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

Dr. Kelly Brogan- Depression & Anxiety Tips for Women

TheBreakaway
Zy Marquiez
March 6, 2017

Dr. Kelly Brogan is an Integrative psychiatrist (trained at MIT and Cornell) who came on the podcast to chat about her new book, A Mind of Your Own: The Truth About Depression and How Women Can Heal Their Bodies to Reclaim Their Lives.

For those seeking more information please read Dr. Brogan’s landmark book:

A Mind Of Your Own – The Truth About Depression & How Women Can Heal Their Bodies by Dr. Kelly Brogan

Source: High Intensity Health

Key Takeaways from the interview:

01:58 “Before I stopped prescribing, I never once cured a patient” Dr. Brogan was a traditional psychiatric doctor from a traditional family. The goal of traditional psychiatry is to keep you functioning and to suppress symptoms. Many mental illnesses are not valid illnesses or diseases. They are symptoms. Most outpatient psychiatrists do not run basic blood panels on their patients to rule out known reversible causes, like B12 deficiencies. She began recommending fish oil, Rhodiola rosea, and other supplements to her patients on pharmaceuticals. Then she read an expose’ by Robert Whitaker called The Anatomy of an Epidemic, which brought her to a lesser known body of science. She stopped using pharmaceuticals and began to cure patients. Her goal is to not only get her patients off of their prescriptions, but to give them the tools to not need to see her.

05:45 Depression Medication Paradox: Practitioners and the lay person (via direct to consumer advertising) are taught that depression is a discrete disease that is likely heritable and is a result of a chemical imbalance, often a serotonin imbalance. There are antidepressant medications that are serotonin reuptake enhancers as well as other that serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and others that have little impact upon serotonin, but impact norepinephrine and dopamine. Trials show comparable efficacy in non-psychiatric medications like beta blockers or thyroid hormone.

07:51 Do Such Disparate Medications Work? Dr. Brogan says that these medications do not work. The reported efficacy is 30%. There is much unpublished literature. A psychiatry study found that 37 of 38 negative studies used to approve 12 antidepressants were not published because they were negative. When you adjust for active placebo effect, these medications have negligible efficacy.

09:14 Antidepressants: Active Placebo Effect: It is the recruitment of bodily beliefs about your being sick and there being a chemical fix. When you are in a trial, you are told that if you receive the treatment, you may get dry mouth, diarrhea, or headache. The placebo might be a sugar pill. When you start to get the side effects, you tell yourself that you are in the treatment group and you believe that you will get better. A follow up study of people who were successfully treated with Prozac were told that they would be randomized to placebo or continue on the same does that cured them. Both groups became depressed. The power of belief or expectancy is a very important and complex factor.

11:56 Long Term Effects: There is not a single study that suggests that being treated with antidepressants for any psychiatric disorder results in improved long term functioning or improved long term outcomes. According to the WHO, depression is the number one cause of disability, yet we have more prescribing of treatment than ever before. This should be inversely proportional. What if the treatment is inducing disability and a chronic disorder that might have otherwise been a reversible single episode phenomenon? It is time to re-examine the theory that depression has anything to do with brain chemicals.

13:07 The Cytokine Theory of Depression: The primary literature is beginning to support the idea that it could be a body-wide, system-wide phenomenon. It comes down to the mismatch of lifestyle with our over 2.5 million years of what our genes have come to expect. This theory asks what we can do to better align our lifestyle with those of our ancestors so the alarm systems in the body, inflammatory systems, and immunological mechanisms, are not on constant high alert. Depression is a Symptom

15:41 Diet vs Prozac: Prozac will not produce clinical effects, just side effects, for 6 to 8 weeks after treatment starts. Diet will produce positive effects within 30 days.

Jon Rappoport: Number One Mind Control Program At US Colleges

Source: Infowars.com
via: OpenMinds
Jon Rappoport | NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com

For more details, please see investigative reporter Jon Rappoport’s piece on this very subject:

The Number One Mind Control Program At US Colleges

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.

Researchers Demand American Psychiatric Association Retract Study That Fabricated Benefits Of Antidepressants, Covered Up Adverse Health Effects

Celexa

Source: NaturalNews.com
Julie Wilson
August 9, 2016

A large group of medical doctors, psychiatrists and researchers are demanding that the American Psychiatric Association retract a shady study that relied upon industry influence to determine the effectiveness of an antidepressant that’s widely prescribed among children and teens.

The study, published more than a decade ago in the American Journal of Psychiatry, touted the benefits of Celexa in younger populations suffering from depression.

