Archive for the ‘Blog’ Category

Newer Entries »

The CIA Mind Control Doctors: From Harvard to Guantanamo

Thursday, September 3rd, 2009

by Colin A. Ross
Psychiatrist, Author,
The CIA Doctors, Military Mind Control
 and Project Bluebird
September 3, 2009

My book, The CIA Doctors,[i] is based on 15,000 pages of documents I received from the CIA through the Freedom of Information Act and dozens of papers published in medical journals.  These papers report the results of research funded by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, the Department of the Army, the Office of Naval Research and the CIA.  From 1950 to 1972, the CIA funded TOP SECRET research at many leading universities including Harvard, Yale, Cornell, Johns Hopkins and Stanford.  There was a series of CIA mind control programs including BLUEBIRD, ARTICHOKE, MKULTRA, MKSEARCH and MKNAOMI.

MKULTRA and related programs had several over-lapping purposes.  One was to purchase mind control drugs from suppliers.  Another was to form relationships with researchers who might later be used as consultants at the TOP SECRET level.  The core purpose of these programs was to learn how to enhance interrogations, erase and insert memories, and create and run Manchurian Candidates.  All of this is described clearly and explicitly in the declassified CIA documents, which provide a glimpse into the tip of the iceberg of CIA and military mind control.

The CIA mind control experiments were interwoven with radiation, chemical and biological weapons experiments conducted on children, comatose patients, pregnant women, the general population and other unwitting groups who had no idea they were subjects in secret experiments.  Radiation, bacteria and funguses were released over urban areas.  A large cloud of radiation was released over Spokane during OPERATION GREEN RUN; plutonium was injected into a comatose patient in Boston by Dr. William Sweet, a member of the Harvard brain electrode team; plutonium was placed in the cereal of mentally handicapped children at the Fernald School in New England; 751 pregnant women were injected with plutonium at Vanderbilt University; the bacteria serratia maracens was released into the air in San Francisco, resulting in a series of infections and plutonium was injected into an amputee at the University of Rochester.  All these experiments were conducted without any informed consent or meaningful follow-up.  Hallucinogens, marijuana, amphetamines and other drugs were administered to imprisoned narcotic addicts in Lexington, Kentucky, terminal cancer patients at Georgetown University Hospital, hospitalized sex offenders at Ionia State Hospital in Michigan and johns picked by prostitutes hired by the CIA in San Francisco and New York.

Most of these experiments were conducted by psychiatrists with TOP SECRET clearance.  These included Louis Jolyon West, Chairman of the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Oklahoma and later at UCLA; Dr. Robert Hyde in Boston; Dr. Carl Rogers at the University of Wisconsin; Dr. Martin Orne at Harvard; Dr. Charles Osgood at the University of Illinois; Dr. James Hamilton at Stanford; Dr. Charles Geschichter at the University of Richmond and Dr. Harold Abramson and Dr. Harold Wolff at Cornell.  Other TOP SECRET-cleared MKULTRA contractors included Dr. Maitland Baldwin, a neurosurgeon at the National Institutes of Health and Dr. Carl Pfeiffer, a pharmacologist at Emory.

The CIA doctors violated all medical codes of ethics dating back to Hippocrates, including the Nuremberg Code.  The experimental subjects were not told the real purpose of the experiments, did not give informed consent, were not afforded outside counsel and received no meaningful follow-up.  As described by the psychiatrists in published papers, experiments with LSD and other hallucinogens, combined with sensory deprivation, electroshock and other interrogation techniques, resulted in psychosis and death among other “side effects.”   The purpose of these experiments was to see how easily a person could be put into a psychotic state or controlled.

In a series of MKULTRA projects, the CIA paid a former Bureau of Narcotics officer, George White, to set up safe houses in San Francisco and New York that were decorated like brothels.  George White then hired prostitutes to pick up johns at bars, bring them back to the safe house, give them LSD without their knowledge, and then have sex with them.  The CIA officers watched the sex through one-way mirrors.  The project documents state that the purpose of the experiments was to test the effects of LSD on unwitting subjects under field conditions that mimicked an interrogation of a foreign operative.

In one of the memos contained in the MKULTRA files for these projects, however, another purpose of the safe house operation is revealed.  The CIA was actually testing the performance of “Jekyll-Hyde” identities they had created in the prostitutes.  They wanted to see if they could make female spies or female agents with alternate controllable personalities.  Another purpose of these experiments was to test the CIA’s Manchurian Candidate prostitutes under conditions that mimicked a field operation.  The johns were given LSD as part of the cover for testing the CIA’s female Manchurian Candidates prior to their use in actual operations (the mission being to have sex with and extract information from targets).  The recruitment of street prostitutes provided an additional layer of cover for the testing of the Manchurian Candidates, plus it provided free live pornography for the CIA officers.

