SSRI Antidepressants Increase Risk Of Intracranial Hemorrhage

FakeNews
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
By: Jon Rappoport
April 30, 2017

From healthline.com: “Intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) refers to acute bleeding inside your skull or brain. It’s a life-threatening emergency. You should go to the emergency room right away or call 911 if you think you or someone you know is experiencing ICH.”

The public has learned about the increased risk of suicide and violent behavior (including murder) stemming from the use of SSRI antidepressants. Now there is more:

Psychiatric News reports (4/7/17): “A study published in February in JAMA Neurology has found that patients taking antidepressants that are strong inhibitors of serotonin reuptake (SSRIs) may be at an increased risk for intracranial hemorrhage, particularly during the first month of use…”

“The results showed that compared with patients taking [the older] tricyclic antidepressants, patients being treated with SSRIs had a 17 percent increased risk of experiencing an intracranial hemorrhage. The risk was highest during the first 30 days the patients were taking the medications.”

SSRIs include: Celexa; Prozac; Paxil; Zoloft; Lexapro; Luvox.

Here are quotes from other Psychiatric News articles about SSRI use and bleeding:

“Physicians prescribing selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) should make patients aware of the possibility of gastrointestinal bleeding, especially if they have pre-existing risk factors or are taking other drugs that increase risk, said a University of Pennsylvania psychiatrist.”

From a January 2014 study in the American Journal of Psychiatry—“Short-term SSRI use—even as little as 7 days—elevated the risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding, especially in male patients. Just as with NSAIDs and aspirin, physicians should carefully monitor for this side effect.”

Note: Suddenly withdrawing from these drugs can be very dangerous. Psychiatrist Peter Breggin publishes this warning: “Most psychiatric drugs can cause withdrawal reactions, sometimes including life-threatening emotional and physical withdrawal problems. In short, it is not only dangerous to start taking psychiatric drugs, it can also be dangerous to stop them. Withdrawal from psychiatric drugs should be done carefully under experienced clinical supervision. Methods for safely withdrawing from psychiatric drugs are discussed in Dr. Breggin’s new book, Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal: A Guide for Prescribers, Therapists, Patients and Their Families.”

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

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

Advertisements

The Number One Mind Control Program At US Colleges

fakenews
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
February 7, 2017

Here is a staggering statistic from the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI): “More than 25 percent of college students have been diagnosed or treated by a professional for a mental health condition within the past year.”

Let that sink in. 25 percent.

Colleges are basically clinics. Psychiatric centers.

Colleges have been taken over. A soft coup has occurred, out of view.

You want to know where all this victim-oriented “I’m triggered” and “I need a safe space” comes from? You just found it.

It’s a short step from being diagnosed with a mental disorder to adopting the role of being super-sensitive to “triggers.” You could call it a self-fulfilling prophecy. “If I have a mental disorder, then I’m a victim, and then what people say and do around me is going disturb me…and I’ll prove it.”

The dangerous and destabilizing effects of psychiatric drugs confirm this attitude. The drugs DO, in fact, produce an exaggerated and distorted sensitivity to a person’s environment.

You want to know where a certain amount of violent aggressive behavior on campuses comes from? You just found it. The psychiatric drugs. In particular, antidepressants and speed-type medications for ADHD.

You want to know why so many college students can’t focus on their studies? You just found one reason. The brain effects of the drugs.

The usual variety of student problems are translated into pseudoscientific categories of “mental disorders”—and toxic drugging ensues.

A college student says to himself, “I’m having trouble with my courses. I don’t understand what my professors want. My reading level isn’t good enough. I don’t like the professors who have a political bias. I’m confused. I miss my friends back home. I feel like a stranger on campus. I’d like to date, but I don’t know where to start. There are groups on campus. Should I join one? Well, maybe I need help. I should go to the counseling center and talk to a psychologist. That’s what they’re there for. Maybe I have a problem I don’t know about…”

And so it begins.

The student is looking for an explanation of his problems. But this search will morph into: having a socially acceptable excuse for not doing well. Understand the distinction.

After a bit of counseling, the student is referred to a psychiatrist, who makes a diagnosis of depression, and prescribes a drug. Now the student says, “That’s a relief. Now I know why I have a problem. I have a mental disorder. I never knew that. I’m operating at a disadvantage. I’m a victim of a brain abnormality. Okay. That means I really shouldn’t be expected to succeed. Situations affect my mood. What people say affects my mood.”

