Discussion:
Demon Seed & Drug-Fueled Killers (Cult of Weaponized Genetics)
(too old to reply)
Dr. AR Wingnutte
2014-02-05 08:01:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Demon Seed & Drug-Fueled Killers (Frau Koma's Second Coming: Mass Murder, Autism and the Cult of Weaponized Genetics)


Adolph R. Wingnutte, PhD - Conspiriology



Frau Koma's Second Coming


Part 1, Demon Seed
And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second
death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was
cast into the lake of fire. ~Revelations, 20:14-15

By Adriana Gamondes
In September, 2011, Manitoba judge Robert Heinrichs ruled that a
sixteen year old accused of murder would remain in youth court where
he faces a maximum sentence of four years rather than the possibility
of life without parole in adult court. Family members of the fifteen
year old victim were outraged by the ruling, though Heinrichs stated
that the accused's "basic normalcy now further confirms he no longer
poses a risk of violence to anyone and that his mental deterioration
and resulting violence would not have taken place without exposure to
Prozac...He has none of the characteristics of a perpetrator of
violence."
Dr. Peter Breggin, the reform psychiatrist and psychopharmaceutical
expert who testified on antidepressant-induced psychosis and violence
in the Manitoba case, was sued for his medical license in 1987--the
very year that Prozac was first mass marketed by Eli Lilly. The
charges were filed by the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI),
a consumer group which has always lobbied for forced
institutionalization and mandated treatment of the mentally ill
( Section 9.2 of NAMI's Public Policy Platform)--including drugs and
electroconvulsive therapy or ECT-- and was recently exposed as a long-
standing pharmaceutical industry front organization in The New York
Times.
Due to his success in banning forced lobotomy in institutions coupled
with efforts to raise the alarm on clinical risks of ECT and
psychiatric drugs, Dr. Breggin has been a thorn in the side of
industry and its various front organizations since the 1970's. After
Breggin went on Oprah and reported that Eli Lilly's own trial data
showed that even individuals lacking histories of violence or serious
mental illness who were exposed to the Selective Serotonin Reuptake
Inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressant Prozac and antipsychotics would
frequently develop violent ideation or violent psychosis, NAMI claimed
that Breggin's remarks could cause patients to discontinue their meds.
Following an outpouring of support for Breggin from the international
medical reform community, the Maryland licensure board dropped the
charges and Breggin prevailed. Seventeen years later, the FDA adopted
black box warnings for suicide and violence on SSRI antidepressants.
The black box warnings are, almost word for word, the precise clinical
caveats that Breggin repeatedly submitted to the FDA and in
Congressional hearings.
The previously concealed Prozac trial data Breggin uncovered and
exposed in 1987 included cases of child subjects on Prozac who
suddenly developed intrusive dreams and visions of going to school
with guns and shooting classmates. There were also far more attempted
and completed suicides among drug-exposed subjects than in the placebo
groups.
Over the years, Breggin and other researchers have worked to identify
the mechanism by which certain psychopharmaceutical drugs induce
violence and suicidality. Breggin has described phenomenon such as
drug-induced akathisia, an uncontrollable sense of restless inner
torment caused by an amphetamine-like and even LSD-like effect of
selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or SSRI's, and has written
about prescription drug-induced "intoxication anosognosia" or
"medication spellbinding:
Medication spellbinding has four basic effects.

First, people taking psychiatric drugs rarely realize how much the
drugs are impairing them mentally or emotionally. They often do not
recognize that they've become irrational, depressed, angry, or even
euphoric since beginning the medication.

Second, if they do realize that they are having painful emotional
feelings, medication spellbinding causes them to blame their feelings
on something other than the drug. They may get angry at their
husbands, wives or children, and become abusive. Or they might blame
themselves and become suicidal. Often they confuse the harmful drug
effect with their emotional problems and attribute their emotional
distress to "mental illness."

Third, medication spellbinding makes some people feel that they are
doing better than ever when in reality they are doing much worse than
ever. In one case, a man who was high on a combination of an
antidepressant and a tranquilizer happily went on a daylight robbery
spree in his hometown wearing no disguise. Another otherwise ethical
citizen happily embezzled money while documenting the details in
easily accessible company computer files. Both men thought they were
on top of the world.

Fourth, some people become so medication spellbound that they lose
control of themselves and perpetrate horrendously destructive actions.
My book opens with the story an otherwise kind and gentle man who
became agitated on an antidepressant and drove his car into a
policeman to knock him down to get his gun to try to kill himself. In
another case, a ten-year-old boy with no history of depression hung
himself after taking a prescription stimulant for ADHD. He documented
the dreadful unfolding events while speaking in a robotic monotone
into his computer.