In other experiments, conducted by Dr. Jose Delgado at Yale and Drs. Vernon Mark, Frank Ervin and William Sweet at Harvard, brain electrodes were implanted in people and their mental state and behavior was controlled from a remote radio transmitter box.  These experiments were conducted with funding from the Office of Naval Research.  In experiments at Tulane funded by the CIA and the Army, implantation of brain electrodes was combined with injecting mescaline and other substances directly into the experimental subjects’ brains.

BLUEBIRD, ARTICHOKE and MKULTRA were the precursors of present-day enhanced interrogation programs used by the CIA at secret prisons outside the United States.  Water-boarding, electric shock, hooding, prolonged sleep deprivation, death threats and other techniques discussed in the Senate and Congress and in the media, are, in my opinion, elements of a limited hangout, a CIA strategy in which a little bit of the truth is revealed in order to cover up the greater part of the truth.  None of these experiments or operational programs would be possible without the participation of doctors, psychiatrists and psychologists.  The doctors are directly involved in testing the interrogation techniques and monitoring their effects.

The purpose of mind control experiments is controlling human behavior: making enemy combatants open up during interrogation; protecting secret information by erasing memories; making spies more resistant to interrogation because secret information is held by hidden identities and making people more prone to influence, social control and suggestion.  It has nothing to do with medical treatment, easing suffering or curing disease. The mind control experiments and operational programs violate basic human rights and all codes of medical ethics.

Dr. Colin Ross is a psychiatrist, internationally renowned researcher, author and lecturer. In addition to The CIA Doctors and Military Mind Control, he is also author of Project Bluebird, in which he exposes unethical experiments conducted by psychiatrists to create amnesia, new identities, hypnotic access codes, and new memories in the minds of experimental subjects. His research is based on 15,000 pages of documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. Dr. Ross is a past president of the International Society for the Study of Dissociation. He is the founder and President of the Colin A. Ross Institute for Psychological Trauma.

[i] Colin A. Ross (2006). The CIA Doctors: Human Rights Violations By American Psychiatrists. Richardson, TX: Manitou Communications.

RETURN TO BLOGS PAGE

RSS Blog Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Blog | 52 Comments »

Teen Screen, Cynical Deception, Dangerous Illusion

Wednesday, August 26th, 2009

By Allen Jones, Former Investigator, Pennsylvania Office of the Inspector General
August 26, 2009

As human beings we have a strong natural impulse to protect our kids from harm.  As a society we create norms, laws and institutions to protect, educate and nurture our young.  Consciously and instinctively we safeguard our children.

Teen Screen is a bitter and cynical betrayal of this noble human impulse. Promoted as an aid to preventing suicide and identifying so-called mental disorders, Teen Screen is in fact a nefarious effort to recruit our children into the quagmire of biological psychiatry.

I believe the majority of parents who support Teen Screen are well meaning and genuinely have the best interests of children at heart.  I believe they have been duped and beguiled by slick marketing that appealed to their better instincts while simultaneously defeating those instincts.

Teen Screen was developed and promoted by persons with deep financial ties to makers of psychiatric drugs.  These drug companies have a profit-driven incentive to maximize the use of their drugs.  Teen Screen furthers this corporate goal by following a psychiatric model intended to translate normal human experience into symptoms of mental illness.

Teen Screen’s centerpiece is a survey which claims to identify signs of mental illness and suicidality in children and adolescents.  How does it do this?  Teen Screen identifies feelings and emotions experienced by children and adolescents. It then translates these feelings and emotions into “symptoms” of mental illness. In this way, Teen Screen is in lock-step with modern psychiatry.

The field of psychiatry has attached clinical pathology to the presence or absence of literally every mood or feeling in the normal range of human emotions. The diagnostic criteria outlined in psychiatry’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) essentially identify the presence or absence of feelings and subjectively determine if these feelings are “normal” or “abnormal.”  If the feeling or emotion is considered inappropriate in intensity or context, that feeling becomes a “symptom” of “mental illness,” treatable by medication.  After all, psychiatric drugs are designed to treat “symptoms” not cure illness.

Any child who lives life fully and freely will experience a full range of human emotions.  They will experience sadness, gladness, apathy, energy, optimism, pessimism, fear, fearlessness, love, hate, suspicion, trust and myriad other feelings.  Experiencing these feelings and learning to be guided appropriately by them is a vital part of growth and maturation.  Teen Screen identifies these feelings, subtlety manipulates or ignores context and labels the feelings as possible “symptoms” of mental illness.

Imagine the emotional states experienced by a child before, during and after a major life event such as playing in the “Big Game” with an archrival school.  The child might be distracted by excited anticipation for days before the event.  He might have difficulty sleeping the night before the game.  He might be unable to think of anything else on game day, even during classes.  He will likely be very highly energized during the event.  Depending on the game outcome, the child might be elated or saddened for days afterwards.

