper to support the authoritative pronouncements of these deranged monsters with medical degrees and “training” in diagnosing mental illnesses.

There are no mental illnesses or disorders. There never have been.

There are people with problems, there are people who suffer, there are people who are in desperate circumstances, there are people who have severe nutritional deficiencies, there are people who have been poisoned by various chemicals, there are people who have been abused and ignored, there are people who have been told there is something wrong with them, there are people who are different and can’t deal with the conforming androids in their midst, but there are no mental disorders.

None.

It’s fiction. It’s a billion-dollar fiction. It’s a gigantic steaming pile of bullshit. Always has been.

There is not a single diagnostic test for any so-called mental disorder. Never has been. No blood test, no urine test, no saliva test, no brain scan, no genetic test. No science.

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2012/09/05/more-evidence-psychiatry-is-a-fake-science/

So why hasn’t psychiatry been destroyed and outlawed? Because there is money in it. Big money. Pharmaceutical money. And because the public is in a trance. Mothers and fathers are quite willing to take their children to these brain poisoners…lambs to the slaughter.

The silence of the lambs.

People are entranced by so-called professionals with fancy degrees who speak technical babble. It all seems real. Because if it weren’t real, then…what? People would be forced to admit they are living in a fantasy. And people don’t want to admit that. They would rather die than admit that.

But that’s what psychiatry is. An elaborate fantasy. If every psychiatrist in the world vanished tomorrow, the world would immediately become a far healthier place.

If every celebrity who outrageously whores for psychiatry would stop on a dime, the world would be a far healthier place right away.

You think Dr. Phil is a fake? He’s nothing compared to psychiatrists with their prescription pads. He’s a saint by comparison. The drugs are brain poisons. If you really want to know the truth about the drugs, go to breggin.com and read everything Dr. Peter Breggin has ever written about the drugs. He covers the whole slimy waterfront.

There is some horrendous handwriting on wall. Believe me. You can see it all around you if you look. The shrinks are treating younger and younger children with the brain poisons, every day. They’re diagnosing children who are practically toddlers and they’re drugging them. They’re ripping their brains. It’s happening. You may not want to know about it, but it’s there. It’s a crime on the order of murder.

And the bastards at the FDA and the bastards who train doctors in medical schools are going along with it. They’re accomplices to the ongoing crime. They have blood on their hands.

Here is a story Dr. Breggin told in his classic book, Toxic Psychiatry. It says it all:

“Roberta was a college student, getting good grades, mostly A’s, when she first became depressed and sought psychiatric help at the recommendation of her university health service. She was eighteen at the time, bright and well motivated, and a very good candidate for psychotherapy. She was going through a sophomore-year identity crisis about dating men, succeeding in school, and planning a future. She could have thrived with a sensitive therapist who had an awareness of women’s issues.

“Instead of moral support and insight, her doctor gave her Haldol. Over the next four years, six different physicians watched her deteriorate neurologically without warning her or her family about tardive dyskinesia [motor brain damage] and without making the [tardive dyskinesia] diagnosis, even when she was overtly twitching in her arms and legs. Instead they switched her from one neuroleptic to another, including Navane, Stelazine, and Thorazine. Eventually a rehabilitation therapist became concerned enough to send her to a general physician, who made the diagnosis [of medical drug damage]. By then she was permanently physically disabled, with a loss of 30 percent of her IQ.

“…my medical evaluation described her condition: Roberta is a grossly disfigured and severely disabled human being who can no longer control her body. She suffers from extreme writhing movements and spasms involving the face, head, neck, shoulders, limbs, extremities, torso, and back-nearly the entire body. She had difficulty standing, sitting, or lying down, and the difficulties worsen as she attempts to carry out voluntary actions. At one point she could not prevent her head from banging against nearby furniture. She could hold a cup to her lip only with great difficulty. Even her respiratory movements are seriously afflicted so that her speech comes out in grunts and gasps amid spasms of her respiratory muscles…Roberta may improve somewhat after several months off the neuroleptic drugs, but she will never again have anything remotely resembling a normal life.”

If the smug scum who run the NY Times put THAT story on the front page right under a huge headline, we might see something good happen in this country.

Chronic whiners want to claim the government has to protect everybody all the time, as if that were possible, as if that were really the government’s aim. These whiners are busy-bodies, meddlers, and self-made victims. They sometimes pose as scientists. They love psychiatry. They equate psychiatry with government. You know, “share and care.”

They assert that government knows best. At bottom, they’re vicious little idiots.

But they’re very useful idiots, because the government welcomes their help in keeping the populace in line.

And psychiatry is a cardinal strategy in that regard.

Chemical straitjackets for the lambs.

The silence of the lambs.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Psychiatrists drugging children for “social justice”

Oct11

Bombshell: Mind-control engineers now drugging children for “Social Justice”

by Jon Rappoport

October 11, 2012

It’s the latest thing. Psychiatrists are now giving children in poor neighborhoods Adderall, a dangerous stimulant, by making false diagnoses of ADHD, or no diagnoses at all. Their aim? To “promote social justice,” to improve academic performance in school.

The rationale is, the drugged kids will now be able to compete with children from wealthier families who attend better schools.

Leading the way is Dr. Michael Anderson, a pediatrician in the Atlanta area. Incredibly, Anderson told the New York Times his diagnoses of ADHD are “made up,” “an excuse” to hand out the drugs.

“We’ve decided as a society that it’s too expensive to modify the kid’s environment. So we have to modify the kid,” Anderson said.

It would be hard to find a clearer mission statement from a psychiatrist: mind control.

A researcher at Washington University in St. Louis, Dr. Ramesh Raghavan, goes even further with this chilling comment: “We are effectively forcing local community psychiatrists to use the only tool at their disposal [to “level the playing field” in low-income neighborhoods], which is psychotropic medicine.”

So pressure is being brought to bear on psychiatrists to launch a heinous behavior modification program, using drugs, against children in inner cities.

It’s important to realize that all psychotropic stimulants, like Adderal and Ritalin, can cause aggressive behavior, violent behavior.

What we’re seeing here is a direct parallel to the old CIA program, exposed by the late journalist, Gary Webb, who detailed the importing of crack cocaine (another kind of stimulant) into South Central Los Angeles, which went a long way toward destroying that community.

It is widely acknowledged, and admitted in the Times article, that the effects of ADHD drugs on children’s still-developing brains are unknown. Therefore, the risks of the drugs are great. At least one leading psychiatrist, Peter Breggin, believes there is significant evidence that these stimulants can cause atrophy of the brain.

Deploying the ADHD drugs creates symptoms which may then be treated with compounds like Risperdal, a powerful anti-psychotic, which can cause motor brain damage.