And pretty soon, the whole idea of being triggered and needing a safe space makes sense to the student. He’s heading down a slippery slope, but he doesn’t grasp what’s actually going on. On top of that, the drug he’s taking is disrupting his thoughts and his brain activity. But of course, the psychiatrist tells him no, it’s not the drug, it’s the condition, the clinical depression, which is worsening and making it harder to think clearly. He needs a different drug. The student is now firmly in the system. He’s a patient. He’s expected to have trouble coping. And on and on it goes.

Buckle up. Here is the background. Here is what psychiatry is all about—

Wherever you see organized psychiatry operating, you see it trying to expand its domain and its dominance. The Hippocratic Oath to do no harm? Are you kidding?

The first question to ask is: do these mental disorders have any scientific basis? There are now roughly 300 of them. They multiply like fruit flies.

An open secret has been bleeding out into public consciousness for the past ten years.

THERE ARE NO DEFINITIVE LABORATORY TESTS FOR ANY SO-CALLED MENTAL DISORDER.

And along with that:

ALL SO-CALLED MENTAL DISORDERS ARE CONCOCTED, NAMED, LABELED, DESCRIBED, AND CATEGORIZED by a committee of psychiatrists, from menus of human behaviors.

Their findings are published in periodically updated editions of The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), printed by the American Psychiatric Association.

For years, even psychiatrists have been blowing the whistle on this hazy crazy process of “research.”

Of course, pharmaceutical companies, who manufacture highly toxic drugs to treat every one of these “disorders,” are leading the charge to invent more and more mental-health categories, so they can sell more drugs and make more money.

In a PBS Frontline episode, Does ADHD Exist?, Dr. Russell Barkley, an eminent professor of psychiatry and neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center, unintentionally spelled out the fraud.

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

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

Oh, indeed, that does make them invalid. Utterly and completely. All 297 mental disorders. They’re all hoaxes. Because there are no defining tests of any kind to back up the diagnosis.

You can sway and tap dance and bloviate all you like and you won’t escape the noose around your neck. We are looking at a science that isn’t a science. That’s called fraud. Rank fraud.

There’s more. Under the radar, one of the great psychiatric stars, who has been out in front inventing mental disorders, went public. He blew the whistle on himself and his colleagues. And for years, almost no one noticed.

His name is Dr. Allen Frances, and he made VERY interesting statements to Gary Greenberg, author of a Wired article: “Inside the Battle to Define Mental Illness.” (Dec.27, 2010).

Major media never picked up on the interview in any serious way. It never became a scandal.

Dr. Allen Frances is the man who, in 1994, headed up the project to write the latest edition of the psychiatric bible, the DSM-IV. This tome defines and labels and describes every official mental disorder. The DSM-IV eventually listed 297 of them.

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

Well, sure. If you’re sculpting the entire canon of diagnosable mental disorders for your colleagues, for insurers, for the government, for Pharma (who will sell the drugs matched up to the 297 DSM-IV diagnoses), you’re right up there in the pantheon.

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

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

BANG.

That’s on the order of the designer of the Hindenburg, looking at the burned rubble on the ground, remarking, “Well, I knew there would be a problem.”

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

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

If this is medical science, a duck is a rocket ship.

To repeat, Dr. Frances’ work on the DSM IV allowed for MORE toxic drugs to be prescribed, because the definitions of Bipolar and ADHD were expanded to include more people.

Adverse effects of Valproate (given for a Bipolar diagnosis) include:

* acute, life-threatening, and even fatal liver toxicity;
* life-threatening inflammation of the pancreas;
* brain damage.

Adverse effects of Lithium (also given for a Bipolar diagnosis) include:

* intercranial pressure leading to blindness;
* peripheral circulatory collapse;
* stupor and coma.

Adverse effects of Risperdal (given for “Bipolar” and “irritability stemming from autism”) include:

* serious impairment of cognitive function;
* fainting;
* restless muscles in neck or face, tremors (may be indicative of motor brain damage).

Dr. Frances self-admitted label-juggling act also permitted the definition of ADHD to expand, thereby opening the door for greater and greater use of Ritalin (and other similar compounds) as the treatment of choice.

So…what about Ritalin?