According to journalist and author Robert Whitaker, after the failed
suit against Breggin, Eli Lilly--one of NAMI's largest corporate
sponsors from the group's inception-- reputedly began making anonymous
donations and guiding media attention to a very different type of
organization, a then obscure California religious group called
Scientology. Scientology, as the story goes, didn't look the gift
horse in the mouth and soon became the symbol of coercive
pseudoscientific cults in the US--the "devil" which the drug industry
needed in order to erect a good and evil binary and counterpart to the
"angel" of its consumer front beneficiaries. Frau Koma only deals in
black and white --except when shades of gray are needed to couch moral
relativism.
Scientology would not have been chosen as a target because it was the
most dangerous alternative religion in that era of high profile
violent and suicidal cults. But the group conveniently embodied "anti-
psychiatry": Scientology claimed to offer a form of therapy for mental
suffering by way of earthly transcendence and seemed to view organized
psychiatry as competition. Industry might also have noted that
Scientology offered a drug-free reverse parallel for its own utopian
marketing approach, promising the public a future paradise on earth
free from disease, pain, suffering, violence and fear in exchange for
uncritical faith in commercial science and the wonders of modern
chemistry-- while Scientology offered this through commitment to the
church's rites and practices. In any case, Lilly and Company likely
recognized the potential to build up a straw-man target on which to
project its own "sins" and as a means to silence critics like Breggin
by generating associative cult smears in the media it sponsors.
Between 1988 and 2007, use of antidepressants in the US has risen by
400%, a fact which drug proponents claim is due to "increased
recognition" of mental illness. But increased prescribing has not
brought with it the expected improvement in mental health among
Americans: instead, the rate of mental disability has increased nearly
two and a half times between 1987 and 2007--from 1 in 184 Americans to
1 in 76. For children, the rise is far more staggering--the number of
children so disabled by mental illness that they qualify for SSI and
SSDI has risen 35-fold in the same two decades. Antidepressants are
currently the third most common drugs prescribed to Americans 12 and
older.
If there's any basis to rumors of Eli Lilly's straw-man-engineering,
it was unquestionably a brilliant strategy. For twenty years--until the
Zyprexa Papers Scandal in 2007 exposed Lilly's fraud, spurred on
Senator Grassley's investigations, resulted in billions paid out in
injury suits and took the wind out of the tactic--anyone who publicly
criticized the safety or efficacy of mental health drugs or the
integrity of industry, no matter how independent or credentialed, was
instantly accused of being part of a cult and, for the purposes of
public credibility, effectively censored. Frau Koma is clever.
About the device: "Koma" is "amok" spelled backwards; amok--as in "to
run amok." "Amoklaufen" is the German expression for "spree-killer."
After a mass shooting at the Johannes Gutenberg Gymnasium in Erfurt,
Eastern Germany in 2002, police developed a new emergency code for
school shootings--"Frau Koma kommt"--"Frau Koma is coming." The code was
activated again on March 13th, 2009, the day that 17 year old student
Tim Kretschmer rampaged through a school in Winnedon, Germany, killing
13 and then himself.
The term "amok" isn't exactly new. After the Dutch East India Company
began shipping 100 tons of opium a year to Indonesia in the 17th
century during the first and lesser-known Opium War to pacify the
region, "amoklaufen"-- derived from the Javan "amoak" or "kill"-- was
popularized by colonists who began observing random mass stabbings
perpetrated by opium-crazed Malayans. Without making reference to
opium or its source, Rudyard Kipling first used the term "run amok" in
English to describe rampaging Malayans who would senselessly hack
through crowds with daggers until they were either subdued and killed
or took their own lives according to historical accounts.
This type of crime-- non-ideological mass killing, mostly performed
outside a combat zone by an individual who is not acting as part of a
militant group, who is motivated neither by specific sexual nor
financial incentives, who most often has no extended history of
criminality or serious mental disturbance and who uses no stealth in
covering the evidence of their crimes which are frequently committed
in public or broad daylight--also isn't precisely new, though the
explosive prevalence of it in developed countries is. Although the
stated motive just prior to many mass killings has often been a
bizarre generalized grudge or a contradictory hash of recently adopted
political-sounding views, these individuals will attack strangers or
groups of people with little relevance to their irrational complaints
if any are even expressed. Though they may function enough to
systematically and robotically plan an assault, the modern non-
ideological "massacrist" doesn't engage in the escape strategies
expected of an addictively compulsive killer who wishes to remain free
to kill again.
Even in certain mass killings committed by active duty members of the
military, a breach in historical pattern has emerged. Because of
consistent media misreporting on the history of the Mai Lai massacre
and other atrocities during Vietnam, this might not seem the case.
But, according to linguist and political media analyst Noam Chomsky,
Mai Lai was not a rogue act by servicemen going against orders as it's
been portrayed. Instead Chomsky refers to Mai Lai as simply a
"footnote" of the Post-Tet "Accelerated Pacification" campaign which
systematically and by design killed over 10,000 civilians in Vietnam
in 1968. What happened in Mai Lai was intentional and approved and, in
military history, it isn't unusual.
But when Staff Sergeant Robert Bales killed seventeen Afghan civilian
adults and children while they slept in their beds and set several on
fire in March, 2012, he was not acting on even inferred orders at that
moment but against them. There was no machinery in place to cover up
or shift around responsibility for the horrific events as there has
been for planned atrocities like Mai Lai or Abu Ghraib. He acted
alone, not as part of classic "deindividuated violence" (Phillip
Zimbardo, 1969) performed by mobs which are typically very attuned to
"group think" and guided by ideological authority according to
Canadian forensic psychologist Donald Dutton. Unlike serial murderers,
Bales made no attempt to cover his tracks. And the media began
investigating reports that Bales may have taken Lariam, the anti-
malarial drug which Dan Olmstead and Mark Benjamin investigated in
2002 in association with a spate of domestic murder-suicides among
members of the military. As Olmsted noted, the Lariam killers lacked
histories of escalating violence typical in lethal domestic assaults.
Lariam and other medications commonly prescribed to military personnel
have recently been the focus of Congressional inquiry due to the
unprecedented one-a-day suicide rate among service people, a statistic
which is all the more disconcerting since prospective recruits must
pass screens for mental illness before enlisting. Obviously there's
been an enormous lag in undertaking the investigation by war machinery
responsible for using its ranks as clinical guinea pigs by widely
prescribing powerful medications to patch up battle-fatigued
combatants rather than relieving them of duty. Peter Breggin,
testifying this time before the Veterans Affair Committee in February,
2010, painted a chilling picture of suicidal and violent psychoactive
drug reactions that have been covered up by pharmaceutical companies
for decades.
If some believe the traumas of war alone explain Bales' rampage and
suicides among military personnel, it's unclear why military suicide
rates are currently so much higher than during Vietnam and 3-fold
higher than during the American Civil War. Moreover, there's very
little evidence that psychiatric drugs help to heal traumatic
response. In fact, as reported in journalist Robert Whitaker's
website, Mad in America, a recent study found that the drugs may be
specifically counterproductive in the treatment of trauma:
Bruce McEwen and Joseph LeDoux, whose pioneering research in
eliminating fear-related memories opened up new avenues for the
potential treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder, show in
research published in Biological Psychiatry on December 20, 2012 that
chronic treatment with citalopram (selective serotonin inhibitor
Celexa) or tianeptine (selective serotonin reuptake enhancer Stablon)
impairs amygdala-dependent learning and consequently the ability to
learn new responses to fear-related stimuli and to unlearn conditioned
fear responses.
And how would the extreme trauma of war explain the same upsurge in
bizarre violence and suicide among civilians living far from combat
zones? Like 19 year old Gutenberg killer Robert Steinhauser, teen
shooter Tim Kretschmer of Winnedon had recently taken medication which
contained black box warnings for violent behavior and suicide. Like
Kretschmer, Steinhauser killed himself as police closed in.
Though Steinhauser's post-mortem tox screen showed an absence of drugs
or alcohol, just prior to his death he'd confessed in an interview to
dabbling with the painkiller Tilidine and LSD, both of which can have
lingering psychiatric effects after withdrawal. Tilidine is
associated with aggression and violent behavior in human and animal
studies. In fact, researchers found the carcinogenic effects of
Tilidine difficult to study because most male lab animals exposed to
the drug would die from aggression and mutilation. Police in Germany
have found that an abnormal amount of force is often needed to subdue
suspects under the influence of the drug due to an almost total lack
of pain response. Pepper spray reportedly has no effect.
Because Tilidine is banned in the US, it might seem irrelevant to the
rise in certain types of American violence. But like SSRI
antidepressants and LSD, Tilidine is associated with lack of atonic
paralysis in REM sleep: those under the influence may act out their
dreams. Dreams experienced on these drugs are frequently reported to
be violent and terrifying--another effect associated with Lariam.
Suspension of REM sleep atonia has been tied to inexplicably violent
acts.
Following the Erfurt and Winnedon shootings, the media response in
Germany ranged from calling for stricter gun controls, bans on violent
video games, screening students for mental illness to throwback
conjectures about Hoover Era Manchurian candidate schemes. This has
always been the response. A list of prescription drug-associated
murders and suicides (compiled from several online sources and the
website SSRI Stories):
1. Huntsville, Alabama - February 5, 2012: 15-year-old Hammad Memon
shot and killed another Discover Middle School student Todd Brown.
Memon had a history for being treated for ADHD and depression. He was
taking the antidepressant Zoloft and "other drugs for the conditions."
2. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania - March 8, 2012: 30-year-old John Shick,
former patient of University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) and
former student at nearby Duquesne University, shot and killed one and
injured six inside UPMC's Western Psychiatrist Institute. Nine
antidepressants were identified among the drugs police found in
Shick's apartment.
3. Seal Beach, California - October 12, 2011: Scott DeKraai, a harbor
tugboat worker, entered the hair salon where his ex-wife worked,
killing her and seven others and injuring one. At DeKraai's initial
hearing, his attorney indicated to the judge that DeKraai was
prescribed the antidepressant Trazodone and the "mood stabilizer"
Topamax.
4. Lakeland, Florida - May 3, 2009: Toxicology test results showed
that 34-year-old Troy Bellar was on Tegretol, a drug prescribed for
"bi-polar disorder," when he shot and killed his wife and two of his
three children in their home before killing himself.
5. Granberry Crossing, Alabama - April 26, 2009: 53-year-old Fred B.
Davis shot and killed a police officer and wounded a sheriff's deputy
who had responded to a call that Davis had threatened a neighbor with
a gun. Prescription drug bottles found at the scene showed that Davis
was prescribed the antipsychotic drug Geodon.
6. Middletown, Maryland - April 17, 2009: Christopher Wood shot and
killed his wife, three small children and himself inside their home.
Toxicology test results verified that Wood had been taking the
antidepressants Cymbalta and Paxil and the anti-anxiety drugs BuSpar
and Xanax.
7. Concord, California - January 11, 2009: Jason Montes, 33, shot and
killed his wife and then himself at home. Montes had earlier begun
taking the antidepressant Prozac for depression in response to his
impending divorce and a recent bankruptcy.
8. Little Rock, Arkansas - August 14, 2008: Less than 48 hours after
Timothy Johnson shot and killed Arkansas Democratic Party Chairman
Bill Gwatney, the Little Rock Police declared they were investigating
shooter's use of the antidepressant Effexor, which was found in
Johnson's house. A Little Rock city police report later stated that
Johnson "was on an anti-depressant and that the drug may have played a
part in his 'irrational and violent behavior.'"
9. Kauhajoki, Finland - September 23, 2008: 22-year-old culinary
student Matti Saari shot and killed 9 students and a teacher, and
wounded another student, before killing himself. Saari was taking an
SSRI and a benzodiazepine.
10. Dekalb, Illinois - February 14, 2008: 27-year-old Steven
Kazmierczak shot and killed five people and wounded 21 others before
killing himself in a Northern Illinois University auditorium.
According to his girlfriend, he had recently been taking Prozac, Xanax
and Ambien. Toxicology results showed that he still had trace amount
of Xanax in his system.
11. Omaha, Nebraska--December 5th, 2007: 19-year-old Robert Hawkins had
been taking antidepressants before he killed eight and then himself in
an Omaha shopping mall. Hawkins had reportedly taken Zoloft and
Ritalin since age five.
12. Jokela, Finland - November 7, 2007: 18-year-old Finnish gunman
Pekka-Eric Auvinen had been taking antidepressants before he killed
eight people and wounded a dozen more at Jokela High School in
southern Finland, then committed suicide.
13. Cleveland, Ohio - October 10, 2007: 14-year-old Asa Coon stormed
through his school with a gun in each hand, shooting and wounding four
before taking his own life. Court records show Coon had been placed on
the antidepressant Trazodone.
14. Blacksburg, Virginia--April 18, 2007: 23 year old Seung Hui Cho
kills 32 and himself at Virginia Tech; according to The New York
Times, "prescription medications related to the treatment of
psychological problems had been found among Mr. Cho's effects." Cho
had taken Paxil (Paroxetine) as a child. Cho's medical records were
sealed by court order against the protests of victims' surviving
family members.
15. Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania--October 2, 2006: Charles Carl Roberts
murdered five Amish girls and then himself. His family reported that
he took antidepressants.
16. Platte Canyon, Colorado-- December 27, 2006: 53-year-old Duane
Morrison claimed he had a bomb when he entered Platte Canyon High
School. He held hostage and sexually assaulted six female students and
killed one before killing himself. Antidepressants were found among
his effects.
17. Red Lake, Minnesota - March 2005: 16-year-old Jeff Weise, on
Prozac, shot and killed his grandparents, then went to his school on
the Red Lake Indian Reservation where he shot dead 7 students and a
teacher, then wounded 7 before killing himself.
18. Greenbush, New York - February 2004: 16-year-old Jon Romano walked
into his high school in east Greenbush and opened fire with a shotgun.
Special education teacher Michael Bennett was hit in the leg. Romano
had been taking "medication for depression".
19. North Meridian, Florida - July 8, 2003: Doug Williams killed five
and wounded nine of his fellow Lockheed Martin employees before
killing himself. Williams was reportedly taking the antidepressants
Zoloft and Celexa for depression after a failed marriage.
20. El Cajon, California - March 22, 2001: 18-year-old Jason Hoffman,
on the antidepressants Celexa and Effexor, opened fire on his
classmates, wounding three students and two teachers at Granite Hills
High School.
21. Williamsport, Pennsylvania - March 7, 2001: 14-year-old Elizabeth
Bush was taking the antidepressant Prozac when she shot at fellow
students, wounding one.
22. Wakefield, Massachusetts - December 26, 2000: 42-year-old computer
technician Michael McDermott had been taking three antidepressants
when he hunted down employees in the accounting and human resources
offices where he worked, killing seven.
23. Honolulu, Hawaii--November 2, 1999: Gunman Bryan Uyesugi entered a
Xerox Corporation building armed with a Glock, killing seven
coworkers. Widows of the slain attempted to sue Kaiser Permanente for
failing to monitor Uyesugi, who was reportedly treated with
antidepressants by a psychiatrist at the medical center.
24. Conyers, Georgia - May 20, 1999: 15-year-old T.J. Solomon was
being treated with antidepressants when he opened fire on and wounded
six of his classmates.
25. Columbine, Colorado - April 20, 1999: 18-year-old Eric Harris and
his accomplice, Dylan Klebold, killed 12 students and a teacher and
wounded 26 others before killing themselves. Harris was on the
antidepressant Luvox. Klebold's medical records remain sealed.
26. Notus, Idaho - April 16, 1999: 15-year-old Shawn Cooper fired two
shotgun rounds in his school, narrowly missing students. He was taking
a prescribed SSRI antidepressant and Ritalin.
27. Fort Worth, Texas--September 15th, 1999: 47-year-old Larry Gene
Ashbrook shot and killed eight, including children, and then himself
at the Wedgewood Baptist Church. A prescription bottle for Prozac with
Ashbrook's name on it was found at the gunman's home.
28. Springfield, Oregon - May 21, 1998: 15-year-old Kip Kinkel
murdered his parents and then proceeded to school where he opened fire
on students in the cafeteria, killing two and wounding 25. Kinkel had
been taking the antidepressant Prozac.
29. Moses Lake, Washington--February 2nd, 1996: 14 year old Barry Dale
Loukaitis entered Frontier Middle school, shooting an algebra teacher
and two students. Loukaitis had reportedly been prescribed Ritalin for
hyperactivity. Loukaitis is currently serving two life sentences and
an additional 205 years.
30. Dunblane, Scotland--March 13, 1996: 43-year-old Thomas Hamilton
entered the Dunblane Primary School armed with four handguns, shooting
and killing 15 children, one adult and then himself. According to a
local inquest, Hamilton had been prescribed Prozac.
31. Louisville, Kentucky- September 14, 1989: 47-year-old Joseph
Wesbecker, pressman for the Standard Gravure Company, entered his
place of work, killing eight and then himself. He had recently begun
taking the antidepressant Prozac. Surviving families of several
victims attempted to sue Eli Lilly.
32. Austin, Texas--August 1st, 1966: 25-year-old gunman Charles
Whitman, addicted to amphetamines, suffering from a brain tumor and
severe migraines for which he may have been prescribed one of the new
MAOI inhibitors, killed his mother and wife, then climbed the tower at
the University of Texas at Austin wounding 49, killing 14 and then
himself.
In Japan, which has the most stringent gun control in the democratic
world, Japanese bloggers and journalists have called for
investigations into a spate of psychiatric drug-related knife attacks:
2001, Ikeda, Osaka, man kills eight children with small knife
2003, Uji City, Kyoto Prefecture, child stabs man twice
2005, Chiba Prefecture, man with knife enters high school, attacks
officials
2005, Neyagawa City, Osaka Prefecture, boy with knife kills teacher,
two officials, wounds several.
"Knife Rampage" is the new expression in Japan for an increasingly
common category of crime. Frau Koma is cosmopolitan and doesn't rely
solely on firearms.
And then there was Aurora, Colorado. According the Goldwater Rule or
Section 7.3 of the American Psychiatric Association's ethics
principles, psychiatrists are forbidden from commenting on
individuals' mental states without examining and being authorized by
the individuals to diagnose them. But this hasn't stopped a bevy of
newscasters, print journalists, armchair experts and even psychiatric
professionals from theorizing on 24 year-old shooter James Holmes'
mental status after he gunned down 12 and wounded 58 at the Century 16
movie theater on July 20th, 2012. Some blamed genetic psychosis
coupled with access to guns or violent videos or have turned the
Aurora massacre into a political football, conjecturing that Holmes
was involved with the Tea Party or the Occupy Movement. It's not
surprising that those populations which are being associatively
smeared in the course of the diagnostic frenzy are then driven to
defend themselves by reframing the dialogue. Though none of it has
gotten network coverage, psychiatric reform groups have not been shy
in protesting that the investigation too quickly discounted
psychiatric drugs with black box warnings for violence and suicide
and, for the first time, so have defenders of the right to bear arms.
The truth may never come out. Holmes' files were sealed by court
order, just as in the case of Virginia Tech's Seung Ho Cho and
Columbine's Dylan Klebold.
An Arapahoe County Court judge has granted a request to seal the case
against James Holmes, the 24-year-old shooter who killed 12 and
wounded 50 during a screening last night of "The Dark Knight Rises."
The motion, filed in Arapahoe County court, asks for the records in
the case to be sealed, including search warrants, affidavits, orders
and the "case file." The District Attorney's affidavit says
prosecutors are investigating first-degree murder charges against
Holmes, but that disclosure of the court records would be "contrary to
public interest" and "could jeopardize the ongoing investigation."