Now imagine the child later being asked questions such as these:

Have you ever felt so full of energy that it was difficult to sit still?

Have you ever felt anxious when you had to say or do something in front of people?

Have you ever been so concerned about something that you could not sleep?

Have you ever felt so happy that you could not concentrate?

Have you ever felt so sad that you could not focus on your school work?

The participant in the big game and the spectators of the big game might answer “yes” to most or all of the above questions.  Following the creed of modern psychiatry, Teen Screen would determine the child to be at risk of mania, social anxiety disorder, depression and possibly bipolar disorder.  The child would be flagged for further psychiatric evaluation.

The above scenario is not far-fetched. Things like this are happening every day. Teen Screen has been proven to have “false positive” rates as high as 84%.

Teen Screen is a device to distill “symptoms” from normal life experience and generate unlimited referrals to mental health professionals whose primary method of treatment involves drugging.  Please do not be duped by this ferocious, Pharma-friendly wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Allen Jones, worked as an investigator in the Pennsylvania Office of the Inspector General (OIG), and gained widespread national and international attention as a whistleblower after uncovering pharmaceutical industry payments to government officials for the purpose of implementing a national mental health screening/psychotropic drug treatment plan based on the controversial Texas Medication Algorithm Project (TMAP). In May, 2004 the British Medical Journal reported Jones had uncovered evidence major drug companies sought to influence government officials and that Jones was escorted out of his workplace on April 28, 2004, after OIG officials accused him of talking to the press. Jones chose to disclose his findings to the press precisely because of corrupt behavior by OIG officials themselves, alleging the OIG’s policy was “unconstitutional.”

RETURN TO BLOGS PAGE

RSS Blog Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Blog | 13 Comments »

Drugged to Death; Our Kids and Our Troops

Wednesday, August 19th, 2009

By Jim Marrs
Investigative Journalist
New York Times bestselling author
August 19, 2009

Today, one of the biggest problems we have, and one of the things that shocks so many Americans, is the rise of teen suicides and the rise of school shootings. Yet all we hear from the corporate mass media on the shootings is “Well, we need to take the guns away.” Let me tell you something, I went to school in Texas. We took guns to school. Nobody shot anybody. So what’s changed? Drugs. Kids on psychiatric drugs. Nearly every school shooter in this country can be shown to have been involved with psychotropic drugs—either taking them at the time of the shootings, or what can be even worse, coming off of them. And teen suicides? Read the FDA black box warnings, these drugs can cause suicidal ideation. So logically, if kids are being drugged up with antidepressants, and if in fact teen suicides are rising, then it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that we better stop drugging our kids to death.

Psychiatric drugs cause major changes in brain chemistry and in behavior. International drug regulators warn that the drugs we are doling out to kids can cause mania, psychosis, depersonalization, suicidal and even homicidal ideation. If we take a look at the school shooters that were under the influence of these drugs, you have to wonder why there hasn’t been a federal investigation into the correlation between drugs documented to cause violence and suicide and kids taking them who then became violent and suicidal. If even a handful of these school shooters were found to be taking PCP or smoking crack we would have headline news announcing a causal relationship between illicit drug use and acts of violence. But because these kids are taking legal drugs, prescribed by a psychiatrist for an alleged mental disorder, something we use to refer to as “childhood,” the powers that be don’t think it merits an investigation. Well we are all aware of how much Pharma spends on lobbying efforts. Regarding corporate media I would venture a guess that the reason they haven’t taken on the issue is simple: Big Pharma is now one of, if not the largest, advertisers in the United States, with $5 billion a year spent on direct to consumer advertising.

The rise of drug-induced acts of violence and suicide isn’t limited to our schools. In January 2009 it was reported that more of our military died of suicide than of combat deaths. Why is that? Could it be because our military are getting pumped full of psychiatric drugs? What Time Magazine referred to as “America’s Medicated Army?” Well if we are “medicating” our troops with antidepressants and antipsychotics, drugs documented to cause suicidal reactions, let’s put 2 and 2 together and state the obvious—these drugs are minimally a contributing factor.

Many people don’t realize that psychiatry’s love affair with the military dates back more than 90 years; During World War I the biggest problem the German military had was desertions—people leaving the front lines of the War. So the Germans turned to psychiatrists who came up with a solution: Electroshock. Psychiatrists theorized that if the shock soldiers experienced due to the brutalities of war made them desert the front lines, then another kind of shock—electroshock—could get them to be good little soldiers and willingly return to combat. Maybe because electroshock wiped out their memory, or maybe because soldiers chose to face the front lines rather than have another 450 volts of current tear through their brain, it worked. Psychiatry had come up with a winning strategy for the military to deal with reluctant soldiers and since that time the love affair between the two entities has never waned.