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

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

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

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

In the US alone, there are at least 300,000 cases of motor brain damage incurred by people who have been prescribed so-called anti-psychotic drugs (aka “major tranquilizers”). Risperdal (mentioned above as a drug given to people diagnosed with Bipolar) is one of those major tranquilizers. (source: Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Peter Breggin, St. Martin’s Press, 1991)

This psychiatric drug plague is accelerating across the land.

Where are the mainstream reporters and editors and newspapers and TV anchors who should be breaking this story and mercilessly hammering on it week after week? They are in harness.

Thank you, Dr. Frances.

Let’s take a little trip back in time and review how one psychiatric drug, Prozac, escaped a bitter fate, by hook and by crook. It’s an instructive case.

Prozac, in fact, endured a rocky road in the press for a while. Stories on it rarely appear now. The major media have backed off. But on February 7th, 1991, Amy Marcus’ Wall Street Journal article on the drug carried the headline, “Murder Trials Introduce Prozac Defense.”

She wrote, “A spate of murder trials in which defendants claim they became violent when they took the antidepressant Prozac are imposing new problems for the drug’s maker, Eli Lilly and Co.”

Also on February 7, 1991, the New York Times ran a Prozac piece headlined, “Suicidal Behavior Tied Again to Drug: Does Antidepressant Prompt Violence?”

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

A shocking review-study published in The Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases (1996, v.184, no.2), written by Rhoda L. Fisher and Seymour Fisher, called “Antidepressants for Children,” concludes:

“Despite unanimous literature of double-blind studies indicating that antidepressants are no more effective than placebos in treating depression in children and adolescents, such medications continue to be in wide use.”

An instructive article, “Protecting Prozac,” by Michael Grinfeld, in the December 1998 California Lawyer, opens several doors. Grinfeld notes that “in the past year nearly a dozen cases involving Prozac have disappeared from the court record.” He was talking about law suits against the manufacturer, Eli Lilly, and he was saying that those cases had apparently been settled, without trial, in such a quiet and final way, with such strict confidentiality, that it is almost as if they never happened.

Grinfeld details a set of maneuvers involving attorney Paul Smith, who in the early 1990s became the lead plaintiffs’ counsel in the famous Fentress lawsuit against Eli Lilly.

The plaintiffs made the accusation that Prozac had induced a man to commit murder. This was the first action involving Prozac to reach a trial and jury, so it would establish a major precedent for a large number of other pending suits against the manufacturer.

The case: On September 14, 1989, Joseph Wesbecker, a former employee of Standard Gravure, in Louisville, Kentucky, walked into the workplace, with an AK-47 and a SIG Sauer pistol, killed eight people, wounded 12 others, and committed suicide. Family members of the victims subsequently sued Eli Lilly, the maker of Prozac, on the grounds that Wesbecker had been pushed over the edge into violence by the drug.

The trial: After what many people thought was a very weak attack on Lilly by plaintiffs’ lawyer Smith, the jury came back in five hours with an easy verdict favoring Lilly and Prozac.

Grinfeld writes, “Lilly’s defense attorneys predicted the verdict would be the death knell for [anti-]Prozac litigation.”

But that wasn’t the end of the Fentress case. “Rumors began to circulate that [the plaintiffs’ attorney] Smith had made several [prior] oral agreements with Lilly concerning the evidence that would be presented [in the Fentress case], the structure of a post-verdict settlement, and the potential resolution of Smith’s other [anti-Prozac] cases.”

In other words, the rumors declared: This plaintiff’s lawyer, Smith, made a deal with Lilly to present a weak attack, to omit evidence damaging to Prozac, so that the jury would find Lilly innocent of all charges. In return, the case would be settled secretly, with Lilly paying out big monies to Smith’s client. In this way, Lilly would avoid the exposure of a public settlement, and through the innocent verdict, would discourage other potential plaintiffs from suing it over Prozac.

The rumors congealed. The judge in the Fentress case, John Potter, asked lawyers on both sides if “money had changed hands.” He wanted to know if the fix was in. The lawyers said no money had been paid, “without acknowledging that an agreement was in place.”

Judge Potter didn’t stop there. In April 1995, Grinfeld notes, “In court papers, Potter wrote that he was surprised that the plaintiffs’ attorneys [Smith] hadn’t introduced evidence that Lilly had been charged criminally for failing to report deaths from another of its drugs to the Food and Drug Administration. Smith had fought hard [during the Fentress trial] to convince Potter to admit that evidence, and then unaccountably withheld it.”