The necessity of the seal could be argued as due to Holmes'
background, which, at least on the face of it, provides some good
fodder for conspiracy theories. A cloak-and-dagger report states that
Holmes interned at the Salk Institute just after the institute had
partnered with the Defense Advance Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to
investigate the use of an antioxidant found in cocoa as a blood flow
increasing agent to prevent combat fatigue as part of a larger project
to develop brain-machine interfaces for the battlefield. Holmes'
father, identified as statistician Dr. Robert Holmes, was also
apparently professionally enmeshed with DARPA when a company he works
for-- HNC Software, Inc., now the Fair Isaac Corporation (FICO)--
developed a "cortronic neural network" allowing machines to respond
like the human brain to aural and visual stimuli. Holmes' grandfather,
Lt. Colonel Robert Holmes, was a language expert with the army and may
have worked in intelligence.
But unless Holmes' internship involved enrollment as a test subject
for top secret military experiments, it seems unlikely that Holmes'
medical records had much to do with the 8 week summer program at Salk
for college bound teens. One Salk scientist claimed Holmes should
never have been admitted to the program since Holmes was merely an
"average" student.
During the OJ Simpson trial, American media viewers were privy to
Simpson's every pill and pang in prison. These types of seals in
capital murder cases are a new phenomenon and there's another
potential explanation for the lockdown on Holmes' medical history:
despite claims that Holmes was not on drugs during his "sleepy"
performance in trial, reports emerged that Holmes took prescription
Vicodin and that his psychiatrist, an assistant professor at Colorado
University's Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora, Dr. Lynne Fenton, had
been reprimanded by the state board in 2005 for illegally prescribing
herself, her husband and an employee drugs such as Vicodin, Xanax,
Ativan and Ambien, all of which are associated with REM sleep
disturbance, violent dreams and sudden acts of extreme violence. As it
turns out, up to three psychiatrists at the university may have
treated Holmes prior to his crime. It's interesting that the law firm
which the university hired to shield Fenton and perhaps other mental
health practitioners on staff, Wells Anderson and Race, has
professional ties to GlaxoSmithKline, maker of the antidepressants
Paxil and Wellbutrin; and Bristol-Myers Squibb, maker of the atypical
antipsychotic Abilify--all of which are also clinically associated with
violent personality changes.
Torrence Brown, one of the victims of the Aurora shooting, filed suit
in July against three defendants: the Aurora Century 16 theater for
leaving an exit door unguarded and without alarms; Warner Brothers for
releasing a film so violent that theater goers could not immediately
register that Holmes' assault was not part of the movie; and Holmes'
prescribing doctors at Colorado University's Anchultz Medical Center
for not properly monitoring Holmes' prescription drug use. Though
Brown was uninjured, he claims extreme emotional trauma after his
friend, 18-year-old A.J. Boik, was shot in the chest and killed in the
attack.
It's unclear how the seal on the case will effect injury suits. Could
"contrary to public interest"-- the justification for concealing
Holmes' medical records-- be interpreted as: "people would stop taking
their mental health drugs on hearing what Holmes was prescribed"? This
was NAMI's grounds for suing Breggin in the 1980's and appears to be
unwritten policy at the National Institute of Mental Health. The NIMH
has remained mum on the association between violence and psychotropic
drugs in the wake of every high profile mass killing, even in the many
instances when prescription drug use of perpetrators was established
fact.
Information blackouts tend to only fuel controversy. Behind a seal,
anything is possible and, stemming from the Aurora tragedy, as in the
German school shootings, there are continuing conjectures that Holmes
was a hypnotized "Manchurian candidate," on street drugs or that, like
Bell Tower killer Charles Whitman, Holmes might suffer from a specific
brain disease.
The drug link might not be immediately apparent from the Whitman Bell
Tower case in 1966: Though the amphetamines which Whitman was
reportedly addicted to had long been known to induce psychosis in
adults, the synthetic form of ephedrine was discovered in 1887 and had
been marketed in the US since 1933--yet Whitman set the general
precedent for "school shootings" in the US. So it's curious that no
one has ever investigated whether Whitman had been prescribed other
drugs by his psychiatrist (he was seeing one), such as the then-new
beta-blockers which, by 1966, had become standard treatment for the
"horrendous" migraines Whitman suffered due to an undiagnosed brain
tumor. Beta-blockers can induce schizophrenia-like psychosis in some
individuals and are contraindicated in combination with stimulants. In
between killing his mother and wife and then committing the massacre
at the University of Austin, Whitman left a note in his home
requesting that money from his life insurance plan be donated to a
mental health foundation to prevent "further tragedies of this type."
Whitman also requested that an autopsy be done after his death to
investigate whether anything could explain his actions and worsening
migraines.
All told, what's especially disturbing about the Bell Tower case is
that it may have taken a combination of older class prescription and
illegal drugs, dysfunctional family history and brain tumor to
generate an approximation of the rage, dementia and robotic planning
involved in modern mass assaults which are frequently linked to only a
single newer class prescription medication. This would lend to
conjectures that a particularly modern type of prescription drug
psychosis could be the common denominator in this type of relatively
modern killing.
Although the seal on the Holmes case means the public won't know the
facts any time soon--or at all as in the case of the other crimes
mentioned above-- for the moment it appears that James Holmes, the
formerly timid, "mediocre" student with no history of violence, fits a
pattern.
Frau Koma is like the Statue of Liberty--always welcoming to the
wretched refuse of our teeming shore: the lonely, the tired, the
sick, the shy, the toxically injured and the career-tracked grad
student who doesn't question the scientific establishment they aspire
to. In an article entitled Gunman who massacred 12 at movie premiere
used same drugs that killed Batman star Heath Ledger the Daily Mail
straddles an uncomfortable fence between drug-induced Jekyll/Hyde
transformation and genetic apologia:
Sumit Shah, a friend at Westview High School in San Diego, said:
"Jimmy was pretty shy but once he got comfortable with you he was the
funniest, smartest guy. The guy I knew was harmless." Experts believe
it is more likely that Holmes was suffering from a genetic psychotic
illness which could have acted like a 'time bomb' set to go off any
time between the ages of 15 and 25.