Today there are mobile psychiatric units that travel with the troops to ensure they’re drugged up as needed. And though they are not yet employing electroshock, as more Americans are made aware that these psychotropic drugs are killing our troops, don’t be surprised if sometime soon you pick up a newspaper and find psychiatrists promoting a new cure for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; Electroshock.

Jim Marrs is an award-winning journalist and author. After graduating from the University of North Texas with a degree in journalism, Marrs worked for and owned several Texas newspapers before becoming an independent journalist/author. Marrs is the author of the New York Times bestsellers, Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy, the basis for the Oliver Stone film JFK, and Rule by Secrecy.

RETURN TO BLOGS PAGE

RSS Blog Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Blog | 26 Comments »

The Prozac Calamity by award winning Scientist Shane Ellison

Wednesday, August 12th, 2009

By Shane Ellison, Award winning Scientist, Masters Degree in Organic Chemistry
August 12, 2009

I love Big Pharma. After getting a masters degree in drug design, I was fortunate enough to work within their stinky labs and learn the inner workings of corporate drug making (and dealing). My most important lesson: Not all drugs are bad. Some are really bad. Take the so-called antidepressant Prozac as an example.

In 1990, Prozac appeared on the cover of the pharmaceutically compliant, Newsweek magazine with the headline “Prozac: A Breakthrough Drug for Depression.” It was designed almost twenty years prior. And during that time, some ghastly findings were made which proved the drug to be the antithesis of what popular media touted it as. Such findings were kept hidden. Patients are learning the hard way.

Thirteen days after taking the SSRI Prozac, on April 28, 2003, Jordan’s wife of 56 years, Kathy, found his lifeless body hanging from a beam in a back room of their shop. Not depressed at the time of his appointment, Jordan was given a free sample of Prozac for “chest pains!” Apparently, a pretty drug rep convinced Jordan’s doctor that Prozac could be used for these types of “off-label” purposes. By FDA standards, this is totally illegal. But those standards are never enforced by the consumer watch dog turned Big Pharma lap dog. Regardless of what they are prescribed for, Prozac is a real and present danger to SSRI users.

SSRI’s strive to increase the levels of a “coping” molecule known as serotonin in the brain. It helps us FIND happiness when it’s covered in an avalanche of nastiness. SSRI’s attempt to boost serotonin by “selectively” stopping the “reuptake” of it among brain cells. This is where the whole SSRI acronym came from – “selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor.” It’s a slick name that seems to hypnotize medical doctors into prescribing submission, but it’s a really stupid idea.

Nothing is selective in the body. While trying to block the reuptake of serotonin, SSRI’s can also prevent its release. The areas of the brain responsible for release and reuptake are so damn similar (after all, they work on the same molecule) that an SSRI isn’t smart enough to understand which one it is supposed to work on. So it does what any dumb drug would do, it blocks both. The end result: no coping molecules in the brain. Deep sadness, fear or anger can set in. Early studies proved this.

The first testing of Prozac was performed on dogs and cats. Every trial showed that Prozac use caused aggression amongst these normally calm and friendly animals, as could be seen by increased hissing and growling. When the animals were taken off of the drug, they returned to their usual friendly behavior. Researchers concluded that Prozac use causes aggressive behavior.

By mid 1978, Prozac testing moved to humans in controlled clinical trials involving more than 4000 patients. In an attempt to hide its aggressive tendencies, the study allowed for voluntary dropout of those who experienced the most severe side effects. Additionally, clinical investigators were allowed to administer concurrent sedatives to patients to further mask Prozac’s side effects that would most likely lead to violence/suicide. This is a common loophole used by drug company-funded drug trials and is known as “checkbook science.” Despite the lack of scientific methodology, this study concluded that Prozac works well to a “statistically significant” degree in a population of depressed patients.

Since its approval, the potential for Prozac calamity has become frighteningly clear amongst both professionals and the public. Reports of Prozac-associated suicide, written by James D. Hagerty and distributed by the Drugs and Devices Information Line at the Harvard School of Public Health, dominated the “Letters to the Editor” section of the American Journal of Psychiatry during the fall of 1990.

Under the FDA’s own analysis, there have been more than 20,000 Prozac-related suicides since 1987.

Clinical studies performed on Prozac show 191 negative side effects per 100 people. This equates to almost two negative side effects for every user of the drug.

The FDA continues to ignore the Prozac body count (they approved Prozac’s use for children in 2003). To make matters worse, the FDA granted its manufacturer, Eli Lilly, extended patent protection. In order to procure thirty additional months of earning power, Eli Lilly changed the name of Prozac to Sarafem, while at the same time labeling common personality and biological shifts as a disease among women; this “disease” being premenstrual irritability. As a result, thousands of unsuspecting women were given Prozac for premenstrual irritability while at the same time increasing their chances of suffering from the aforementioned negative side effects such as aggression, and suicide.