In Judge Potter’s motion, he alleged that “Lilly [in the Fentress case] sought to buy not just the verdict, but the court’s judgment as well.”

In 1996, the Kentucky Supreme Court issued an opinion: “…there was a serious lack of candor with the trial court [during Fentress] and there may have been deception, bad faith conduct, abuse of the judicial process or perhaps even fraud.”

After the Supreme Court remanded the Fentress case back to the state attorney general’s office, the whole matter dribbled away, and then resurfaced in a different form, in another venue. At the time of the California Lawyer article, a new action against attorney Smith was unresolved. Eventually, Eli Lilly escaped punishment.

Based on the rigged Fentress case, Eli Lilly silenced many lawsuits based on Prozac inducing murder and suicide.

Quite a story.

And it all really starts with the institution of psychiatry inventing a whole branch of science that doesn’t exist, thereby defining 300 mental disorders that don’t exist.

Here are data about psychiatric drugs and violence from several studies:

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

An earlier study, from the September 1989 Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, by Joseph Lipiniski, Jr., indicates that in five examined cases people on Prozac developed what is called akathesia. Symptoms include intense anxiety, inability to sleep, the “jerking of extremities,” and “bicycling in bed or just turning around and around.” Dr. Peter Breggin comments that akathesia “may also contribute to the drug’s tendency to cause self-destructive or violent tendencies … Akathesia can become the equivalent of biochemical torture and could possibly tip someone over the edge into self-destructive or violent behavior … The June 1990 Health Newsletter, produced by the Public Citizen Research Group, reports, ‘Akathesia, or symptoms of restlessness, constant pacing, and purposeless movements of the feet and legs, may occur in 10-25 percent of patients on Prozac.’”

The well-known publication, California Lawyer, in a December 1998 article called “Protecting Prozac,” details some of the suspect maneuvers of Eli Lilly in its handling of suits against Prozac. California Lawyer also mentions other highly qualified critics of the drug: “David Healy, MD, an internationally renowned psychopharmacologist, has stated in sworn deposition that `contrary to Lilly’s view, there is a plausible cause-and-effect relationship between Prozac’ and suicidal-homicidal events. An epidemiological study published in 1995 by the British Medical Journal also links Prozac to increased suicide risk.”

When pressed, proponents of these SSRI antidepressant drugs (Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, etc.) sometimes say, “Well, the benefits for the general population far outweigh the risk.” But the issue of benefits will not go away on that basis. A shocking review-study published in The Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases (1996, v.184, no.2), written by Rhoda L. Fisher and Seymour Fisher, called “Antidepressants for Children,” concludes: “Despite unanimous literature of double-blind studies indicating that antidepressants are no more effective than placebos in treating depression in children and adolescents, such medications continue to be in wide use.”

In wide use. This despite such contrary information and the negative, dangerous effects of these drugs.

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

July, 1991. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Hisako Koizumi, MD, describes a thirteen-year-old boy who was on Prozac: “full of energy,” “hyperactive,” “clown-like.” All this devolved into sudden violent actions which were “totally unlike him.”

September, 1991. The Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Author Laurence Jerome reports the case of a ten-year old who moves with his family to a new location. Becoming depressed, the boy is put on Prozac by a doctor. The boy is then “hyperactive, agitated … irritable.” He makes a “somewhat grandiose assessment of his own abilities.” Then he calls a stranger on the phone and says he is going to kill him. The Prozac is stopped, and the symptoms disappear.

Here’s a coda:

This one is big.

The so-called “chemical-imbalance theory of mental disorders” is dead. The notion that an underlying chemical imbalance in the brain causes mental disorders: dead.

Dr. Ronald Pies, the editor-in-chief emeritus of the Psychiatric Times, laid the theory to rest in the July 11, 2011, issue of the Times with this staggering admission:

“In truth, the ‘chemical imbalance’ notion was always a kind of urban legend — never a theory seriously propounded by well-informed psychiatrists.”

Boom.

However…urban legend? No. For decades the whole basis of psychiatric drug research, drug prescription, and drug sales has been: “we’re correcting a chemical imbalance in the brain.”

The problem was, researchers had never established a normal baseline for chemical balance. So they were shooting in the dark. Worse, they were faking a theory. Pretending they knew something when they didn’t.