All this, in service of “social justice” for the poor.

And what about the claim that ADHD drugs can enhance school performance?

The following pronouncement makes a number of things clear: The 1994 Textbook of Psychiatry, published by the American Psychiatric Press, contains this review (Popper and Steingard):”Stimulants [given for ADHD] do not produce lasting improvements in aggressivity, conduct disorder, criminality, education achievement, job functioning, marital relationships, or long-term adjustment.”

So the whole basis for this “social justice” program in low-income communities—that the ADHD drugs will improve school performance of kids and “level the playing field,” so they can compete academically with children from wealthier families—this whole program is based on a lie to begin with.

Meddling with the brains of children via these chemicals constitutes criminal assault, and it’s time it was recognized for what it is.

In 1986, The International Journal of the Addictions published a most important literature review by Richard Scarnati. It was called “An Outline of Hazardous Side Effects of Ritalin (Methylphenidate)” [v.21(7), pp. 837-841]. Adderall and other ADHD medications are all in the same basic class; they are stimulants, amphetamine-type substances.

Scarnati listed a large number of adverse affects of Ritalin and cited published journal articles which reported each of these symptoms.

For every one of the following (selected and quoted verbatim) Ritalin effects, there is at least one confirming source in the medical literature:

Paranoid delusions
Paranoid psychosis
Hypomanic and manic symptoms, amphetamine-like psychosis
Activation of psychotic symptoms
Toxic psychosis
Visual hallucinations
Auditory hallucinations
Can surpass LSD in producing bizarre experiences
Effects pathological thought processes
Extreme withdrawal
Terrified affect
Started screaming
Aggressiveness
Insomnia
Since Ritalin is considered an amphetamine-type drug, expect amphetamine-like effects
Psychic dependence
High-abuse potential DEA Schedule II Drug
Decreased REM sleep
When used with antidepressants one may see dangerous reactions including hypertension, seizures and hypothermia
Convulsions
Brain damage may be seen with amphetamine abuse.

In what sense are the ADHD drugs “social justice?” The reality is, they are chemical warfare. Licensed predators are preying on the poor.

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

Jon Rappoport

MORE EVIDENCE PSYCHIATRY IS A FAKE SCIENCE

Sep5

More evidence psychiatry is a fake science

by Jon Rappoport

September 4, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

Evidence isn’t something you make up out of thin air. You dig it up. If you’re fortunate, you find crucial evidence in statements of the very people who are pretending to tell the truth. That’s the jackpot.

I’ve written several articles debunking the “science” behind psychiatry. As you might guess, this is not a popular approach with the gatekeepers of our culture.

The gatekeepers want psychiatry to be thought of as a science, and since it isn’t, they exercise their only option: they lie. And then they lie again. It’s the time-honored strategy of all propaganda. Keep repeating the falsehood until people believe it and accept it.

Evidence doesn’t work that way. You don’t need to keep repeating it in order to make it real. If you’re digging in the sand to uncover clues to a lost city, you don’t need to re-dig that area of sand hiding the temple and the road and the statues. You do it once and that’s enough. You say, “See? Here’s the city.”

But culturally speaking, you do need to keep flashing photos of the lost city, because people have been trained to think there was no civilization way back when. You have to separate people from the false thinking and indoctrination.

So now I’m flashing evidence I’ve uncovered before. It’s a statement made by a prominent psychiatrist on an episode of PBS’ Frontline series. The episode was: “Does ADHD Exist?”

Here it is.

PBS FRONTLINE INTERVIEWER: Skeptics say that there’s no biological marker—that it [ADHD] is the one condition out there where there is no blood test, and that no one knows what causes it.

BARKLEY (Dr. Russell Barkley, professor of psychiatry and neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center): That’s tremendously naïve, and it shows a great deal of illiteracy about science and about the mental health professions. A disorder doesn’t have to have a blood test to be valid. If that were the case, all mental disorders would be invalid…There is no lab test for any mental disorder right now in our science. That doesn’t make them invalid. [Emphasis added]

Dr. Barkley blows the whistle on his own profession, and then he turns around and makes it even better by claiming the incontrovertible evidence isn’t evidence at all. He claims we’re all illiterate when it comes to fathoming what science is all about.

So let’s take Dr. Barkley to school. Medical science, and disease-research in particular, rests on the notion that you can make a diagnosis backed up by lab tests. If you can’t produce lab tests, you’re spinning fantasies.

These fantasies might be hopeful, they might be “educated guesses,” they might be launched from traditional centers of learning, they might be backed up by billions of dollars of grant money…but they’re still fantasies.

If I said the moon was made of green cheese, even if I were a Harvard professor, sooner or later someone would ask me to produce a sample of moon rock that was tested for “cheese qualities.” I might begin to feel nervous, I might want to tap dance around the issue, but I would have to submit the rock to a lab.

In the case of psychiatry, the DSM, which is the bible of the American Psychiatric Association, currently lists 297 official mental disorders. They are named, labeled, and described. Dr. Barkley admits there is no lab test for any of those 297 disorders.

Yes, there is a lot of chatter about “chemical imbalances in the brain,” but there is no test.

Dr. Barkley employs a version of logical analysis in his statement to the PBS Frontline interviewer. Barkley is essentially saying, “There is no lab test for any mental disorder. But if a test were the standard of proof, we wouldn’t have science at all, and that would mean our whole profession rests on nothing—and that is absurd, so therefore a test doesn’t matter.”

That logic is no logic at all. Barkley is proving the case against himself. He just doesn’t want to admit it.

If psychiatry were nothing more than an intellectual game in a vacuum, it wouldn’t matter. But each diagnosis is followed by powerful and dangerous drugs, and people take those drugs.

In a business sense (and psychiatry is a business), the DSM is really a book that tells psychiatrists what they can bill insurance companies for. That’s the essence of the book. There are 297 ways a psychiatrist can get paid. No insurance company is going to step up to the plate and declare psychiatry a rank fraud. Insurance companies don’t operate that way. They are in partnership with psychiatry. Insurance companies employ actuaries to figure out how claims can be paid and still leave nice profit margins. That’s the game.

Think of all the studies that have been done to show that street drugs harm people. Has that stopped traffickers from selling heroin and cocaine? Well, the analogy has merit. Do you expect psychiatrists and insurance companies to hold a press conference and admit their whole operation is a top-to-bottom fraud with devastating health consequences?

At the root of this ongoing RICO crime is the issue of personal freedom. Do people have the absolute right to refuse psychiatric medication? If, for example, in the United States, Obamacare is not repealed, there are going to be many, many more diagnoses of mental disorders. Eventually, accepting these diagnoses, and the drug prescriptions that follow, is going to be made a condition of membership in the national insurance plan. That’s why drug companies and insurance companies are on board. They are looking forward to more business.