The killings in Aurora nearly overlapped a pre-election Heritage
Foundation conference in which then-Romney administration hopefuls E.
Fuller Torrey and former Bush appointee Sally Satel presented a thinly
euphemized argument for forced institutionalization and drugging of
the mentally ill, mixing the message with a states' rights platform.
Frau Koma has a sense of humor.
E. Fuller Torrey, author of The Insanity Offense: How America's
Failure to Treat the Seriously Mentally Ill Endangers Its Citizens,
has long promoted mandated drugging for "at risk" populations. But
it's really Satel--the PR maven with the beltway flare--who's
particularly ominous. Satel is a science board alum (along with Paul
Offit, Michael Fumento, Steven Novella, Breggin-nemesis Stephen
Barrett of "Quackwatch," and Skeptic Magazine editor Michael Shermer)
for the corporate front group ACSH, the American Council on Science
and Health. ACSH promotes and defends GMO's, pesticides, drugs, food
coloring, vaccines, military funding of academic science, etc., for
corporate and institutional sponsors. On a "stopped clock" model--or
like E. Fuller Torrey's occasional ironic, credence-grubbing
criticisms of psychiatry's drug industry conflicts-- ACSH decided to
champion global warming warnings and to reverse its original Big
Tobacco loyalty to an anti-tobacco message. Otherwise the group has
never met an industrial agenda or product it didn't like.
Satel was appointed by President Bush to the National Advisory Council
(NAC) for the US Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS), presumably
to carry out Bush's vision for the Orwellian New Freedom Commission on
Mental Health which sought to screen all Americans for mental illness.
The New Freedom Commission championed the grossly corrupt Texas
Medication Algorithm Program (TMAP), one of the model programs which
increased child drugging in some states in which it was instituted by
up to 100% in under a year. TMAP was funded by Janssen, Johnson &
Johnson, Eli Lilly, Astrazeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Janssen-Ortho-
McNeil, GlaxoSmithKline, Abbott, Bristol Myers Squibb, what was then
called Wyeth-Ayerst (now part of Pfizer) and Forrest Laboratories.
Satel also promoted Teenscreen, the Columbia University mental health
screening program launched in public schools across the country in
2003 which boasted an 84% false positive rate in identifying teen
"suicidality."After 9 years of routing children to psychiatric
treatment, the Teenscreen program finally met its demise in November,
2012.
Satel is also a "counterinsurgency" missionary- the go-to media
mouthpiece for generating PR strategies to defeat and silence
pharmaceutical critics. In 2002, Satel stated flatly that there was an
"overemphasis" on patient "rights" that "people need to be protected
from themselves" and that often "coercion" is essential. Advocates who
attended the recent conference consistently reported that Satel made
the aside that the mental health system needs a "strong dose of
paternalism."
When she was in power under Bush, Satel was considered one of the more
chilling pharmaceutical operatives by consumer and reform advocates
because of her skilled doublespeak in promoting mental health
screening and drugging across political lines. All the same, the
barely disguised racism in some of her published work and her record
on ECT and mandated treatment tend to belie her equal opportunity
cover. In PC, M.D.: How Political Correctness is Corrupting Medicine,
Satel bitterly complains about the political pressure on medical and
mental health practitioners to spout egalitarian open-mindedness. More
recently, in a NYT's opinion piece, Satel pretends a temperate
approach that she has never once displayed when she formerly guided
policy, though the real Satel comes through: In the Times, her only
remark about the new DSM autism category is that those with higher
functioning forms of autism don't like being lumped with the
"intellectually impaired." She fails to mention that a majority of
individuals with autism, including low functioning, will lose the
label under the new DSM recommendations and will be herded into newly
devised diagnoses like Social Communication Disorder, a label which
has already been intensely targeted for corresponding drugs with the
usual deadly side effects.
Reading between the lines of the language used in the Heritage
Foundation video presentation, when Satel talks about the 1% of the
"severely mentally ill" who will be denied a say in their treatment
under the proposed program, she is referring to a population which is
exploding. And that's not including the "tsunami" of children with
autism aging into the adult mental health system. According to
bastions of radicalism like the U.S. Census Bureau and Social
Security, rates of disabled mental illness have risen 100 fold in 150
years, with huge leaps in prevalence corresponding to broadening use
of various pharmaceutical products (From Robert Whitaker's Anatomy of
an Epidemic, table from page 25):


As Whitaker points out, the irony of the above statistics is that E.
Fuller Torrey himself originally compiled them for his 2001 book The
Invisible Plague-- though Torrey does not blame pharmaceutical age
practices for the mass decline of mental health in the US. Even so,
Torrey himself is not Frau Koma.
And Satel, as much as she represents the corruption and fanaticism of
organized psychiatry and commercial science, is not the sole ultimate
embodiment of Frau Koma either. "Frau Koma" is non-partisan. Less than
two months after the Columbine massacre, President and First Lady
Clinton arranged the first Whitehouse Conference on Mental Health in
which they trotted out Satel's partisan psychiatric counterpart Harold
Koplewicz who called for mandatory mental health screening and
intervention on children and teens in response to the tragedy.
Teenscreen was one of the programs that arose from this edict.
Koplewicz was more recently the force behind the controversial NYU
"ransom notes" billboard campaign, a fear-mongering dragnet to bring
children in for treatment.


What Koplewicz intended by way of intervention and "treatment" was
explicit: for decades, reform psychiatrists have identified Koplewicz
as among the most radical proponents of drugging children,
consistently claiming that mental disorders cannot be caused by rape,
violence, trauma or abandonment unless the child has a "preexisting"
genetic brain chemical imbalance that requires medication lest
children prove "detriments" to themselves and society. At the White
House conference, Hilary Clinton--clearly under the influence of
Koplewicz but also driven by her own faith in technological progress--
vowed that these supposedly at-risk children would get treatment
"whether or not they want it or are willing to accept it" (Breggin,
Talking Back to Ritalin, pp. 18-19) and that the program would be
enforced through public schools.
Koplewicz was a co-author of the infamous Paxil 329 study which was
retracted when it emerged that authors minimized suicide-related
adverse events by fivefold and grossly overstated the efficacy of
GlaxoSmithKline's blockbuster in the treatment of adolescents. This
study also fell under the scrutiny of Iowa Republican Senator Charles
Grassley in the course of his ongoing investigation for the US Senate
Finance Committee. It was one of a slew of industry conflicted studies
attempting to defend child prescribing practices against mounting
evidence that these medication increase violence, suicide, alcohol and
other drug abuse and were associated with worsening long term outcomes
for patients as they reached adulthood. Grassley's investigation
focused on "millions in undisclosed payments" flowing between
psychopharmaceutical makers and "key opinion leaders" in the field of
child psychiatry.
Koplewicz remains a "key opinion leader" and continues to claim that
Virginia Tech could have been prevented by forced treatment with the
very drugs repeatedly linked to these crimes. Advocacy attorney Jim
Gottstein recently wrote about the impact of this brand of dogma on
public views in an op-ed for Pharmalot:
I think it is important to understand a couple of pervasive public
attitudes that shape the setting. One is that we need to lock up
people diagnosed with mental illness and make sure they take their
"medications" to keep them from going on killing rampages. The truth,
however, is that both of these approaches, especially psychiatric
drugs, increase rather than decrease violence. People diagnosed with
serious mental illness are no more likely to be violent than is the
general population, if one takes into account the impact of
psychiatric drugs. They are far more likely to be victims of violence
than to be perpetrators. For some research on this, click here. For a
recent article on how neuroleptics (misnomered "antipsychotics") might
be causing this violence, click here.

To the extent that victims of Columbine, Virginia Tech and similar
"inexplicable" modern mass killings back to the Bell Tower murders
have been turned into logos to peddle a coercive treatment model, they
remain publicly unhonored and undistinguished by the actual collective
meaning of their deaths. For a very blunt example of this, the victims
of drug-addled killers are never added up within the FDA's Medwatch
database list of drug deaths and injuries. The website SSRI Stories
provides a database by which a death toll could be tallied, though the
site is limited to the minority of accounts in which the
antidepressant use of perpetrators (other classes of psychoactives
aren't included) actually made the news.
Enough time has passed for key facts to be confirmed regarding many
civilian mass crimes. There are more and more victims every year, yet
the nature of the acts is never officially acknowledged. From Berthold
Brecht:
When evil-doing comes like falling rain, no body calls out 'stop!'
When crimes begin to pile up they become invisible.
When sufferings become unendurable the cries are no longer heard.
The cries, too, fall like rain in summer.