In his 2011 piece in Psychiatric Times, Dr. Pies tries to protect his colleagues in the psychiatric profession with this fatuous remark:

“In the past 30 years, I don’t believe I have ever heard a knowledgeable, well-trained psychiatrist make such a preposterous claim [about chemical imbalance in the brain], except perhaps to mock it…the ‘chemical imbalance’ image has been vigorously promoted by some pharmaceutical companies, often to the detriment of our patients’ understanding.”

Absurd. First of all, many psychiatrists have explained and do explain to their patients that the drugs are there to correct a chemical imbalance.

And second, if all well-trained psychiatrists have known, all along, that the chemical-imbalance theory is a fraud…

…then why on earth have they been prescribing tons of drugs to their patients…

…since those drugs are developed on the false premise that they correct a chemical imbalance?

Here’s what’s happening. The honchos of psychiatry are seeing the handwriting on the wall. Their game has been exposed. They’re taking heavy flack on many fronts.

The chemical-imbalance theory is a fake. There are no defining physical tests for any of the 300 so-called mental disorders. All diagnoses are based on arbitrary clusters or menus of human behavior. The drugs are harmful, dangerous, toxic. Some of them induce violence. Suicide, homicide. Some of the drugs cause brain damage.

So the shrinks need to move into another model, another con, another fraud. And they’re looking for one.

For example, genes plus “psycho-social factors.” A mish-mash of more unproven science.

“New breakthrough research on the functioning of the brain is paying dividends and holds great promise…” Professional gibberish.

It’s all gibberish, all the way down.

Meanwhile, the business model still demands drugs for sale.

So even though the chemical-imbalance nonsense has been discredited, it will continue on as a dead man walking, a zombie.

Big Pharma isn’t going to back off. Trillions of dollars are at stake.
And in the wake of Colorado, Sandy Hook, the Naval Yard, and other mass shootings, the hype is expanding: “We must have new community mental-health centers all over America.”

More fake diagnosis of mental disorders, more devastating drugs.

You want to fight for a right? Fight for the right to refuse toxic medication. Fight for the right of every parent to refuse toxic medication for his/her child.

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

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

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

“…my medical evaluation described her condition: Roberta is a grossly disfigured and severely disabled human being who can no longer control her body. She suffers from extreme…

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

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

Falsified drug studies led to millions of children receiving dangerous antidepressants

Depression
Source: ProjectCensored.com
April 6, 2016

In 2001, the pharmaceutical company SmithKline Beecham (now GlaxoSmithKline) published a trial known as Study 329, which claimed that the drug paroxetine – known as Paxil or Seroxat – was “generally well tolerated” and that it helped cure depression in children and adolescents. This led to some two million youngsters being prescribed the pill in the next year alone.

But the study ignored the fact that the drug may cause serious side effects, including suicide. Re-analysis of Study 329 by a team of independent researchers showed the drug was no more effective than a placebo, and that the risk of harm was significant, with at least 12 out of 93 children taking the drug developing suicidal thoughts. GlaxoSmithKline was fined $3 billion for one of the biggest frauds in American healthcare history.

This is but one example of pharmaceutical industry influence shaping the outcome of scientific research. A recent study, published in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, evaluated 185 meta-analyses, and found that one third of them were written by pharma industry employees, who were 22 times less likely to have negative statements about a drug than unaffiliated researchers. Almost 80 percent of the studies had some sort of industry tie, either through sponsorship (funding of the study), or conflicts of interest, where one or more authors were either industry employees or independent researchers receiving industry support (speaking fees, grants, etc.).

In a 2006 study examining industry impact on clinical trials of psychiatric medications, industry-sponsored trials reported favorable outcomes 78% of the time, compared with 48% in independently funded trials. Antidepressants are one of the largest pharmaceutical markets, yet it is likely that the problem of scientific fraud extends to other drugs and vaccines. The need for oversight (government and industry) is increasingly obvious.