I have made this offer before, and I’m making it again. Let’s have an extensive web debate about the science of psychiatry. Let’s air the whole thing out, with people from both sides at the podium. I’m not talking about sound bites. I want a thorough exposition. Let’s see who makes more sense.

Here is what I believe would be exposed. People would finally understand that committees of psychiatrists, in their deliberations, take menus of human behavior, and then they group behaviors into clusters. For each cluster, they determine there is a disorder. They sit in a room and argue all this out, and come up with labels and symptoms—and in this thoroughly unscientific fashion, they recycle human suffering and emotional pain and confusion and problems into neat categories. They provide no tests. They simply make the rules, and they expect obedience, because they are the self-appointed authorities.

This is a staggering fact. It may be hard to acknowledge the depth and breadth of the fraud, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t fraud. It only means people have been indoctrinated to salute “the experts.”

It also means other explanations are going to be needed for what we say are “crazy behaviors.” But that need doesn’t imply that the experts are right. It simply indicates we have been following an unproven path and we need to shift gears.

It’s always easier to give in to the experts. But Easier is not a scientific standard that should win our approval. Easier is what we opt for when we prefer a manufactured rigged consensus.

Independent thinking is a whole different animal. It applies and it challenges us across the board of our entire civilization. Should we believe what we are told without reflection? Should we buy the most popular items for sale? Or should we explore what lies beyond the comfort zone?

Close to 50 years ago, psychiatry was dying out as a profession. Fewer and fewer people wanted to see a psychiatrist for help, for talk therapy. All sorts of new therapies were popping up. The competition was leaving medical psychiatry in the dust.

As Dr. Peter Breggin describes it in his landmark book, Toxic Psychiatry, a deal was struck. Drug companies would bankroll psychiatry and rescue it. These companies would pour money into professional conferences, journals, research. In return, they wanted “science” that would promote mental disease as a biological fact, a gateway into the drugs. Everyone would win—except the patient.

So the studies were rolled out, and the list of mental disorders expanded. The FDA was in on the deal as well, as evidenced by their drug approvals, in the face of the obvious damage these drugs were doing.

So this is how we arrived at where we are. This was the plan, and it worked.

Under the cover story, it was all fraud all the time. Without much of a stretch, you could say psychiatry has been the most inept and widespread profiling operation in the history of the human race. Its goal has been to bring humans everywhere into its system. It hardly matters which label a person is painted with, as long as it adds up to a diagnosis and a prescription of drugs.

Fake science comes in many forms. Psychiatry is one of the most egregious forms ever invented.

Jon Rappoport

www.nomorefakenews.com

Mental disorders do not exist

Aug9

Mental disorders do not exist

by Jon Rappoport

August 8, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

To say that a person should have a right to consider himself mentally ill and to take a drug is one thing. This is an argument from the principle of individual freedom.

To say that such a person knows what he is doing by some objective standard is quite another thing.

Objectively speaking, mental illnesses and disorders do not exist.

Officially, all mental disorders are said to be chemical imbalances in the brain. Not just any imbalances, but specific ones. This is assertion is unproven. There is no evidence for it.

For example, for any of the 297 so-called mental disorders listed in the official publication of the American Psychiatric Association, there are no defining physical tests. No blood tests, no urine tests, no saliva tests, no laboratory tests of any kind.

This is a fact.

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2012/04/25/why-you-must-have-a-mental-disorder/

Since it is a fact, it is odd that all psychiatrists are medical doctors. What are they doing that is medical?

Well, they are prescribing drugs. Yes. But I could prescribe drugs if I had a license to do so and a prescription pad.

The profession of psychiatry asserts that these drugs erase or alleviate “the brain chemical imbalances” that form the basis for all mental disorders. Yet the brain-imbalance hypothesis is unproven. It may “make sense” to some people, but that doesn’t constitute evidence.

People, of course, are free to believe the brain-chemical-imbalance hypothesis is true. Belief doesn’t make it true.

People are also free to believe the hypothesis that strange behavior emanates from the Devil or a Karmic curse.

A person says, “I was diagnosed with clinical depression and I took Prozac, and ever since then I’ve felt much happier.”

Yes. Fine. I have no interest in challenging that statement. I merely point out that there are people who have felt depressed and took a crystal they claimed was sacred, rubbed it on their heads, and felt better from then on.

There are people who have joined a church and prayed and felt better.

Why is the Prozac experience more compelling than crystals or prayer?

I’m not talking about what a person says makes him feel better. I’m talking about what psychiatrists claim is science. And when you scratch the surface of that, you come up with: no compelling evidence.

Yet, in courts and in doctors’ offices and at academic conferences and in the pages of professional journals and in political gulags, the science of discrete and separate and definable mental disorders is treated as settled, confirmed, verified, certain. That is a baldfaced lie.

All 297 official mental disorders, listed in the (DSM) publication of the American Psychiatric Association, are defined and approved by committees of psychiatrists. Whether it is schizophrenia or autism or ADHD or clinical depression or bipolar disease, the definitions consist wholly of described behaviors. That’s all.

Psychiatrists will tell you these symptomatic behaviors are signs of underlying chemical imbalances or genetic aberrations, but again, they have no tests to back up this assertion. Therefore, all they left with are the behaviors and their own menu-like collections of those behaviors.

Yes, people suffer in life, and they experience confusion and doubt. They have problems. They have trouble with relationships. They feel sad. They feel all sorts of things. They feel pain. They don’t know how to move ahead with plans. They sometimes feel their lives are at an impasse. Yes.

This is far different from claiming they have a specific and detectable chemical imbalance which can be tested for.

“Well,” many psychiatrists say, “the hypothesis of chemical balance is confirmed if the drugs work, because the drugs are, in fact, based on the idea that chemical imbalances underlie mental disorders.”

Let’s examine that approach. Take, for example, Ritalin.

The 1994 Textbook of Psychiatry, published by the American Psychiatric Press, contains this review (Popper and Steingard): “Stimulants [such as Ritalin] do not produce lasting improvements in aggressivity, conduct disorder, criminality, education achievement, job functioning, marital relationships, or long-term adjustment.”

Not a ringing endorsement.

How about, say, the antidepressants prescribed to children?

A shocking review-study published in The Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases (1996, v.184, no.2), written by Rhoda L. Fisher and Seymour Fisher, called “Antidepressants for Children,” concludes: “Despite unanimous literature of double-blind studies indicating that antidepressants are no more effective than placebos in treating depression in children and adolescents, such medications continue to be in wide use.”