Such lessons got me out of corporate drug making. Thankfully, they taught me how not to be healthy: Take prescription drugs. You can do the same, just say no to Prozac.

About the Author

Ellison’s entire career has been dedicated to the study of molecules; how they give life and how they take from it. He was a two-time recipient of the prestigious Howard Hughes Medical Institute Research Grant for his research in biochemistry and physiology. He is a best selling author, holds a master’s degree in organic chemistry and has first-hand experience in drug design. Use his knowledge and insight to look and feel your best with his Secret Cures monthly report. Get it free at www.thepeopleschemist.com

RETURN TO BLOGS PAGE

RSS Blog Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Blog | 38 Comments »

INFORMED CONSENT: How to make sure you’re getting quality medical care

Monday, August 3rd, 2009

Informed ConsentBy Moira Dolan, M.D.
August 3, 2009

Quality of health care is a big topic these days; with the majority of news stories covering how we are all going to get our hospital bills paid and our prescriptions filled. But there is a conspicuous absence of any discussion of over-treatment and the over-selling of false diagnoses and dangerous prescription drugs.

It is the responsibility of you, the consumer, to find out about the diagnosis, tests and treatments that are offered. Once you have full information, you can make decisions about accepting it, or not. This is called Informed Consent.

When you are given a diagnosis you need to know the actual physical evidence for it. You don’t want someone’s opinion if you have cancer, do you? You want to know what the biopsy showed under the microscope.

In the case of medications, the minimum your doctor should tell you is based on the information made generally available by the drug manufacturers. However, you should expect that your doctor is aware of any pertinent medical issues beyond what the pharmaceutical companies tend to provide.

This is the minimum your doctor should explain:

What is the evidence for the diagnosis?
How does the treatment affect the body?
How does the treatment affect the mind?
What unwanted effects may occur?
Is it approved by the FDA for your condition?
What is known and not known about how safe it is and how well it works?
What are the alternatives, including the option of no treatment?
Does your doctor or the clinic have a financial interest in pushing the diagnosis or treatment?

You can make your doctor work for you. Demand information and get key questions answered. Doctors are supposed to give every bit of this full information to each patient they diagnose, test, operate on or prescribe for. In fact, they are required to do so by federal guidelines, state statutes and medical society ethics codes.

Your role in the process is to get any questions answered. Then you can carefully consider the information you have been given. You may feel more comfortable taking the information home before making a decision about agreeing to the proposed treatment.

Be a part of the decision-making process when your doctor offers a drug:

Get a thorough understanding of what he or she is prescribing and why.

Ask exactly what the drug is and why it has been chosen for your condition. How does it work?

Find out if it is new on the market. If so, why was it chosen over older drugs?

Find out if the drug is safe to take:

How will this drug interact with your other medications or over-the-counter drugs or natural remedies you are taking?

What does your doctor personally know about the safety of the drug? How long was it tested? How long were patients followed after taking it to determine if they developed bad effects? Has the FDA published any reports of adverse effects?

Why is a new drug being prescribed instead of an older similar drug with a proven safety record?

Ask about how well it works:

Has the proposed drug been proven to be effective for your particular condition?

What is the drug effectiveness in comparison to no treatment; in comparison to older drugs; in comparison to alternate drugs; in comparison to non-drug treatments such as diet, rest, and vitamins; in comparison to herbal or natural remedies?

If your doctor provides any of the following answers, it should give you strong reservations about accepting the diagnosis or taking the drug:

There is only a checklist of symptoms or other peoples’ opinions to make the diagnosis. There is no abnormality of blood, tissue or biochemistry that can be shown to you.

Your doctor is unclear about the mechanism of action of a drug (what it is doing inside the body). Either the mechanism is not known and only guessed at, or your doctor doesn’t understand it.

The drug was approved within the last two years. Thus it lacks an extensive safety record in the general population.

Your doctor doesn’t know of any adverse effects aside from what he reads along with you in the package insert. Since your doctor has not looked at the FDA website of adverse drug events he or she knows of no warnings to give you. This is something you will have to question carefully to see if your doctor is saying, “I know there are no special warnings to give you” or if your doctor is actually expressing, “I don’t know of any special precautions (because I haven’t bothered to look, all my data comes from the manufacturer’s glossy brochures).”

Your doctor is writing with a drug-maker emblazoned pen, jotting on a note pad sporting the logo of the drug manufacturer or carrying a coffee mug advertising the latest. These are indications of a heavily drug salesman-infiltrated office, and may well reflect an inordinate reliance on sales talk in the absence of careful review of the scientific pharmacologic information.

The drug is a look-alike version of an older drug. This is offered to you at much greater expense without obvious medical advantage.