Read More At: ProjectCensored.com
________________________________________________________________

Sources:

Sophie Borland, “Global drug giant GSK ‘published a flawed study which led to millions of children being wrongly prescribed dangerous antidepressants’.” Daily Mail. September 17, 2015, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3238108/Global-drug-giant-GSK-published-flawed-study-led-millions-children-wrongly-prescribed-dangerous-antidepressants.html

Kate Kelland, “Analysis of Antidepressant Paxil Finds Data on Teen Risk Was Held Back.” Scientific American. September 17, 2015, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/analysis-of-gsk-s-paroxetine-antidepressant-finds-key-data-was-held-back/

Stephen Luntz, “Antidepressant Trial Failed To Mention Numerous Suicide Attempts.” IFL Science. September 21, 2015, http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/study-antidepressant-safety-didnt-report-suicide-attempts

Roni Jacobson, “Many Antidepressant Studies Found Tainted by Pharma Company Influence.” Scientific American. October 21, 2015, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/many-antidepressant-studies-found-tainted-by-pharma-company-influence/

Paul John Scott, “Why should it take 14 years to learn a drug’s safety risks?” Post-Bulletin. September 21, 2015. http://www.postbulletin.com/life/health/why-should-it-take-years-to-learn-a-drug-s/article_50f181c5-b6d8-5776-8df9-b0acf5b3108f.html

University of Adelaide. “Antidepressant For Adolescents Was Misrepresented As Safe.” AsianScientist. September 25, 2015. http://www.asianscientist.com/2015/09/health/adelaide-paroxetine-depression-riat/

Student Researcher: Adaeze Iroka, San Francisco State University

Faculty Evaluator: Kenn Burrows, San Francisco State University

Why should it take 14 years to learn a drug’s safety risks?

Depression More Common In People Who Talk About Themselves
Source: PostBulletin.com
John Scott
September 21, 2016

How would you describe the behavior of a teenager who takes 80 tablets of of an over-the-counter medication that’s deadly in high doses? Or an adolescent who had a disagreement with her mother, then overdoses on prescription pills? Or a child that had to be admitted to the hospital for severe suicidal and homicidal thinking?

Most people would call that becoming suicidal.

The makers of Paxil, in an influential 2001 research paper signed by some of the leading figures in child and adolescent psychiatry — including the current president of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry — called it “emotional lability.”

Why would you give such a confusing name to such apparently suicidal actions? To hide them, of course.

That’s the best explanation that comes to mind after the findings published in the journal BMJ last week — 14 years later — that the blockbuster antidepressant is neither safe nor effective in the treatment of depression in adolescents and children. In fact, the study found, it is far more dangerous than previously realized — the drug caused 11 out of 93 children to develop suicidal behaviors, compared to just 1 out of 87 on a placebo. The original paper only reported five such events on Paxil.

The recent news about the distortion of the clinical trial that put millions of kids on Paxil in the U.S. did not arise thanks to the makers of the pill, or the FDA, or the health media. As former Boston Globe reporter Allison Bass described in her 2008 book “Side Effects,” the data that paved the way for last week’s study came into public domain thanks to a series of accidents.

Paxil’s undisclosed liabilities came to light because a TV reporter in Scotland thought the term “emotional lability” made no sense, did a show about it, then an insider at the drug company leaked some emails showing the company knew the drug wasn’t safe or effective, which led then-New York attorney general Elliot Spitzer to sue the makers of the drug for fraud.

Almost no one was interested in that lawsuit — the makers of Paxil paid a fine and the world moved on. Except, thanks to Spitzer’s office, they had made public much of the data behind the trial, opaque decision-making that would have otherwise been called proprietary.

That means it’s not even clear that there is anything especially unique about Paxil. Other drugs, and especially drugs of this class, could have similar problems and yet we will never know because we do not get to see the soft underbelly of a clinical trial of a new drug — the many ways a manufacturer can use sleight-of-hand and ghostwriters to distort their findings and hide a drug’s problems.

Fast forward 14 years, and Dr. Peter Doshi, a University of Maryland researcher who made his name by learning that the evidence supporting the drug Tamiflu was not as apparent as we had been told (when our nation spent billions stockpiling it), wondered what could be learned by starting with the so-called “clinical study reports” from the clinical trial that put Paxil on the market.

To their credit, GSK, the company that now owns Paxil, let a tenacious set of researchers, including psychiatrists Dr. Jon Jureidini, Dr. David Healy and Dr. John Nardo, probe an even deeper level of transparency, the so-called “case report forms” — patient level paperwork stripped of all identification data — where side effects show up and are coded.

That’s where they found out how seriously suicidal the patients taking Paxil had become.

The authors stress that if a child is taking Paxil that parents should not stop the drug — there is the risk of a withdrawal syndrome in the same findings, which is why they should talk to their doctor about their concerns.