Here is a link to the official psychiatric definition of autism disorder. It’s worth reading:

https://www.firstsigns.org/screening/DSM4.htm

Notice that all the criteria for a diagnosis are behavioral. There is no mention of laboratory tests or test results. There is no definitive mention of chemical imbalance or genetic factors.

Despite public-relations statements issued by doctors and researchers, they have no laboratory findings to establish or confirm a diagnosis.

But, people say, this makes no sense, because children do, in fact, withdraw from the world, stop speaking, throw sudden tantrums. Common sense seems to dictate that these behaviors stem from serious neurological problems.

What could cause the behaviors listed in the official definition of autism disorder: vaccine injury; a head injury in an accident; ingestion of a neurological poison; an environmental chemical; a severe nutritional deficit; perhaps the emotional devastation accompanying the death of a parent…

However, in that case, why bother to call it “autism?” Why not just say vaccine injury or head injury? The answer should be clear. By establishing a label like autism, medical drugs can be sold. Studies can be funded. An industry can be created.

In fact, when it comes to the US government’s compensation program for parents whose children have suffered vaccine injury, the government can engage in a con game. The government can say, “In order to establish a cause for autism, we must find a single underlying factor that applies to all cases of autism. Since we know that some children who are diagnosed with autism have not received vaccines, or have not received vaccines containing a neurological poison (mercury), we do not compensate parents whose children are vaccine-injured on the basis that they have autism.”

But, of course, what is called autism (merely a label) is not one condition caused by one factor. It is a loose collection of behaviors that are caused by various traumas.

The official mental disorder called autism disorder does not exist.

People find such statements very unsettling. They argue, “My child’s life was stolen away from him. He must have autism.”

This proves that a label provides some measure of relief for the parents. It doesn’t prove that the label actually means something. In fact, the label can be a diversion from knowledge that would actually help the child. Suppose, for example, that after receiving the DPT vaccine, the child went into a screaming fit and then withdrew from the world. Calling that autism tends to put the parents and the child in the medical system, where there is no effective treatment. Outside that system, there might be some hope with vaccine detox or, say, hyperbaric oxygen treatments.

What is stated here about autism applies to all 297 official mental disorders. They are labels. There is no reason to suppose that, for each label, there is a single cause. There is no reason to suppose that the labels name actual conditions. Research that attempts to find a single cause for a label stands no better chance of succeeding than research designed to prove a man on the moon is selling land leases to citizens of Fiji.

Again, people have every right to believe they have been helped by a psychiatric diagnosis and a prescribed drug. But they also have the right to reject that paradigm and seek knowledge and help elsewhere. The whole thrust of official psychiatry and its allies is to monopolize their self-appointed territory and use all necessary means to eliminate the competition. This approach has nothing to do with science. It has everything to do with profit and fascist control.

“But my cousin was depressed. He took Zoloft and felt much better.”

Read this article again. It neither denigrates your cousin nor makes your cousin’s experience the basis of actual far-reaching science. This article is about science.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

SELLING THE PSYCHIATRIC PARADIGM

Aug4

Selling the psychiatric paradigm

by Jon Rappoport

August 4, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

The culture of psychiatry goes beyond the brain-scrambling effects of the drugs.

It begins with the idea that there are distinct and definable mental disorders shared by many people. This is a false premise the most hinky grifter and con man would never dare to peddle.

It’s technical voodoo made to appear like science: the science of The Mental Disorder.

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2011/06/30/biggest-bullshitter-in-america/

For every disorder, a drug. For every diagnosis, a prescription. For every false claim to scientific legitimacy, a denial of the uniqueness of the patient.

Psychiatry is covert collectivism: “we all have mental disorders of one kind or another and we need to acknowledge that and help each other limp down the road of life.”

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2012/08/02/the-batman-op-expands-you-shot-those-people/

The notion that you can “cure a mental condition” and thereby set a person free is an illusion. There are no mental conditions. The 297 disorders listed in the current bible of the psychiatric profession are merely pharmaceutical marketing ploys and guidelines for insurance billing.

As I stated in a recent article, the history of the human race is the record of the struggle to bring, from WE, the idea of I, the individual. From many cultures based on the collective WE, a tremendous revolution overthrew the manufactured consensus, and the singular I emerged out of the swamp. Now we are witnessing a reversal, a falling back into the primitive WE, and this absurd journey is festooned with slogans and assurances that some sort of paradise awaits us if we will only give in and melt down.

The goo is All!

That is the true underlying slogan, and it should be engraved across the front facade of the White House and the headquarters of the American Psychiatric Association.

The psychiatric adhesive that promotes collectivism is “mental disorders that are shared by millions of people.”

But who owns your mind? Who is the expert? Who is the court of last resort? Who ultimately can take those energies and direct them toward the discovery and fulfillment of a vision? Who decides what the vision is? Who has that freedom and that choice?

A group? A collective? A professional who makes diagnoses and dispenses drugs?

Who finally makes meaning out of your existence and charts a course?

Are you prepared to give that away?

Read the words of a man who was once the most widely praised psychiatrist in the world, the president of Canadian Psychiatric Association, the president of the American Psychiatric Association, the president of the World Psychiatric Association, the president of the American Psychopathological Association, the president of the Society of Biological Psychiatry:

“In the electro-shock procedure, we have means of producing graduated amnesia, and it is of interest to note that there is a proportional relationship between the number of electroshocks given within a period of time and the extent of the amnesias. It is quite possible, for instance, to produce a long-lasting, probably permanent, amnesia by setting the number of electroshock treatments to be given within a predetermined period.”

(1963, “The Processes of Remembering,” British Journal of Psychology, 109: 325-340)

Donald Ewen Cameron, once the king of psychiatry, wrote those words and administered many, many high-intensity shock treatments to patients, with the goal of erasing their memories and installing, in the second phase of his monstrous treatment-torture, entirely new personalities of his own choosing.

That was his view of the inviolable nature of the Individual.

If you think electroshock is the only psychiatric treatment capable of rendering such great harm, read Dr. Peter Breggin’s landmark book, Toxic Psychiatry. For example, how does, at minimum, 400,000 cases of motor brain damage from just one class of psychiatric drug strike you?

And read Dr. Gary Kohls’ excellent article on the role of psychiatric drugs in homicides:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=32135

Jon Rappoport

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com

Ritalin is not a soft psychiatric drug

Jul31

Ritalin is not a soft psychiatric drug

by Jon Rappoport

July 31, 2012

NoMoreFakeNews.com

In the wake of the Aurora shootings, we are seeing another round of questions about the psychiatric drugs that can cause harm and impel violence.