On occasion your doctor may have to honestly say, “I don’t know, I’ll go find out some answers for myself and for you.” However, be alert if your doctor is offended or becomes patronizing. In that case you can expect that you have tread into some areas in which he or she feels challenged or uncomfortable, and may not be ready to be thoroughly frank with you. Then again, sometimes the answer to these questions remains some version of, “I don’t know about the details of safety and effectiveness,” but he or she still feels you should take the drug. In this case you will have to carefully consider the unknowns and make your decision.

You can only really be in charge of the quality of your health care when you have the opportunity for full informed consent.

©Moira Dolan, M.D.

Reproduced by permission of the author.

Moira Dolan, M.D. is an internal medicine physician and executive director of Medical Accountability Network, LLC, dedicated to establishing integrity in medicine.

RETURN TO BLOGS PAGE

RSS Blog Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Blog | 3 Comments »

Psychiatric Drugs, Violence and Suicide

Sunday, July 19th, 2009

police_tape_288x195K.L. Carlson
Former Pharmaceutical Rep.
July 19, 2009

People often go through times of depression due to job loss, relocation, loss of a loved one, divorce, and many other situations that cause us to feel insecure. Our bodies do have natural ways of dealing with these emotions especially if people use healthy means including adequate sleep, exercise, healthy eating and emotional support from friends and family.

SSRI/SNRI (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors/Selective Norepinephrine Reuptake Inhibitors) are antidepressant drugs that interfere with the body-mind’s normal functioning. These drugs are literally mind-altering.  They can cause people to terminate loving, supportive relationships with family and friends, the very relationships that are extremely important to helping people recover from depression.  The drugs can cause hallucinations, paranoia, and mania.

There is a direct correlation with the increase of antidepressant drug use and the rise in extreme, senseless violent acts.  There are experts who have been trying to bring this to the attention of physicians, the FDA, and the public for more than a decade.  Depression is not the problem.  The drugs are the problem.

In 2001, GlaxoSmithKline was ordered to pay $6.4 million to the surviving family members after 60 year old Donald Schnell flew into a rage and killed his wife, daughter, and granddaughter only 48 hours after he began to take Paxil.

“I keep asking, when is somebody going to see this?  But we’ve been so brainwashed about drugs.  We think legal means safe,” Ann Blake Tracy, Ph.D. explains.  “Most people don’t know that LSD once was legal and prescribed as a wonder drug.  That PCP was considered to have a large margin of safety in humans. Most people don’t know that ecstasy was prescribed and sold for five years to treat depression. ”

The adverse effects of psychiatric drugs are regularly misdiagnosed as more signs of depression, anxiety or some other created-by-vote psychiatric disorder. Then patients are prescribed additional psychiatric drugs or the dosage is increased.  That was the case of California teenager Dominique Slater.  Only 14 years old she was on several antidepressants including Celexa and Wellbutrin. When her erratic behavior worsened her doctor prescribed double dose of Effexor.  Fifteen days later she killed herself.  She was barely a teenager yet she was prescribed multiple antidepressant drugs at high doses.  The year was 2003. Britain had already sent letters to all physicians sternly warning against the use of any of these drugs in anyone under the age of 18 years.  It took the FDA another year to issue a warning of increased suicide in youths under 18 years old.  No letters were sent to physicians.  And the drug companies created marketing campaigns specifically to get antidepressants into the offices of all types of physicians, not just psychiatrists.

More than 10 million prescriptions for antidepressants are issued each year for children younger than 18 in the U.S.  Any physician, not just psychiatrists, can write prescriptions for psychiatric drugs.  The age of children being given these powerful mind-altering drugs continues to get younger.  Ohio physicians in the month of July 2004 prescribed psychiatric drugs for 696 babies aged newborn to 3 years old covered by Medicaid.

“It’s shocking,” said Dr. Ellen Bassuk, associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School.  “These medications are not benign.  They can have dangerous side effects.  Who is being helped by children being drugged, the babies or the caregivers?”

Scientific Evidence of Antidepressants’ Effects on Newborns

“When we put pregnant women on antidepressants, they can’t get off them,” an unconcerned gynecologist told my friend C. when she told him she had spent years trying to get off the antidepressant he had prescribed to her.  Three years before this callous physician’s comments to C., the extreme health risks to the fetus had been reported in medical journals.

A study published in The New England Journal of Medicine in February 2006 reports pregnant women taking antidepressants have babies who are 6 times more likely to have primary pulmonary hypertension (PPH) or a developing lung disorder.  PPH is extremely serious. A baby’s organs such as brain, kidney and liver are stressed due to lack of oxygen.  PPH requires neonatal intensive care. PPH can be fatal and for babies who do survive there is often long-term health problems including breathing difficulties, seizures and developmental disorders.

Women taking SSRI/SNRI drugs during the first trimester of pregnancy are at 60 percent greater risk of their babies having heart defects and 40 percent greater risk of their babies suffering malformation.