Sadly the same may be true of those who died in Aurora in the summer
of 2012. Will anything emerge before their names are dropped from
public memory? Jessica Ghawi, six year-old Veronica Moser-Sullivan,
Alex Sullivan, Micayla Medek, Jesse Childress, Gordon W. Cowden,
Rebecca Ann Wingo, Alexander J. Boik, Matt McQuinn, John Larimer,
Alexander C. Teves, Jonathan T. Blunk.
The intense but carefully edited media attention on Aurora killer
James Holmes' persona, methods and possible motives has set off
protests that the focus should rightfully be on those who were injured
or killed. But at least four-- McQuinn, Larimer, Teves and Blunk-- died
defending others. There were probably more among the dead and injured
who did the same.
Would those who risked or gave their lives for other people object to
a search for interpretations that might prevent a repeat of the same
tragedy? Survivors and the bereaved are also victims and might be
traumatized by the discussion, but when those who are supposed to
inquire in depth do not, it's left to those left behind. This is often
a reality in the wake of politicized tragedy.
For better or worse, there's no question that non-ideological modern
massacres, while they are not political, have been politicized. For
worse, as illustrated earlier, the tragedies have become partisan
footballs and industry selling points. But politicization may be
unavoidable in attempting to understand the tragedies from an
individual perspective, in terms of social response and within a
framework for why they occur and continue.
Since so much modern psychological and social research on mass
atrocity arises from epic events in the last century, in Hope and
Memory, philosopher Tzvetan Todorov studies the social impact of a
search for meaning among survivors of 20th century crimes against
humanity. Todarov questions whether victims should ever be forced to
analyze their perpetrators because "Understanding relies on some
degree of identification with the perpetrator (be it partial and
temporary), and that could be highly damaging for a victim." But the
author also argues that, as bystanders to evil, we can't equivocate
"understanding" with "justifying" in order to avoid the task of
comprehending the acts because "The whole modern apparatus of modern
criminal justice is based on a quite different premise. Murderers,
torturers, and rapists must pay for the crimes to be sure. But society
does not only punish the criminals; it also seeks to understand why
the crimes were committed and to take appropriate action to prevent
their recurrence...No crime is ever the automatic consequence of a
cause. Understanding evil is not to justify it."
In the same book, Todorov also analyzes the ideological cults of
science which gave rise to horrific events in the past century. In
attempting to grasp the causes and consequences of more modern
atrocities, there may be a very limited but still unavoidably
politicized analogy to twentieth century totalitarian violence within
a supposition that so many of the high profile killings could have
involved drugs with black box warnings for radical personality change
and violence: Those searching for answers 1) may be forced to contend
with the "science" justifying a power apparatus which encouraged or
even forced certain perpetrators to take particular actions which led
to the destruction of lives; and 2) they may be forced to struggle
with the relative guilt of those who might claim to have been
"following orders"--though in the case of modern parallels, this could
involve "doctor's orders."
Even though some Aurora survivors have called for forgiveness of the
killer, the attempt to understand is not a bid for clemency for
murderers, drug fueled or not. Breggin argued in his most recent book
on drug-induced psychosis, Medication Madness, that as more
information is available on side effects, fewer will be able to claim
that they didn't know the risks and there will come a day when adults
who take the drugs--and especially those who prescribe them--will be
liable for crimes committed under the influence. Of the 2009 Fort Hood
massacre, the worst shooting on a domestic military base in history in
which military psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 and wounded
29, Breggin called the drug link the "elephant in the room" which the
press and public would not discuss, though he also pointed out in an
article for Huffington Post that Hasan would not have been an innocent
victim of adverse effects:
Some in the media have expressed surprise that a man whose profession
is about caring would turn to violence. According to one theory, Dr.
Hasan was driven to the breaking point by the stress of counseling
returning soldiers and having to listen to their horrific stories.
Totally false. Psychiatrists are no longer trained to listen to or to
counsel their patients. Nor do they care to.I've given seminars to the
staff at both hospitals where Hasan was trained, Walter Reed in DC and
the national military medical center in Bethesda, Maryland. The
psychiatrists had no interest in anything except medicating their
patients... being an ordinary [i.e., a psychiatric drug-dispensing]
psychiatrist is deadly depressing. Psychiatrists routinely commit
spiritual murder by disregarding and suppressing their patients'
feelings and even their cognitive functions, making it impossible for
them to conquer their emotional struggles. It's no wonder my
colleagues have such high suicide and drug addiction rates.

At first glance, there are other twists and contradictions within the
theory of substance-induced violence, though personal histories of
perpetrators may only emphasize the difference between those who
deliberately choose a mind-altering agent to amplify aggression or
those without histories of violence who suddenly commit heinous acts
on prescription drugs.
It was not always understood, for instance, that while alcoholism can
increase violent tendencies, it may not be the cause of violence. When
Carrie Nation led the campaign for the prohibition of alcohol in the
1920's, she and her followers were fueled by then-prevalent medical
theories that domestic abusers were driven to commit violence against
women due to the "demon whiskey." More recent research argues that
dissociative "battering" personality traits stem from repeat childhood
humiliation and abuse by a same-sex role model and/or witnessing
domestic violence against a parent-- experiences which long precede the
use of alcohol. This is also demonstrated by high rates of domestic
violence in some cultures which traditionally prohibit alcohol
consumption. Battering statistics don't hinge on banning alcohol--they
hinge on banning the act itself: domestic violence rates are highest
where there's the least enforcement against it. Furthermore, author,
expert and clinical researcher Donald Dutton also noted that some
chronic abusers who display both pathological and criminal tendencies
will reportedly use substances in order to ramp up aggression and to
manufacture an alibi for their actions.
Overlaps between drug-induced and deliberately drug-boosted violence
in an era where more-- and more dangerous--prescription drugs are
available are admittedly confusing. Due to his long-standing ties to
neo-Nazi and right-wing anti-Muslim organizations, Norwegian mass
killer Anders Behring Breivik fits the more traditional profile of
ideologically-motivated and militant mass-murderer. But even Breivik
reportedly took a cocktail of ephedrine, steroids and caffeine "to be
strong, efficient and awake" before he bombed government buildings,
killing eight, and opened fire in a Utøya island camp linked with the
Norwegian Labor Party, where he killed 69, mostly teenagers.
According to some reports, Anders took ephedrine and steroids for many
years to combat a weight problem and he'd been "off" since anyone
outside his militant circles remembered him. Whether or not long term
substance abuse could account for long-standing psychopathology,
Breivik attested that his use of "ECA Stack"--the combination of
ephedrine, steroids, aspirin and caffeine-- was chosen deliberately in
order to increase aggressiveness in pre-attack journal entries:
Noticing that the testo[erone] withdrawal is contributing to increased
aggressiveness. As I'm now continuing with 50mg it will most likely
pass. I wish it would be possible to somehow manipulate this effect to
my advantage later on when it is needed. Because the state seems to
very efficiently suppress fear. I wonder if it is possible to acquire
specialized "aggressiveness" pills on the market. It would probably be
extremely useful in select military operations, especially when
combined with steroids and ECA stack...! It would turn you into a
superhuman one-man-army for 2 hours!