Here is an excerpt from my 1999 white paper, WHY DID THEY DO IT? AN INQUIRY INTO THE SCHOOL SHOOTINGS IN AMERICA. All the data in it are from that time period. Since then, several million more children have been put on Ritalin in the US.

Ritalin, manufactured by Novartis, is the close cousin to speed which is given to perhaps two million American schoolchildren for a condition called Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), or ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder).

ADD and ADHD, for which no organic causes have ever been found, are touted as disease-conditions that afflict the young, causing hyperactivity, unmanageability, and learning problems. Of course, when you name a disorder or a syndrome and yet can find no single provable organic cause for it, you have nothing more than a loose collection of behaviors with an arbitrary title.

Correction: you also have a pharmaceutical bonanza.

Dr. Peter Breggin, referring to an official directory of psychiatric disorders, the DSM-III-R, writes that withdrawal from amphetamine-type drugs, including Ritalin, can cause “depression, anxiety, and irritability as well as sleep problems, fatigue, and agitation.” Breggin then remarks, “The individual may become suicidal in response to the depression.”

The well-known Goodman and Gilman’s The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics reveals a strange fact. It states that Ritalin is “structurally related to amphetamines… Its pharmacological properties are essentially the same as those of the amphetamines.” In other words, the only clear difference is legality. And the effects, in layman’s terms, are obvious. You take speed and after awhile, sooner or later, you start crashing. You become agitated, irritable, paranoid, delusional, aggressive.

A firm and objective medical review needs to be done in all of the school shootings, to determine how many of the shooters were on, or had at one time been on, Ritalin.

In his landmark classic, Toxic Psychiatry: Why Therapy, Empathy and Love Must Replace the Drugs, Electroshock, and Biochemical Theories of the ‘New Psychiatry’ (St. Martin’s Press, 1991), Dr. Breggin discusses the subject of drug combinations: “Combining antidepressants [e.g., Prozac, Luvox] and psychostimulants [e.g., Ritalin] increases the risk of cardiovascular catastrophe, seizures, sedation, euphoria, and psychosis. Withdrawal from the combination can cause a severe reaction that includes confusion, emotional instability, agitation, and aggression.”

Children are frequently medicated with this combination, and when we highlight such effects as aggression, psychosis, and emotional instability, it is obvious that the result is pointing toward the very real possibility of violence.

In 1986, The International Journal of the Addictions published a most important literature review by Richard Scarnati. It was called “An Outline of Hazardous Side Effects of Ritalin (Methylphenidate)” [v.21(7), pp. 837-841].

Scarnati listed over a hundred adverse affects of Ritalin and indexed published journal articles for each of these symptoms.

For every one of the following (selected and quoted verbatim) Ritalin effects then, there is at least one confirming source in the medical literature:

• Paranoid delusions
• Paranoid psychosis
• Hypomanic and manic symptoms, amphetamine-like psychosis
• Activation of psychotic symptoms
• Toxic psychosis
• Visual hallucinations
• Auditory hallucinations
• Can surpass LSD in producing bizarre experiences
• Effects pathological thought processes
• Extreme withdrawal
• Terrified affect
• Started screaming
• Aggressiveness
• Insomnia
• Since Ritalin is considered an amphetamine-type drug, expect amphatamine-like effects
• psychic dependence
• High-abuse potential DEA Schedule II Drug
• Decreased REM sleep
• When used with antidepressants one may see dangerous reactions including hypertension, seizures and hypothermia
• Convulsions
• Brain damage may be seen with amphetamine abuse.

Many parents around the country have discovered that Ritalin has become a condition for their children continuing in school. There are even reports, by parents, of threats from social agencies: “If you don’t allow us to prescribe Ritalin for your ADD child, we may decide that you are an unfit parent. We may decide to take your child away.”

This mind-boggling state of affairs is fueled by teachers, principals, and school counselors, none of whom have medical training.

Yet the very definition of the “illness” for which Ritalin would be prescribed is in doubt, especially at the highest levels of the medical profession. This doubt, however, has not filtered down to most public schools.

In commenting on Dr. Lawrence Diller’s book, Running on Ritalin, Dr. William Carey, Director of Behavioral Pediatrics, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, has written, “Dr. Diller has correctly described… the disturbing trend of blaming children’s social, behavioral, and academic performance problems entirely on an unproven brain deficit…”

On November 16-18, 1998, the National Institute of Mental Health held the prestigious “NIH Consensus Development Conference on Diagnosis and Treatment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder [ADHD].” The conference was explicitly aimed at ending all debate about the diagnoses of ADD, ADHD, and about the prescription of Ritalin. It was hoped that at the highest levels of medical research and bureaucracy, a clear position would be taken: this is what ADHD is, this is where it comes from, and these are the drugs it should be treated with.

That didn’t happen, amazingly. Instead, the official panel responsible for drawing conclusions from the conference threw cold water on the whole attempt to reach a comfortable consensus.

Panel member Mark Vonnegut, a Massachusetts pediatrician, said, “The diagnosis [of ADHD] is a mess.”

The panel essentially said it was not sure ADHD was even a “valid” diagnosis. In other words, ADD and ADHD might be nothing more than attempts to categorize certain children’s behaviors-with no organic cause, no clear-cut biological basis, no provable reason for even using the ADD or ADHD labels.

The panel found “no data to indicate that ADHD is due to a brain malfunction [which malfunction had been the whole psychiatric assumption].”

The panel found that Ritalin has not been shown to have long-term benefits. In fact, the panel stated that Ritalin has resulted in “little improvement on academic achievement or social skills.”

Panel chairman, David Kupfer, professor of psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh, said, “There is no current validated diagnostic test [for ADHD].”

Yet at every level of public education in America, there remains what can only be called a voracious desire to give children Ritalin (or other similar drugs) for ADD or ADHD.

Nullifying the assurances and prescriptions doctors routinely give to parents of children who have been diagnosed ADD or ADHD should be a national goal.

The following pronouncement makes a number of things clear: The 1994 Textbook of Psychiatry, published by the American Psychiatric Press, contains this review (Popper and Steingard): “Stimulants [such as Ritalin] do not produce lasting improvements in aggressivity, conduct disorder, criminality, education achievement, job functioning, marital relationships, or long-term adjustment.”

Parents should also wake up to the fact that, in the aftermath of the Littleton, Colorado, tragedy, pundits and doctors are urging more extensive “mental health” services for children. Fine, except whether you have noticed it or not, this no longer means, for the most part, therapy with a caring professional. It means drugs. It means the drugs I am discussing in this inquiry.