It has become fashionable for clinicians hoping to prescribe these drugs to youth and adolescents to say the side effects are overblown, and that the benefits of the drug outweigh their risks.

You will hear advocates of the pills say that children only think about suicide on the drug, but do not attempt it, or that Paxil is a unique case, but all the other antidepressants are not nearly as concerning.

But they do not have the raw data behind the trials that put those drugs on the market, and neither do the doctors who signed the published clinical trials that put those drugs on the market.

They remain the property of drug makers. It has to end. Science is numbers, and if the public is to be asked to trust the numbers, episodes like the publication this week of the news about Paxil tell us to trust, but verify.

Read More At: PostBulletin.com

Global drug giant GSK ‘published a flawed study which led to millions of children being wrongly prescribed dangerous antidepressants’

A BMJ study has highlighted serious flaws in a trial published by GlaxoSmithKline, that found the drug paroxetin – marketed as Seroxat and Paxil – was ‘generally well tolerated by children with depression

Source: DailyMail.co.uk
Sophie Borland
September 15, 2016

Now a new study in the BMJ has gone back over this trial and highlighted major flaws, showing the extent to which doctors and patients were misled.

Australian researchers point out that the drug was no more effective than a dummy pill and that the increased risk of harms was ‘clinically significant.’

They also highlight how the trial was actually typed up by a medical writer hired by GSK while another of the senior scientists involved was under investigation by US authorities for his ties to drugs firms.

The editor of the BMJ Fiona Godlee said the case ‘shows the extent to which drug regulation is failing us’.

Although this took place some time ago, she said many drugs firms routinely overstate the benefits and underplay the side effects in trials in their treatments.

This includes trials for statins and she said too little had been published about the potential harms of these cholesterol-lowering pills.

On top of this, there are also concerns that many of the scientists involved in these medical trials are being paid by the drugs firms to carry out other work or attend conferences and dinners.

She said: ‘This long running saga has within it all the seeds of our current discontent – industry malpractice, paid opinion leaders twisting the results of trials, hidden data allowing manufacturers, academics and clinicians to overstate the benefits and underplay the harms of treatment.’

The BMJ study found the drug - which was prescribed to two million children in the US off the back of the GSK study in 2001 - was no more effective than a dummy pill and the risk of harm was 'clinically significant'

The BMJ study found the drug – which was prescribed to two million children in the US off the back of the GSK study in 2001 – was no more effective than a dummy pill and the risk of harm was ‘clinically significant’

GSK was fined a record £2 billion by a US court in 2012 wrongly promoting Paxil between 1997 and 2004 in what was described as the biggest fraud in American healthcare history.

The offences included paying US doctors to attend dinners, lunches, spas and pheasant hunting trips where the treatment was heavily promoted.

The treatments are not widely offered to children and teenagers now and there are clear safety warnings on their packets.

A spokesman for GSK said: ‘We were able to help this team to carry out their reanalysis by providing access to the detailed data from the original trial.

‘This reflects our commitment to data transparency – we publish the results of all our studies regardless of whether they are positive or negative.

‘Importantly, the findings from this team’s analysis appear to be in line with the long-standing view that there is an increased risk of suicidality in paediatric and adolescent patients given antidepressants like paroxetine.

‘This is widely known and clear warnings have been in place on the product label for more than a decade. As such we don’t believe this reanalysis affects patient safety.’

Hillary: what drugs is she on?


Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
August 15, 2016

Reports, speculations, rumors abound concerning the health of Hillary Clinton. Among them: she has Parkinson’s.

Obviously, the situation would be clarified if we had access to a complete and unbiased analysis of her health and medical treatment. But how likely is that?

Meanwhile, if Hillary has been diagnosed with Parkinson’s, there are drugs that are routinely prescribed, and their adverse effects should be noted.

For example, the drug L-dopa. Here, from WebMD, are several side effects that would raise serious questions: aggressive behavior; altered mental status; blood pressure drop upon standing; depression; mood changes; anxiety; confusion.

Another popular Parkinson’s drug is Sinemet. RX List mentions these adverse effects: lightheadedness; mental/mood changes; agitation; hallucinations; depression; thoughts of suicide.

With either drug, resulting depression could be treated with an SSRI antidepressant, such as Paxil. That drug also has adverse effects.

Among the side effects of Paxil listed by Drugs.com: weakness; dizziness; blurred vision; visual disturbance; lack of concentration; anxiety; confusion.