“In conclusion, our results suggest that maternal exposure to fluoxetine (Prozac, Luvox, Sarafem and Symbyax) during pregnancy and lactation results in enduring behavioral alterations… throughout life,” a study reports in Pharmacology, spring 2007.  Although the study was done with mice the physiological systems are similar to humans.  There is nothing preventing drugs a pregnant woman takes from going directly into the bloodstream and then all the tissues of the fetus.  And as this study indicates, antidepressants are also transferred to the baby through the mother’s milk.

As of February 2009, the drug companies, using their puppets and financial influence, are lobbying the U.S. Senate to pass a bill called the Mothers Act.  This insane bill has already passed the U.S. House of Representatives.  Supposedly this bill is meant to address postpartum depression.  The truth is that it’s the drug industry influencing legislation in order to have more taxpayers’ money flow into drug companies’ profits.  The 1,200 drug industry lobbyists on Capitol Hill are greasing the skids well so that this dangerous legislation that will harm, not help mothers, babies, and American families will easily pass.  It’s about money, not health.

RETURN TO BLOGS PAGE

RSS Blog Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Blog | 8 Comments »

The Chemical Imbalance Scam

Monday, May 18th, 2009

Chemical Imbalance, depressionDavid B. Stein, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology and Criminal Justice
Virginia State University
www.drdavestein.com
May 18, 2009

One of the subjects that I have taught for over twenty-five years is psychopharmacology.  It might be helpful to challenge one of the great myths about mental disorders, namely that they are caused by chemical imbalances.  This myth is founded on some of the tricks that are pulled in so-called scientific research in psychology and psychiatry.  First, there is a large volume of research claiming to discover all kinds of chemical imbalances in a wide variety of psychiatric disorders.  The manipulation of research has become one of the most powerful and most unethical marketing tools ever devised.  Not one study can be replicated at the testing labs of hospitals or by laboratories involved in clinical patient care.  All that one needs to do is ask his or her doctor to order a blood or urine test to confirm any psychiatric disorder, and the response will be, “I’m sorry, but no such test exists.”  Replication is a basic step for all sciences. (more…)

RETURN TO BLOGS PAGE

RSS Blog Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Blog | 7 Comments »

A DANGEROUS COMBINATION: Corrupt Psychiatrists Partnering With Wealthy Pharmaceutical Giants

Monday, May 18th, 2009

A Dangerous Combination: Corrupt Psychiatrists Partnering With Wealthy Pharmaceutical Giants
Dr. David W. Tanton
Holistic Practitioner
May 18, 2009

One of the most dangerous combinations I’m aware of is one institution that has become more and more creative, yet less and less scientific (psychiatry), combined with one of the most profitable, yet corrupt industries in the entire world (PhRMA). They both have one common goal, amassing wealth and influence. But unfortunately, it’s at your expense, and possibly worst of all, even that of our innocent children!  Unfortunately, they seldom have any say in the matter – the worst kind of child abuse!

I assume that at least many of you are likely familiar with both organizations I’m referring to. One is a group of psychiatrists, for example, who were responsible for creating the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) with its 374 different mental conditions, and the other is a group responsible for promoting the use of mind-altering drugs for a fee. Internally, the pharmaceutical companies often refer to them as prostitutes, as they are fully aware they’re always for sale for a price. The drug manufacturers first create an illusion – miracle drugs we somehow can’t do without. They then hire some psychiatrist with a fancy title (and no ethics), preferably also associated with a prominent institution, in an attempt to validate any deceptive claims they might choose to make.

Dr. Joseph Biederman, with Harvard University, is a prime example. He is, what I would consider, an egotistical poster boy for both corruption and greed. He is highly paid for his services, an issue that Senator Grassley recently insisted that he account for. Incidentally, Harvard University recently actually received an “F” grade, by their medical students, due to the excessive influence of pharmaceutical companies on their curriculum.

For some unknown reason, Dr. Biederman appears to have a high regard for what he considers as accomplishments. He has been instrumental in perpetrating the total fraud that millions of our innocent children should somehow be placed on dangerous mind-altering drugs, for their best interest, of course. It’s about time that someone finally exposed Dr. Biederman for what he truly is – a total fraud, with absolutely no ethics!

Stricter Guidelines For Prescribing Medications Should Be Established & Enforced!

Doctors should be held accountable for the indiscriminate, and inappropriate, prescribing of potentially dangerous mind-altering drugs! It should also be required for all doctors (not just psychiatrists) responsible for prescribing such potentially dangerous mind-altering medications, to first be:

  • Familiar with natural, non-drug solutions that are perfectly safe, and normally “far more effective.”  That should always be the very first consideration! In my opinion, if done properly, prescribing a drug should not be necessary!
  • Fully aware of all the risks (both physical and mental) associated with the drugs they might consider prescribing. That’s just logical. Why should doctors be allowed to continue prescribing serious drugs, without knowing “all their risks”?
  • Aware of how many complaints about serious reactions regarding the drug in question that had been filed with the FDA. Keeping in mind that, according to David Kessler, the former FDA commissioner, only 1% actually file a complaint.
  • Aware of all the potential side effects, and contraindications (serious drug interactions) with other drugs. For instance, ProzacTM poses an especially serious risk, in that regard.
  • Made aware that, by far the majority of students involved in school shootings were on one or more “mind-altering” drug. Quite often, according to their classmates and associates, these were actions that were totally out of character for the shooters.