In December 1996, the US Drug Enforcement Agency held a conference on ADHD and Ritalin — “Stimulant Use in the Treatment of ADHD.” Surprisingly, it issued a sensible statement about drugs being a bad substitute for the presence of caring parents:

“[T]he use of stimulants [such as Ritalin] for the short-term improvement of behavior and underachievement may be thwarting efforts to address the children’s real issues, both on an individual and societal level. The lack of long-term positive results with the use of stimulants and the specter of previous and potential stimulant abuse epidemics, give cause to worry about the future. The dramatic increase in the use of methylphenidate [Ritalin] in the 1990s should be viewed as a marker or warning to society about the problems children are having and how we view and address them.”

The Brookhaven National Laboratory has studied Ritalin through PET scans. Lab researchers have found that the drug decreased the flow of blood to all parts of the brain by 20-30%.[emphasis added]

That is of course a very negative finding. It is a signal of danger.

But parents, teachers, counselors, principals, school psychologists know nothing about this. Nor do they know that cocaine produces the same blood-flow effect.

In his book, Talking Back to Ritalin, Peter Breggin expands on the drug’s effects: “Stimulants such as Ritalin and amphetamine… have grossly harmful impacts on the brain — reducing overall blood flow, disturbing glucose metabolism, and possibly causing permanent shrinkage or atrophy of the brain.” [emphasis added]

In the wake of the Littleton shootings, we find that “the American people” and lawyers and pundits and child psychologists are pointing the finger at Hollywood, at video games like Doom, at inattentive parents, and at the availability of guns. We have to wonder why almost no one is calling out these drugs.

Is it possible that the work of PR people is shaping the national response?

The PBS television series, The Merrow Report, produced in 1996 a program called “Attention Deficit Disorder: A Dubious Diagnosis?” The Educational Writer’s Association awarded the program first prize for investigative reporting in that year. I can recall no other piece of television journalism since the Vietnam war which has managed to capture on film government officials in the act of realizing that they have made serious mistakes.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMNhdvg8kgA&w=480&h=360]

John Merrow, the series’ host, explains that, unknown to the public, there has been “a long-term, unpublicized financial relationship between the company that makes the most widely known ADD medication [Ritalin] and the nation’s largest ADD support group.”

The group is CHADD, based in Florida. CHADD stands for Children and Adults with ADD. Its 650 local chapters sponsor regional conferences and monthly meetings, often held at schools. It educates thousands of families about ADD and ADHD and gives out free medical advice. This advice features the drug Ritalin.

Since 1988, when CHADD and Ciba-Geigy (now Novartis), the manufacturer of Ritalin, began their financial relationship, Ciba has given almost a million dollars to CHADD, helping it to expand its membership from 800 to 35,000 people.

Merrow interviews several parents whose children are on Ritalin, parents who have been relying on CHADD for information. They are clearly taken aback when they learn that CHADD obtains a significant amount of its funding from the drug company that makes Ritalin.

CHADD has used Ciba money to promote its pharmaceutical message through a public service announcement produced for television. Nineteen million people have seen this PSA. As Merrow says, “CHADD’s name is on it, but Ciba Geigy paid for it.”

It turns out that in all of CHADD’s considerable literature written for the public, there is rare mention of Ciba. In fact, the only instance of the connection Merrow could find on the record was a small-print citation on an announcement of a single CHADD conference.

In recounting CHADD’s promotion of drug “therapy” for ADD, Merrow says, “CHADD’s literature also says psychostimulant medications [like Ritalin] are not addictive.”

Merrow brings this up to Gene Haslip, a Drug Enforcement Agency official in Washington. Haslip is visibly annoyed. “Well,” he says, “I think that’s very misleading. It’s [Ritalin’s] certainly a drug that can cause a very high degree of dependency, like all of the very potent stimulants.”

Merrow reveals that CHADD received a $750,000 grant from the US Dept. of Education, in 1996, to produce a video, Facing the Challenge of ADD. The video doesn’t just mention the generic name methylphenidate, it announces the drug by its brand name, Ritalin. This, at government (taxpayer) expense.

We see a press conference announcing the release of the video. The CHADD president presents an award to Dr. Thomas Hehir, Director of Special Education Programs at the US Dept. of Education.

This sets the stage for a conversation between Merrow and Dr. Hehir, providing a rare moment when discovery of the truth is recorded on camera, when PR is swept aside.

MERROW: “Are you aware that most of the people in the film [the video, Facing the Challenge of ADD—referring to people who are giving testimonials about how their ADD children have been helped by treatment] are not just members of CHADD … but in the CHADD leadership, including the former national president? They’re all board members of CHADD in Chicago. Are you aware of that? They’re not identified in the film.”

HEHIR: “I’m not aware of that.”

MERROW: “Do you know about the financial connection between CHADD and Ciba Geigy, the company that makes Ritalin?”

HEHIR: “I do not.”

MERROW: “In the last six years, CHADD has received $818,000 in grants from Ciba Geigy.”

HEHIR: “I did not know that.”

MERROW: “Does that strike you as a potential conflict of interest?”

HEHIR: “That strikes me as a potential conflict of interest. Yes it does.”

MERROW: “Now, that’s not disclosed either. Even though the film talks about Ritalin as a—one way, and it’s the first way presented—of taking care of treating Attention Deficit Disorder. That’s not disclosed either. Does that trouble you?”

HEHIR: “Um, it concerns me.”

MERROW: “Are you going to look into this, when you go back to your office?”

HEHIR: “I certainly will look into some of the things you’ve brought up.”

MERROW: “Should they have told you that all those people in that film are CHADD leadership? Should they have told you that CHADD gets twenty percent of its money from the people who make Ritalin?”

HEHIR: “I should have known that.”

MERROW: “They should have told you.”

HEHIR: “Yes.”

This funded video, in which CHADD devotes all of twenty seconds to mentioning Ritalin’s adverse effects, is no longer distributed by the US Department of Education.

CHADD has now told its members that it receives funding from Ciba. It says it will continue to take money from Ciba.

This is an example of how a corporation can, behind the scenes, bend and shape the way the public sees reality.

In the case of the school shootings, has an attempt been made to mold media response? To highlight various causes and omit others?

Real action is going to have to come from the public. Mothers in Littleton and Springfield and West Paducah and Jonesboro [where school shootings occurred] are going to have to ask the hard questions and become relentless about getting real answers. They are going to have to learn about these drugs. They’ll have to learn which violent children in the school shootings were on these drugs. They are going to have to throw off robotic obedience to authorities in white coats. And they are going to have to join together.

If they do, many people will end up standing with them.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

Another example of psychiatry’s Muder Inc. program?