The degree to which any drug fueled killer may have had special access
to information on clinical warnings and took the drugs anyway
obviously reflects degrees of responsibility. It may not always imply--
as it most likely does in Breivik's case-- that the drugs were taken
either as a facilitator or as an alibi for intent to kill just as it's
unlikely most drunk drivers got behind the wheel with the aim of
committing vehicular manslaughter. But drunk drivers are still held
responsible. It's also clear that anyone forcibly placed on drugs who
lacks the capacity to give truly informed consent-- such as minor
children, those forced to take medications by court order or for life-
threatening medical conditions (e.g., seizures) and the elderly
suffering from dementia-- are therefore not responsible for the
effects, though their prescribers and industry are doubly so.
For some onlookers, any explanation for these crimes which casts
killers as anything less than inherently, willfully, murderously evil
is "politicized" in a negative sense, whether the search for
mitigating factors is framed as a "bleeding heart" social posture or
as motivated by an agenda towards pharmaceutical manufacturers or
corporate power in general. But this view ignores the fact that the
"black and white" analysis of these crimes is politically guided in
itself and, in the case that drugs play a role in certain cases of
modern violence, this is incredibly dangerous. The degree to which
"experts" refuse to educate themselves on the growing body of evidence
that certain prescription medications alone can drive some
individuals, particularly minors, to commit violence who might not
have otherwise ensures that the trend continues.
Why would anyone want the trend to continue? If the trend is largely
drug-fueled, even within the idea that it's being allowed to continue
solely for profit and related politicized reasons such as tort
deflection and a good-money-after-bad defense of clinical and
corporate reputations, a great deal is lost in a simplistic analysis
of human motivation which ignores belief and ideology. It's curious,
on the one hand, how easily some observers will ascribe a willful
motive to take ultimate power over human life to individuals who
explode in violence in public, make few attempts to conceal their
identity and invariably end up dead or in prison. But, on the other
hand, it can be difficult for the same observers to understand that
certain authorities might not be exempt from a motive to take power
over other human beings in a scenario that results not in death,
imprisonment and infamy for those in control but nearly magical status
in the realm of science and public health.
For example, organized psychiatry faced a conundrum in light of
landmark legal cases which exposed conflicting drives: when held
responsible for the actions of patients in Tarasoff, members of the
American Psychiatric Association protested that psychiatrists are
incapable of predicting future actions of patients. Psychiatrists, who
had long claimed the ability to gauge the future course of patients'
conditions and their future actions, were suddenly scrambling to
slough off responsibility when the threat of being held liable for
crimes committed by these patients began to loom... although the
profession continues to demand control over patients under their
charge. And so psychiatry argues for the power to force high risk
treatments on patients who've neither committed nor threatened
violence as Satel and Torrey propose, based simply on a practitioner's
assessment that the individual is "seriously mentally ill" and
therefore a potential danger to the public or themselves.
How does psychiatry maintain the precarious posture between disdaining
responsibility and pleading that they have no crystal ball when things
go wrong while still demanding the power to remove medical choice
based on predictive prowess? Through fraud.
In a response to Torrey's Heritage Foundation appearance entitled
Heritage Foundation Presents Next Step in Evolution of Police State:
Perjury, The Guardian referred to Torrey as a "perjury proponent" in
reference to Torrey's statements in several published works.
It would probably be difficult to find any American psychiatrist
working with the mentally ill who has not, at a minimum, exaggerated
the dangerousness of a mentally ill person's behavior to obtain a
judicial order for commitment.
Torrey also quotes psychiatrist Paul Applebaum in defense of this
strategy,
Confronted with psychotic persons who might well benefit from
treatment and might certainly suffer without it, mental health
professionals and judges alike were reluctant to comply with the law...
in the dominance of the commonsense model, the laws are sometimes
simply disregarded.
Fabricating predictive powers in order to force treatment and ignoring
the increased risk of violence from those proposed treatments all
direct the attention to motives and incentives. An obvious incentive:
one-fifth of the American Psychiatric Association's funding comes from
industry and that individual members are steeped in financial conflicts
-- from industry kickbacks for promoting and prescribing, to financial
incentives in DSM panel policy, to hiding conflicts by hiring doctors
through third parties to conduct industry funded continuing medical
education forums.
But again, profit isn't the only human motivation which science and
medicine are subject to along with any other human undertaking.
Adriana Gamondes is a contributing editor to Age of Autism and a
Facebook page administrator. She and her husband commute between
Massachusetts and Florida and are the proud parents of recovering
twins.
Disclaimer: Withdrawal from psychotropic drugs can often be more
dangerous than continuing on a medication. It is important to
withdraw extremely slowly from these drugs under the supervision of a
qualified speciaa. Withdrawal symptoms are sometimes more severe than
the original symptoms or problems.
Posted by Age of Autism at January 11, 2013 at 5:46 AM in Adriana
Gamondes | Permalink | Comments (43)

Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed
for this post.
Cia-- found this on nutritional deficiency, stress and PPD:
http://www.virginiahopkinstestkits.com/postpartumdep.html
Reminds me of the CounterThink cartoon "When Doctors Have Nightmares":
http://www.naturalnews.com/021979_vitamins_antioxidants.html
In part 3 I make an attempt to discuss "legislating morality." There
are some good arguments about the slippery slope of legislating what
people do to themselves.
Posted by: Adriana | January 15, 2013 at 07:31 PM

About Prohibition. I have a good friend who is an alchoholic, as was
my grandfather. I have seen how alcoholism destroys both the addict
and all of their family members, and addiction is certainly both a
physical and a mental illness. I agree that it would be impossible and
undesirable to prohibit the sale of alcohol, but does anyone have an
opinion on the idea of making those who want to buy alcohol show a
special photo ID? Alcholics would have a big X across it, showing that
they were not permitted to buy alcohol, and penalties would be levied
on those who sold to them anyway. Everyone else could do so as long as
they did so responsibly. Of course it would not be foolproof, but
wouldn't such a measure help to curb all the destruction of innocent
lives from the abuses of alcoholics?
Posted by: cia parker | January 14, 2013 at 01:41 PM

Have many of you read chapter four, "Pollution," in the book The Age
of Autism? It's extremely pertinent to this discussion, about the
exponential increase and apparent birth of many psychiatric illnesses
and conditions starting with the industrial age and its concomitant
pollution of the environment.
From p. 133: "Haslam referred to 'the alarming increase in insanity'
in 1809, and then it rose tenfold in the next six decades. Modern
experts, however, tend to accept that there was no real increase, just
better diagnosis.
Torrey finds this denial bizarre. 'Living amid an ongoing epidemic
that nobody notices is surreal,' he and Miller write. 'It is like
viewing a mighty river that has risen slowly over two centuries,
imperceptibly claiming the surrounding land, millimeter by
millimeter...Humans adapt remarkably well to a disaster as long as the
disaster occurs over a long period of time.
So amid the rise of a novel and unmistakable disease, it seems
possible that a remarkable thing happened. Instead of raising the
alarm, the medical profession decided that all of this was just the
way things had always been. Instead of a mystery for which they had no
explanation, the consensus cause of the plague instead became the
rising competence of the medical profession: 'better diagnosing.'"
Posted by: cia parker | January 14, 2013 at 11:24 AM

Adriana and Benedetta,
It should probably be made easier to institutionalize the mentally
ill. My uncle had schizophrenia, and was instititionalized in the
mid-'60s, but was released when the laws reducing institionalization
were passed. My father was aghast that the government had no problem
with putting mentally ill people unable to care for themselves on the
street. My uncle lived with his mother for the rest of his life, but
my mother told me that my grandmother told her that she was afraid of
him, and always locked her door at night. (Did Adam Lanza's mother not
think of that?) She got doctor friends to let her have Thorazine for
him, and gave him much larger doses than would have been prescribed by
an ethical doctor. He became grossly obese and zombie-like.
I don't know what to say about post-partum depression. I was euphoric
at having had a baby, and the euphoria lasted for years. I understand
that that's like people saying that they got all the shots and emerged
just fine, so don't believe others are vaccine-damaged. If the drugs
are dangerous, and obviously they are, then what should a depressed
mother do? I talked to my friend Liz about last week's mention of
Andrea Yates, and how much I hated her. Liz said she was more angry at
Andrea's husband and parents who knew she was unstable and still left
her with the children. Is that the responsible thing to do? Have
someone else care for the baby until the mother recovers (preferably
without drugs)? How could you implement that? A lot of mothers
wouldn't tell anyone they were depressed in that case.
Posted by: cia parker | January 14, 2013 at 11:13 AM

Adriana,
I used to think that most of the kids on Ritalin for ADHD were normal,
active kids. I think now that ADHD is another form in which the brain
damage of vaccine-induced encephalitis manifests. A lot of these kids
are normal and inappropriately drugged, but a lot of them have been
neurologically damaged by vaccines, and their behavior is extreme and
abnormal. I'm still against the use of Ritalin to calm them, but I
think it's another instance of vaccine damage.
Posted by: cia parker | January 14, 2013 at 10:58 AM

Benedetta-- look at the table on the post: the rate of mental
disability went from .2 per 1000 to 20 in 1000 in 150 years according
to institutional records and SSI and SSRI. The were "dumped"
somewhere, in institutions.
If someone is suggesting that some parallel population of mentally ill
were "done away with" in the past, you'd think there would be some
hint that America had undergone eugenic "liquidation" of the mentally
disabled that would have made the Nazi T4 program pale by comparison.
The irony of the "Mother's Act" to screen postpartum and pregnant
women for depression and get more on drugs was that it was named for a
postpartum woman who'd killed herself while on the medications.
Studies show an increase in postpartum psychosis in association with
the drugs. The advent of medicating mothers has not decreased the
problem in any case and may actually be driving an increase, not to
mention the numbers of horrific birth defects associated with the meds
in pregnancy.
Posted by: Adriana | January 13, 2013 at 04:36 PM

Maybe the only answer in the re - emergence of lots of places to dump
all of those with mental health problems.
Was there not loads of such places back in the day before
antibiotics-- and during the time when the only medicine available
were those made of poisons like mercury and arsenic?.
Posted by: Benedetta | January 12, 2013 at 10:55 PM

postpartem depression is clinical depression. If not treated - the
mother may come out of it okay - but some of these mothers that did
not get treatment developed psychosis. Killed the baby - killed
themselves.
I don't think there are easy answers here.
Posted by: Benedetta | January 12, 2013 at 10:46 PM

Cherry-- thanks for the insights. I hadn't seen the video you
mentioned, though I did see case reports of individuals with no
criminal or pathological history committing suicide or harming others
who had been prescribed the drugs by pharmacy mistake (Xanax instead
of Zantac, Celexa instead of Celebrex).
Posted by: Adriana | January 12, 2013 at 06:29 PM

One of the proofs of the ill effects of psychiatric drugs is that
occasionally they ARE prescribed to normal, happy people, with the
same tragic results. There is a piece on youtube about a happy, loving
family that had a happy, successful teen daughter, who was going
through a period of having difficulty sleeping. Given Prozac to help
her sleep, she began having strange thoughtsfeelings within days, and
mentioned this to her sister. Shortly thereafter she committed suicide
by hanging.. What more proof do we need that these meds need to be
discontinued or at the very least,used with utmost caution.? Instead,
we have the spectre of big pharma extending their reach still further.
Just a couple of days ago I saw a piece on BBC about women who suffer
postpartem depression and kill themselves and or their child. What
these women need, we are told in the documentary is HELP. We know what
kind of help that would be- Give the suicide prone person a
psychiatric drug that may cause suicidal /homicidal thoughts.
Posted by: Cherry Sperlin Misra | January 12, 2013 at 04:12 PM

Jenny, Jeannette and No Vac-- thank you for the insights.
Jenny wrote, "Unless a psychiatrist has acknowledged and tested for
these possibilities, among others, to eliminate these as causes,
should they be using psych meds which could end up causing the death
of other people?
I think comparing psych meds to chemo is like apples to oranges. We
don't give people chemo and radiation because they generally appear to
be having problems which may or may not be cancer, based on a
conversation and visual assessments."