Psychiatrist and author, Dr. Peter Breggin, writes (“FDA Warns that Paxil Makes Depressed Adults Suicidal”):

“In a May 2006 release in collaboration with the manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), the FDA has acknowledged the antidepressant Paxil causes a statistically significant increased rate of suicidality in depressed adults as measured in controlled clinical trials. The results are based on a re-analysis of all adult controlled clinical trials that compared Paxil with placebo. Buried in the FDA/GSK release is an astounding fact: Depressed people are 6.4 times more likely to become suicidal while taking an antidepressant than while taking a sugar pill.” [Emphasis in original]

What about antidepressants, such as Paxil, leading to violence? Writing in Psychology Today, Robert Whitaker, author of Mad in America, states (“Psychiatric Drugs and Violence: A Review of FDA Data Finds A Link”):

“There has been an enduring controversy over whether psychiatric medications can trigger violent actions toward others. A review of the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System by Thomas Moore, Joseph Glenmullen and Curt Furberg, which was published by PLoS One on December 15 [2010], found that such ‘adverse events’ are indeed associated with antidepressants and several other types of psychotropic medications.”

Note: Sudden withdrawal from antidepressants can trigger quite severe and dangerous adverse effects.

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
________________________________________________________________
Jon Rappoport

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

[Book Review] Overdosed America – The Broken Promise Of American Medicine by Dr. John Abramson M.D.

Compulsory Reading Regarding The Issues With The Mainstream Medical Establishment

OD
TheBreakaway
Zy Marquiez
June 29, 2016

“Probably as much as 75% of the medicine of sickness is unnecessary and its cost can be avoided.”
–  Dr. Ghislaine Lanctot, Author Of The Medical Mafia

” One of the first duties of the physician is to educate the masses not to take medicine.”
William Osler, M.D.

This is my first glance at Dr. Abramson’s work, and it did not disappoint.

Overdo$ed America – The Broken Promise Of American Medicine By John Abramson M.D., does an exceptional job of eviscerating what the conventional medical establishment has been doing for an extremely long time: misrepresenting medical data at the expense of the American populace’s health and well being.

Abramson’s foray into the heart of the medical establishment is something to behold.  He does what nigh no one within his field does, or even the mainstream establishment does, which is hone in on duplicitous dealings of the Medical Industrial Complex in many ways.

From manipulation of statistics, to scientific information that is highly inaccurate, no stone is unturned in this journey into the web of medical deception.

The foray of Dr. Abramson is reminiscent of the work of Dr. Brogan in her landmark book, A Mind Of Your Own – The Truth About Depression, and Dr. Breggin in his phenomenal book Toxic Psychiatry.

Both of those books destroy any semblance of reality within the psychiatric/medical establishment.  Abramson did the same in respect to prescription drugs, and in an extraordinary way.

The data collated within the doors of this book help individuals see the many intricacies that are unknown today.

Not only did the FDA allow in 1981 the drug companies to change the direct-to-consumer [DTC] advertising rules, allowing the pharmaceuticals to advertise to people, but they also further loosened the restrictions in 1997, opening the flood gates.

Therein began the normalization of advertising and drugs within the American landscape, which happens to be illegal in every country in the world except two: New Zealand and the United States.  That fact should give incisive folks pause.

Furthermore, the author delves into the pharmaceutical disasters that were Paxil, Celebrex, Vioxx, HRT, and more, but he doesn’t stop there.  Abramson also deconstructs how the supply side of medical care functions, and how it often increases costs, but not the benefits of health.

Another noteworthy point is the fact that the cholesterol guidelines are delved into at length, as the author covers many of the issues plaguing those guidelines.

There is a lot more covered by the author, and he also mentions some sensible solutions that can be carried out by individuals and the establishment.

All in all, this is a top-down analysis of a great portion of the issues plaguing conventional medicine, and why American’s health care costs have increased, but health has remained stagnant.

If you care about your health, or that of a loved one, society, solutions, and/or the intricacies of medicine et al., consider this compulsory reading.  The fact people don’t know about this information is costing lives, in the hundreds of thousands, and that’s not an exaggeration. 

Preventable medical mistakes are the third leading cause of death in the United States, at over 400,000 deaths a year.  This book harpoons directly into the heart of the matter, and not knowing this information in the age of information is akin to willingly choosing ignorance when solutions are at hand in various modalities.