Jul30

Another example of psychiatry’s Muder Inc. program?

by Jon Rappoport

July 30, 2012

NoMoreFakeNews.com

AP reports a man separated from his wife shot their two children and then committed suicide.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20120729/DA0AL9RG0.html

Is this another instance of the psychiatric drug plague that has been spreading across America for decades? Was the killer’s brain scrambled in a storm induced by Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil?

Daryl Benway, 41, shot his two children, killing his 7-year-old daughter, Abigail, in their Oxford, Massachusetts, home. His 9-year-old sin, Owen, is in serious condition at a local hospital.

Benway’s wife, Kelleen, came to the house to see it surrounded by police and media, unaware of what had happened.

Husband and wife had been separated. There was no restraining order on the husband. He had no criminal record.

For background on the violence-causing effects of psychiatric drugs, see:

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2012/02/11/the-school-shooting-white-paper/

The connections between the drugs and suicide and homicide are firmly established.

As long as the police and prosecutors are reluctant to pursue the psychiatric-drug angle, many crimes will remain inexplicable. A large sector of the public will refuse to believe these drugs are potentially deadly, and will consider any inquiry into the subject irrelevant. This is because the pharmaceutical industry, with its advertising money, holds the press captive, and therefore the press doesn’t do its own investigations into murder/suicides like this one.

Family, friends, and co-workers of the Benways go into shock and grief, wring their hands, and try to put their lives back together.

Yes, there may be a non-drug explanation for the killings in Oxford.

But I’m saying that every bizarre violent crime must, in the aftermath, be subjected to a probe about the psychiatric drugs. This should be as standard as fingerprinting, blood and DNA analysis, weapons forensics, and document searches.

Ever since the introduction of Ritalin into psychiatric treatment, 50 years ago, the profession of psychiatry, hand in glove with its pharmaceutical partners, has been randomly seeding the population with dangerous drugs that can and do induce violence.

The archons of psychiatry are well aware of the drugs’ effects. Their refusal to do anything about it signals their ongoing crime of chemical warfare against humanity.

From 2008, here is another example of a murder no one could put together.

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=26915.80

At Northern Illinois University, student Stephen Kazmierczak, whom everyone seemed to like, stepped into his geology class one day with several weapons and opened fire. AP reported he had stopped taking his medication shortly before his killing spree. No drug was named at the time.

Psychiatrist Peter Breggin has a new and important book coming out in August: Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal. (www.breggin.com) Breggin states that drugs such as the SSRI antidepressants can cause violence while being taken and also during withdrawal. For years, Breggin has warned people about the withdrawal period and how it should be managed by a professional who knows what he’s doing. Unfortunately, the number of those doctors is small.

If James Holmes was indeed on psychiatric medications, even if he had stopped taking the drugs prior to July 20^th, he still could have been under their influence.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Did James Holmes have a doctor?

Jul22

Did James Holmes have a doctor?

By Jon Rappoport

July 22, 2012

When people throw around words like “deranged,” “insane,” “psychotic,” let’s go to the source. Let’s get a professional opinion. Where can we find one?

Did Holmes have a doctor?

The profilers taking up air time on the networks are offering their puerile assessments of Holmes’ character, uttering such profundities as: “He must have been a lonely child”; “This was his way of being recognized.”

Let’s go to the doctor, because that’s where the drugs are.

You know, the ones that really matter. The antidepressants, the anti-psychotics, the amphetamine-like compounds that tear away brain cells. The drugs that can turn a nice boy into a raving lunatic.

LIKE THIS:

Take the case described by psychiatrist, Peter Breggin, in his landmark 1991 classic, “Toxic Psychiatry: Why Therapy, Empathy and Love Must Replace the Drugs, Electroshock, and Biochemical Theories of the ‘New Psychiatry'” (St. Martin’s Press, 1991). A young patient, Roberta, had been treated with a host of so-called major tranquilizers [AKA neuroleptics]. Peer-reviewed published studies support the use of these drugs: Haldol, Mellaril, Prolixin, Thorazine.

Breggin writes:

Yes, let’s see if James Holmes had a doctor, possibly a psychiatrist, and let’s have a list of the drugs he was prescribed. Let’s go all the way back to the first appointment, perhaps when Holmes was a child.

Wouldn’t this be relevant evidence? If it’s there, let’s have it.

I can tell you that, right now, somebody in law enforcement knows whether Holmes ever had psychiatric treatment.

If you were Holmes’ psychiatrist right now, sitting in your house, having a drink, your fingers shaking around the glass, going over your treatment and the drugs you gave him, wouldn’t you want the greatest degree of anonymity possible? Wouldn’t you want the protection of the American Psychiatric Association and the companies who make the drugs that drive people crazy? Wouldn’t you want to pull yourself together and rehearse a statement you’ll hopefully never have to deliver?

“The boy was schizophrenic when he came to me. I could see that immediately. I did everything possible to bring him back from the brink, but he was too far gone to help, as it turned out. I mean, he was functional at first, but then the progression of the DISEASE accelerated rapidly, as it sometimes does, and then he was missing appointments, and we couldn’t locate him. Mental illness is a terrible thing. We’re making progress in research all the time, but we’re still not there. Some people are born with chemical imbalances, and they live with them, and then suddenly the operation of the brain goes haywire.”

The psychiatrist sits there with the ice clinking in his drink. He needs more rehearsal. He hopes the day will never come when his name is known, when he has to stand before cameras and say something to a billion people about his former patient.

Here is another case history, described by Dr. Peter Breggin, who was an expert witness at the murder trial of Robert Heinrichs, who stabbed his friend to death two years ago:

“This was the first criminal case in North America where a judge has specifically found that an antidepressant was the cause of a murder. The case involved a teenage high school student with no prior history of violence who, while chatting in his home with two friends, abruptly stabbed one of them to death with a single wound to the chest. The boy had been taking Prozac for three months, during which time his behavior deteriorated. He became impulsive and unpredictable, and suicidal. He also began to talk at times as if fantasizing about violence. He seemed to become a different person to his distraught parents. [I] testified that his primary care physician and his parents alerted the prescribing psychiatric clinic to the boy’s deteriorating condition, but the clinic continued the Prozac and then doubled it. Seventeen days after the increase in dosage, the teen committed the violence.”

Do you think the clinic doctors are having doubts about their Prozac regimen? Do you think they remember the boy who was killed by their patient? Or are they steadfast in maintaining that it was “the mental disorder” that caused their patient to stab his friend?