To prove my point, in her book Prozac – Panacea or Pandora? Dr. Ann Blake Tracy shares the experiences of many of her patients while they were taking Prozac (before she got them off). Following are just three examples:

  • “I thought I had someone else’s brain in my body!”
  • “Throughout my life I have always been known as ‘Mr. Mellow,’ but the rage I felt on Prozac helped me to understand how someone could murder another.”
  • “Wicked! That’s exactly how you feel on Prozac, wicked, just plain wicked!”

Any drug with that kind of potential, capable of dramatically altering a person’s perceptions, and especially their behavior, is outright scary! Yet, the FDA somehow concluded that Prozac is somehow perfectly safe for our children! What do you think?

About the Author:

Dr. David W. Tanton graduated with honors from Clayton College of Natural Healing with a Ph.D. in Holistic Nutrition, and is the research director of the Soaring Heights Longevity Research Center. He feels that maintaining optimum health can only be achieved by avoiding prescription and over-the-counter medications. Dr. Tanton believes that by combining ancient wisdom along with the latest technology, we now have the potential to become not only disease-free, but literally turn back our biological clock.

RETURN TO BLOGS PAGE

RSS Blog Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Blog | 3 Comments »

A FAN, AN ACTIVIST OR A STALKER? Psychiatry blurring the lines

Sunday, May 17th, 2009

By Cerise Fukuji
May 17, 2009

handcuffsWe live in a culture filled with celebrity news and sightings. We can’t get away from it – it’s on television 24-7, in magazines, newspapers, online, everywhere and, of course, we all have our favorites. Imagine that your favorite celebrity is coming to town, performing a concert and doing a book signing. Now imagine that you decide to attend the concert, buy a t-shirt with her on it, buy her book and then decide you’ll go down to the bookstore to get her to sign it.

And, you should be able to do this and not think twice about it. After all, you’re just acting like any normal fan might. Right?

Now imagine that after you see your favorite celebrity, wear your t-shirt proudly and find out the latest news about her life, you get a loud knock on your door. You answer. It’s the police and a psychiatrist trained in recognizing potential killers and stalkers, those fixated on public figures. You are accused of being a stalker for doing the above actions and taken into custody for further investigation. No evidence. No trial.

Sound far-fetched? It shouldn’t because it is already starting to happen. The lines between what constitutes a fan and a stalker are being increasingly erased. Many governments around the globe have already established specialized units to target individuals who may be deemed “stalkers” and pose a direct threat to VIP’s, including celebrities, Royal Families and government officials. These teams are made up of police, as well as psychiatrists and psychologists who have been given the authority to evaluate, accuse and detain you against your will. This is all done under the guise of “anti-terrorism.”

According to the UK’s Daily Mail, specialized units that have been cropping up around the globe, like the Fixated Threat Assessment Center (FTAC) there and the countless Counter-Terrorism Bureaus set up around the United States, have been created to identify and track individuals who are involved with terrorist activity. However, more and more, the definition of what terrorism is and what constitutes an act of terrorism has broadened to include those arenas which may not have applied in the past. For example, when did stalking begin to be classified as a terrorist activity? How might a psychologist accurately determine if one were a stalker or just merely an adoring fan?

Don’t get me wrong – I realize that there is a need for protective security services and measures. In fact, a very good friend of mine owns an agency that does just that for some of the most famous celebrities in the world. He works very hard to make sure that his clients are safe wherever they go in the U.S. or abroad. However, I fear that because the medical evaluations of these special units can lead to the “legal” detainment of individuals without criminal charges or even a trial, then our civil liberties are in grave jeopardy. When the lines between government and medical evaluation get crossed, something is very wrong in society.

Personally, as a producer and writer myself, I like keeping abreast of the things that other celebrities are doing artistically. That certainly doesn’t classify me as a stalker, but if these lines get increasingly more blurred, it just might.

About the Author:

Cerise Fukuji is a writer and producer with over eighteen years of experience in the entertainment industry. She has produced and written over 100 hours of television for various networks including: Discovery Channel, Lifetime, Animal Planet, MTV, Turner Broadcasting Systems and Fox and has also worked in various consulting, development and production capacities at several major production companies and film studios.

RETURN TO BLOGS PAGE

RSS Blog Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Blog | 4 Comments »

Newer Entries »