Good way of putting it... such a bizarre lack of specificity in making
these diagnoses that almost requires effort to pull off. Thomas Szasz
mentioned that if psychiatry had any proofs of the medical basis for
most DSM diagnoses, the field would have been absorbed into neurology
ages ago. You have to wonder if this is precisely what the field is
avoiding-- losing turf.
Posted by: Adriana | January 12, 2013 at 03:04 PM

Vicki and Benedetta,
John Stone makes a good point-- personally I don't support
prohibition. Some human beings have always been attracted to mind
altering substances and always will we. Prohibition always fails,
can't be enforced. But selling and moreover forcing the meds on phony
efficacy theories for "fixing brain chemical imbalance" is the real
problem. The point is that there's no evidence whatsoever that these
medications are anything like "cancer treatments" or "insulin for
diabetes" which is the usual sales pitch.
Really all we get from mainstream sources are the sales pitches so
consumers are forced to educate themselves and each other, since we're
the ones who ultimately pay the price for the fraud. The evidence is
overwhelming that these drugs don't treat underlying issues for
behaviors caused by hunger, head injury, lead poisoning, pesticide
toxicity, vaccine injuries, boredom in a lousy school, emotional
wounds from racial or other discrimination, mercury poisoning,
posttraumatic stress, metabolic disorders or any of the other
conditions which have either always been endemic or are new and
rising.
Probably one of the most frightening books I've read is Grace
Jackson's "Drug Induced Dementia: The Perfect Crime" which discusses
clinical cellular damage and mitochondrial injuries caused by all
classes of psychiatric drugs and how they can virtually recreate
conditions like MELAS or Niemann-Picks which were formerly thought to
be solely genetic. Hence the "perfect crime" reference in the title,
though the crime doesn't seem to be so perfect because Jackson's
research traces clinical "before and after" in many cases. The book
also covers the fraud involved in generating the prevailing "efficacy
theories."
I thought the book was like Agatha Christie or CSI for pharmaceutical
crimes-- taking chemical agents which work basically like opiate
painkillers and sedatives or worse-- like sniffing glue or taking bath
salts; justifying them scientific language, then doubling the
predictable brain and metabolic injuries back as yet more "proof" that
the injured individuals were previously "abnormal" in this way.
What was also interesting in the book was that some pre-drug
individuals with conditions like bipolarity and schizophrenia did
already show certain abnormal markers-- but the drugs simply made
those markers and the conditions far worse. She conceded that some of
the drugs have actual physical and certainly emotional painkilling
properties, but that was it.
Can that "save lives" in some cases? The issue that drug paradigm
defenders consistently muddle seems to be the difference between
"crisis management" and long term treatment by way of creating the
"anti-psychiatry" strawman construct which should be pretty familiar
to vaccine safety proponents. For example, Jim Gottstein described
having a breakdown in law school from lack of sleep. When seeking
help- which is what he assumed psychiatry existed for-- he thought
they'd just give him something to sleep for a couple of days. He
hadn't harmed anyone or threatened harm, but instead he was literally
held prisoner and forced to take drugs which he experienced as a form
of torture.
We have to question chronic use of drugs with no proven efficacy in
"fixing" underlying causes, that invariably cause new or worsened
damage and shorten lifespan by an estimated 25 years and as Dan
Olmsted pointed out today, can potentially result in mass deaths among
people who didn't even take the drug.
And the main point is that the rise in mental disability can't be
totally genetic or even "largely genetic." Some of it's a social and
marketing construct, like the pre-autism epidemic trend of prescribing
Ritalin to kids who fidgeted in school as kids have always done. I
don't know of anyone who's "always happy" but normal children have
been drugged since drugs were first marketed as a form of social
control and profit. But some of the rise is genuine and there are more
and more severely mentally disabled.
It could be tied to pollution, use of pesticides and heavy metals and
increasingly the use of drugs themselves. No one's investigated which
is which because of the reigning genes-only model. The medications'
efficacy theories are based on a "brain chemical imbalance" theories
which hinge on the genetic model, in other words, on what has to be a
false theory for the vast majority of modern cases.
What bothers me is why the failing model is being allowed to continue,
which are the questions dealt with in parts 2 and 3. As one reader
said there are no easy answers.
Posted by: Adriana | January 12, 2013 at 02:53 PM

"August 1st, 1966: 25-year-old gunman Charles Whitman, addicted to
amphetamines, suffering from a brain tumor and severe migraines for
which he may have been prescribed one of the new MAOI inhibitors,
killed his mother and wife, then climbed the tower at the University
of Texas at Austin wounding 49, killing 14 and then himself."
Charles Joseph Whitman (June 24, 1941 - August 1, 1966) was a student
at the University of Texas at Austin who shot and killed 14 people
(including those who survived the initial shooting but later died as a
result of their injuries) and wounded 31 others from the observation
deck of the University's Main Building of The University of Texas at
Austin on August 1, 1966, after murdering his wife and mother, and
before being shot by Austin police.
http://murderpedia.org/male.W/w/whitman-charles.htm

Folks James Holmes has been PROVEN to have done NOTHING but perhaps
become a patsy for one of the "senseless" mass murders committed with
GUNS.
I pray to God we have an honest trial; UNLIKE every other recent
"senseless" GUN related mass murder. A trial by 12 Citizens has proven
the best possible way to establish the truth about ANYTHING.
IMO one of the worst things about these "senseless" mass murders with
GUNS is the complete destruction of a young man's good name FOR ALL
TIME by the organizers of these "senseless" mass murders with GUNS.
When a "senseless" mass murder occurs the CIA starts its investigation
by asking one simple question.
Who benefits?
Posted by: Lou | January 12, 2013 at 12:29 PM

Vicki -
You make valid points. However, if psychosis is due to a nutritional
deficiency or is food induced, or even viral induced, why should those
conditions be treated with psych meds which appear to merely mask the
symptoms and sometimes they don't even do that well and could actually
make things worse, rather that address the causative factors?
There ARE nutritional deficiencies which manifest as what look like
psychological changes (though I no longer think the brain deserves to
be approached under its own vector of medicine simply because it's
harder to identify its problems vs looking at broken bone on an x-ray)
Just try googling B12 and psychosis, just as one example. How about
thiamin, niacin, or folate deficiencies?
The point being, should psychiatrists and doctors be using psych meds
as the first line of treatment, or the last line of treatment, or at
all, if they haven't identified the problem - or is cause and effect
no longer relevant to medical treatment? What if nutritional
deficiencies are the CAUSE of the vulnerability that some people
appear to have to the adverse effects of these psych drugs? What if
improving the nutritional standing of the patient, if not removing the
original symptoms, at least prevented them from becoming suicidal or
homicidal, or, allows the patient to react to the medicine in the way
it which it was planned.
As another example, what about wheat - there have been links to wheat
and schizophrenia and bi-polar. Should someone with this issue showing
mood swings and depression be treated with psych meds upon their first
visit to the doctor, which could possibly cause additional psychosis
in a homicidal or suicidal way, causing loss of life for other people
when maybe the person just needed to eat rice instead of wheat?
Unless a psychiatrist has acknowledged and tested for these
possibilities, among others, to eliminate these as causes, should they
be using psych meds which could end up causing the death of other
people?
I think comparing psych meds to chemo is like apples to oranges. We
don't give people chemo and radiation because they generally appear to
be having problems which may or may not be cancer, based on a
conversation and visual assessments. There is a whole litany of
diagnostics before that route is taken. And I'm not sure I've ever
read about chemo making a person fly into a rampage and kill people.
And if it did, I wouldn't condone its use, either.
Posted by: Jenny | January 12, 2013 at 12:17 PM

Revelation 13:16-18
And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and
bond, to receive a MARK in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the MARK, or the
name of the beast, or the number of his name.
Can we get the number 666 out of the pharma, or medical establisment,
or National Institue of Health that receives the largest bulk of our
national budget?
Posted by: Benedetta | January 12, 2013 at 11:18 AM

Vicki,
I don't know what Adriana's conclusion is about psychiatric drugs. I
think one problem with it is that though there may be benefits in some
cases it is all at best highly unpredictable - it certainly doesn't
coincide with the principle of "first do no harm", more a matter of we
will give them x and see what happens (it might make it better but oh
my god it might make it worse). Adriana is certainly right to
highlight the authoritarian or even totalitarian politics of screening
programmes etc, captive markets and their high priesthood and the
paradox that psychiatrists don't want to be held responsible for the
side effects, while aspiring to play god.
So, I would suggest that they should only be embarked on with great
caution and as a last resort, which would scarcely support the
industry in the manner to which it has become accustomed.
John
Posted by: John Stone | January 12, 2013 at 08:55 AM