Perhaps the following article opens the door a little further. It involves the infamous Glaxo-Smith-Kline (GSK), the drug giant that has just been fined three billion dollars for, among other crimes, promoting antidepressant drugs for unapproved uses. Here is an excerpt from a bukisa summary:

http://www.bukisa.com/articles/55368_fraud-in-science-a-look-at-the-evidence-relating-to-ssri-paroxetine

Begin excerpt:

In 1992, pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) released a medicine known as paroxetine, sold under such names as Paxil, Seroxat and Aropax. Paroxetine is an anti-depressant which belongs to a group of medicines known as selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors [SSRI]. Since its release, paroxetine has risen to be one of the biggest selling medications worldwide. Within 8 years of its release, paroxetine prescriptions had risen to 100 million worldwide, netting 2 billion dollars a year for GSK. Although this drug is consumed by millions of people each year, data obtained in clinical trials before and after its release were kept under lock and key for 15 years. This information was only released after court orders instructed GSK to allow independent medical experts to review the hundreds of cartons of files contained in GSK’s sealed record room. These files contained information relating to clinical trials of paroxetine, correspondence between GSK and various regulatory agencies, and adverse drug reports for paroxetine. This information, reviewed by experts on psychiatric drugs revealed fraudulent claims by GSK relating to the efficacy and safety of paroxetine.

One event that sparked investigations into GSK’s activities regarding paroxetine occurred in 1998. In February of that year, a 60 year old man named Donald Schell from Wyoming, USA put several bullets from two different guns through his wife’s, daughters, grand-daughters heads before shooting himself through the head. Donald Schell began taking paroxetine 2 days before this horrific event. It is possible that paroxetine was not to blame for this tragic event, and in turn this was a stance GSK was going to take when a year later, Tim Tobin, son-in-law to Donald Schell, began legal action against GSK regarding paroxetine. In the Tobin Vs GSK case, it was argued that paroxetine was to blame. To gain more clarity and insight into how these can drugs affect people’s minds, the judge in this case ordered GSK to allow an expert on these medications, psychiatrist Dr. David Healy, to review all the information held by GSK, information that had never before been released publicly. In Healy’s review of the records he discovered clinical trial data which showed healthy people (people not suffering from depression), had experienced suicidal behaviour in the clinical trials. Additionally, in this review, Healy became puzzled as to why some documentation relating to paroxetine’s trials in healthy people had gone missing. GSK had possibly been hiding clinical trial information that suggested that paroxetine was linked to suicidality in adults, information perhaps they did not want made public. After a revision of all the available data, Healy concluded that Paroxetine was the killer, not depression in this case. After all the evidence was considered in the case, a unanimous decision of a guilty verdict was reached, finding GSK to have been negligent and liable, causing them to pay out $6 million in damages. GSK continued to deny the links between paroxetine and suicidal thinking, but changed the paroxetine information leaflet to include the possibility of these adverse events. The information regarding the clinical trials was to be continued to be kept out of the public realm.

The links between paroxetine and suicidal behaviour were going to continue to cause GSK more problems than they had bargained for, as another tragedy had been linked to paroxetine. In 1999, Reynaldo Lacuzong, a machine operator was prescribed paroxetine. Almost immediately after beginning his treatment with paroxetine, Lacuzong began to develop akathisia, which is known in the medical feild as ‘an inner agitation accompanied by a compulsive hyperactivity’ with ‘manic-like signs of irritability and anxiety’. This antidepressant-induced akathisia is known to be associated with violence, suicide and psychosis. On his third day of taking paroxetine, Lacuzong, a man of no prior history of serious mental illness, violence or suicidality drowned himself and his two small children in a bathtub. Following this event, the family of Reynaldo Lacuzong were to bring a case against the manufacturer of paroxetine, GSK.

In this separate liability case, another expert, Dr Peter R Breggin was empowered by a separate court to examine GSK’s internal files concerning how paroxetine was researched, developed and marketed. In 2001, Breggin’s report on his findings was delivered in the form of an affidavit to the judicial arbitrator in the Lacuzong case. This case was eventually resolved [to] the satisfaction of GSK, allegedly with a substantial amount of money, an amount which was never disclosed. After this case, GSK continued to refuse to unseal their records and disallowed Dr Breggin to make public his findings, regardless of their significance for drug regulatory agencies, the medical profession and public health.

In 2006, only after another paroxetine case was bought before the courts in the United States, were Dr Breggin’s findings made public. These findings, relating to the development and marketing of paroxetine were astounding. Dr Breggin’s report found that GSK had been withholding and manipulating information about the dangers of paroxetine. One finding was that GSK had manipulated data regarding suicidality in the clinical trials, effectively reducing the number of attempted suicides of those on paroxetine and increasing the number of placebo-attempted suicides. Dr Breggin additionally commented in his report that ‘these manipulations of course favour the interest of the drug company’. The actual, corrected results from the trials indicate that suicide on paroxetine was 8.2 times higher than the rate of placebo. Another finding was GSK had eliminated ‘akathisia’ as a preferred term in the studies of paroxetine. This meant akathisia would not be coded as akathisia, but something else, clearly indicating that GSK preferred not to let medicine regulators and medical professionals know paroxetine caused akathisia. Dr Breggin noted how GSK made it impossible for anyone ‘…to accurately determine the total number of patients who suffered from akathisia’ and that this behaviour was ‘extremely fraudulent’. The release of this information would have obviously been damaging for GSK, but the real damage would have already been caused to individuals and families years after the drug trials were conducted while this information was suppressed…

~end of excerpt~

Does James Holmes have a psychiatrist? If so, what was Holmes treated with? What drugs?

Shouldn’t we find out?

Don’t you think those officials investigating the Batman murders have already looked into medical/psychiatric history of James Holmes? Don’t you think they’ve gone beyond the absurd statements of profilers?

And if they’ve discovered Holmes indeed has received psychiatric drug treatment, don’t you think they’re sitting on this information? In which case, wouldn’t they be protecting the treating psychiatrist and the drug company(ies) who make the drugs?

If luminaries like Hillary Clinton have told us there is no stigma that should be attached to a diagnosis of a “mental disorder,” shouldn’t we be told about the past diagnoses of Holmes, if they exist?

UPDATE: To hear Jon talk about the issues raised in this article, click here (go to the 17min mark).

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

Jon Rappoport

Jon Rappoport's Blog

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Category Archives: Psychiatry Fraud

The secret at the bottom of psychiatry’s rabbit hole

The insane parade: Obama, guns, psychiatric drugs, Adam Lanza, Asperger’s

Don’t let your child see a psychiatrist. Ever.

Psychiatrists drugging children for “social justice”

MORE EVIDENCE PSYCHIATRY IS A FAKE SCIENCE

Mental disorders do not exist

SELLING THE PSYCHIATRIC PARADIGM

Ritalin is not a soft psychiatric drug

Another example of psychiatry’s Muder Inc. program?

Did James Holmes have a doctor?