People don't start on psychiatric meds because they are normal, happy,
and have no problems. They start on the meds in the first place
because there is some sort of a problem. So it is disingenuous to
claim the meds are always the problem...when the person wouldn't have
gone to the doctor in the first place and gotten the prescription if
not for the underlying problem.
I have watched a person who has never taken psychiatric meds develop
psychosis. It is not a pretty sight. I have watched the psychosis go
away while on psychiatric meds...and watched the psychosis return
while off psychiatric meds. I have heard such patients say that life
with psychosis isn't worth living; the torment is too much to bear.
Can some psychiatric meds have ugly side effects? Absolutely. Should
everyone take psychiatric meds? No. Are they life-saving for some
people? Yes.
The "anti-psychiatry" movement has led to the current situation with
the homeless living in the streets and the prisons being the largest
providers of mental health services in the country. The movement has
led to the restrictive laws which make it so difficult for the Aurora
shooter's doctor to get him into inpatient treatment, or for the
Newtown shooter's mother to get him the help he needed. (There is no
evidence that he was taking any psychiatric meds.)
Cancer drugs also have long lists of potentially bad side effects. But
when you are staring death in the face, you have to make the "least
bad" choice at times. Similarly, with persons dealing with serious
mental illnesses, choices have to be made. There is no evidence that
anything short of certain prescription meds can intervene when a
person is suffering from psychotic delusions.
Posted by: Vicki Hill | January 12, 2013 at 08:03 AM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/david-villalobos-man-mauled-bronx-zoo-tiger-not-guilty_n_2457295.html?utm_hp_ref=new-york&icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl32%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D256201

Wow; that is a long link!
It is about the guy that just in the tiger cage of the bronx zoo. His
Dad said it was because of the adderall.
But not everyone reacts this way to adderall.
And again why was he on adderall in the first place, if something was
not wrong to begin with.
Posted by: Benedetta | January 12, 2013 at 02:16 AM

Great article and a source of information, thanks. Adriana, may be you
can send it to Huff Post and/or Alex Jones' Prison Planet. Corporate
media are junk, totally useless, only for propaganda and
advertisements. I am glad they are dying as dinosaurs.
Posted by: no vac | January 12, 2013 at 01:30 AM

Why are these kids on the drugs in the first place?
Normal kids, happy kids, kids with no more problems are not the ones
getting on these drugs.
Posted by: Benedetta | January 12, 2013 at 01:07 AM

Thank you for much information and informed perspective. I read Mad in
America, though it was a struggle as most of what I've painfully
observed in part of my family is illuminated by the book.
The closing disclaimer here seems like it should be the first piece of
information given out before these drugs are prescribed, or at least
in the top three with the other two being that these drugs have the
all the risks outlined here, and if you understand the "science"
methodology, these drugs have never been proven to help anyone,
excluding perhaps institutions, better than a placebo.
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | January 11, 2013 at 09:32 PM

John-- I was going to cut it because every great article on the
association has included some form of list. I decided to expand it and
keep it. It's painful evidence, a kind of emblem... You shall know us
by our lists.
Posted by: Adriana | January 11, 2013 at 08:34 PM

Adriana,much to do about nothing,as it goes..but I could not take a
penny if i were in office and watched this massacre going on...they
see it ..but hey!"I can't do that,it's more than my job's worth".
Jobsworth ..meaning it might lose the person their job:...
Obalma is a more than my ,Jobsworth...Ass.
As was Bush,
As was Clinton,
And all the rest..who was the last President of America to
speak ,AGAINST VACCINES..?

Posted by: ANGUS FILES | January 11, 2013 at 07:07 PM

What is happening is that lists like this are appearing all over web
now, shaming the mainstream media - of course not all are set in such
a brilliant article.
Posted by: John Stone | January 11, 2013 at 06:24 PM

It's the drugs, stupid! (Not the guns!)
Posted by: Cindy Griffin | January 11, 2013 at 05:44 PM

Thanks so much Teresa and thanks also for staying on top of the issue
and for all the great insights.
Imagine a re-write on the "Dear Doc" link...
Dear Doctor,
Patients can now take a single tablet to achieve their bath salts 60
mg dose.
Low cost for your bath salt zombies:
Most commercial plan patients are expected to pay $10-$28 for a 30-day
supply...
Posted by: Adriana | January 11, 2013 at 05:18 PM

Angus-- Remember when Obama was going to appoint Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
to the EPA? Someone said, "No no puedes" and he apparently didn't
argue much.
Part 2 attempts to figure out the problems these authorities are
charged with solving and why it keeps coming back to the same old
destructive measures.
Posted by: Adriana | January 11, 2013 at 05:07 PM

Adriana,
This is a masterpiece of information. Thank you for hunting and
gathering. The picture haunts me and I hope it sticks with the
deniers. Coincidentally, I received this in my email this week:
http://tinyurl.com/alrfkly
Posted by: Teresa Conrick | January 11, 2013 at 04:58 PM

Obama can`t blame it on anyone else now as he has been the top gun for
long enough..if it ain` happenned now its down to his own ass..shame
on him! for this continuation of vaccine deaths and illness..
Posted by: ANGUS FILES | January 11, 2013 at 04:11 PM

Great article! A message we need to hear.
Posted by: Michelle | January 11, 2013 at 03:56 PM

Garbo-- no, you never see this list in the mainstream news. Every once
in a while you see reporters poking their heads out of the
institutional/corporate-friendly groundhog burrows and piping in with
a comment or question here or there about the association between
drugs and violence. Seeing how it plays and if it's "warm enough" yet
for the issue to explode past the censors as if they expect it to. But
inevitably they scuttle back into their holes. It's still "winter"
apparently on this particular issue.
Posted by: Adriana | January 11, 2013 at 03:03 PM

Brilliant article. I wish the MSM had the intestinal fortitude to
publish the lengthy list of incidents linked to these drugs.
Posted by: Garbo | January 11, 2013 at 02:33 PM

Thank you, Jean and Farmer.
Farmer-- There's a lot of dark irony in the whole thing for sure.
Posted by: Adriana | January 11, 2013 at 01:59 PM

Thank you, John. And thanks for the insights earlier.
It's hard to say what they "know" or think they know, whether it's
just opportunist or personal and subjective. I remember a series of
articles on the potential role of Prozac-induced mania among traders
in the banking scandal. You could imagine that politics, like
Hollywood or high finance, is highly medicated because of the stress
levels involved in those arenas. Taking the meds is like being drafted
into an entire world view because of how they're marketed, because of
how the drugs reportedly effect thinking and then the view becomes
social currency. That could be part of it but who really knows.
Posted by: Adriana | January 11, 2013 at 01:52 PM

Of course, the trouble with Obama is that as an educated and informed
man you really can't help thinking he knows the truth.
Posted by: John Stone | January 11, 2013 at 01:01 PM

Absolutely outstanding work. Thank you so much.
Posted by: jean | January 11, 2013 at 12:50 PM

Carol-- saw that... after the piece had been submitted. There's been
no end of ironic updates. Where's Brian Deer? Crickets...
Posted by: Adriana | January 11, 2013 at 12:20 PM

Bob-- I started writing this about six years ago after attending a
Senate presentation on the dangers of Teenscreen and medicating
children. I pulled out the stops to take some rare time off to attend
because our twins had just been diagnosed and I had some kind of
parental Jedi intuition that the push to medicate was going to have a
really bad impact on disability families, not to mention school
safety.
Many of the people quoted were there and the speakers were brilliant.
No one there could come away assuming this was a "fringe" position.
After the hearing, we all took lengthy packets of information on drug
risks and the failure rate of screening to our various reps. Because
no one happened to be from Illinois, I dropped off lit with Obama's
Senate office. A short time later, mention of "screening" showed up in
some of his press statements.
They've all been filled in but whether it's out of blind faith in
"progress," the power of pharma or because politicians are under
pressure to make out like something palpable is being done in the wake
of every horrific tragedy, this has been every administration's
response to med-era massacres. I think the only way this is going to
change is if consumers are informed.
Posted by: Adriana | January 11, 2013 at 12:16 PM

I don't think Paxil Study 329 has been retracted.
"Yesterday [1-9-13] Pharmalot mentioned the infamous Paxil Study 329
and the JAACAP's refusal to retract the article even after its
starring role in a $3 B criminal and civil suit in which the sponsor
[GSK] plead guilty to the charges...."
http://1boringoldman.com/index.php/2013/01/10/a-higher-power/

Posted by: Carol | January 11, 2013 at 11:25 AM

Bob,
Yes, of course, Obama's answer to the problem of increasing chronic
ill-health in the population was more vaccines (pre-election interview
in Scientific American). Romney said something equally deranged if I
remember.
John
Posted by: John Stone | January 11, 2013 at 07:10 AM

Brilliant piece ...... but I found this line very funny , is that
wrong of me ?
"Bush's vision for the Orwellian New Freedom Commission on Mental
Health which sought to screen all Americans for mental illness"
Start at the top I say !
Posted by: Farmer Geddon | January 11, 2013 at 07:08 AM

President Obama's statement in the wake of the Newtown tragedy:
"We must make access to mental health care as easy as we make access
to guns"
There appears to be .. as presented in this article .. a widespread
and growing body of evidence linking psychotrophic drug use to violent
attacks and suicide.
If these drugs eventually prove to be contributing factors in the
rising numbers of violent attacks on innocent people .. common sense
suggests making "access" to them easier is likely to be more problem
than solution.
Posted by: Bob Moffitt | January 11, 2013 at 06:54 AM

Thank you, Adriana, a great article in every sense.
John
Posted by: John Stone | January 11, 2013 at 06:30 AM




http://www.ageofautism.com/2013/01/frau-komas-second-coming-mass-murder-autism-and-the-cult-of-weaponized-genetics.html
523
2014-04-18 13:56:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Demon Seed & Drug-Fueled Killers

(Frau Koma's Second Coming: Mass Murder, Autism and the Cult of Weaponized Genetics)


http://www.ageofautism.com/2013/01/frau-komas-second-coming-mass-murder-autism-and-the-cult-of-weaponized-genetics.html
⊙_⊙
2016-06-25 16:49:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
⊙_⊙
2016-06-25 17:02:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Loading...