However, a recent analysis of the research found “gross misrepresentations” about the safety and effectiveness of the drug, including the fact that Celexa worked no better than the placebo.

Study showing benefits of Celexa in children was written by the drug’s maker

The researchers say that the study reflected the “pervasive influence” of the marketing objectives of Forest Laboratories, the Celexa manufacturer, adding that the “scientific” manuscript was “written primarily for marketing purposes and only secondarily as a peer-reviewed journal.”

In other words, the study was totally fabricated to extend the consumer base for Celexa to children and teens, the fastest growing demographic for which antidepressants are prescribed.

The analysis revealed that the study was written by none other than ghost writers employed by Forest Laboratories who “seriously misrepresented” the data about the drug’s safety and efficacy.

“Forest’s own internal documents disclosed in litigation show that company staff were aware that there were serious problems with the conduct of this trial but concealed the problems in advancing their commercial objectives,” said the researchers.

As reported by Stat News, “Procedural deviations in the study were not reported; negative outcomes were not reported; [and] side effects were misleadingly analyzed.”

Fabricated study continues to be cited by the pharmaceutical industry

The researchers’ letter demanding a retraction is dated August 1, 2016, and addressed to Dr. Maria Oquendo, president of the American Psychiatric Association. It asks Oquendo to urge the current editor of the American Journal of Psychiatry to issue a retraction.

“Our main concern is that children and adolescents are continuing to be at risk of harm unnecessarily because well-intentioned physicians have been misled,” they wrote.

“We believe that the unretracted … article represents a stain on the high standard of the American Journal of Psychiatry (AJP) and the American Psychiatric Association (APA). Neither the AJP nor the APA can claim to be a leader in scientific research.”

New research finds antidepressants totally ineffective and dangerous for children

The revelations come roughly two months after a groundbreaking report revealed that most antidepressants marketed for children and teens are not only ineffective, but downright dangerous.

The research, published in The Lancet, reports that out of 14 antidepressants, only one (Prozac) provided depression relief for children and teens. Other antidepressants such as Effexor increased the risk of suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts in younger populations.

The study is the most comprehensive analysis ever conducted regarding antidepressant use among children and teens.

Supermodel says antidepressants made her a ‘sociopath’

The adverse effects of antidepressants continue to be disclosed by both physicians and patients alike. English fashion model Cara Delevingne recently told Britain’s Esquire magazine that antidepressants turned her into a “sociopath.”

Delevingne, who took the drugs for two years as a teenager, said she lost all feelings, and was “just numb” until she stopped taking them.

“I didn’t feel s**t. It was horrible. I was like a sociopath. When something was funny I would go, ‘Ha ha!’ just because other people laughed, but then I’d stop immediately because I wasn’t really very good at faking it.”

Read More At: NaturalNews.com
_______________________________________________________________

Sources:

FreePDFHosting.com[PDF]

StatNews.com

CBSNews.com

CaraDelevingne.Esquire.co.uk

Science.NaturalNews.com

Study: Psychiatrists Now Prescribing Dangerous Antidepressants For Unhappy Marriages

[Editor’s Note]

As Dr. Kelly Brogan has postulated with overwhelming evidence, depression is a symptom, not a disease.  And if that’s the case, then doctors prescribing antidepressants are not getting to the root of the problem. Of course, not treating the root of the issue predictably/unfortunately means more profits for Big Pharma/Big Medica.

For more information regarding this the countless issues with antidepressants please read:

A Mind Of Your Own: The Truth About Depression & How Women Can Reclaim Their Lives by Dr. Kelly Brogan
Toxic Psychiatry – Dr. Peter R. Breggin

Marriage counseling
Source: NaturalNews.com
Amy Goodrich
July 12, 2016

Being in an unhappy marriage can hugely impact your daily life and make you depressed. Depression and marital conflicts often go hand in hand. And it’s a vicious cycle; not only will an unhappy relationship make you depressed, but being depressed can in turn negatively impact your marriage or relationship.

According to a new study published in the Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, many psychiatrists today opt for the easy way out and prescribe antidepressants, rather than couple therapy, when clients complain about an unhappy marriage or other domestic issues.

Is that really the thing these couples need to solve their problems? Jonathan M. Metzl, the Frederick B. Rentschler II professor of sociology and medicine at Health and Society at Vanderbilt, and the study’s lead author, isn’t so sure about that.

He said that the assumption that people who struggle with their marriage or other domestic issues are depressed, is not supported by the way depression is defined medically.

Unhappy marriage seen as a psychiatric illnesses

For the study, Metzl and his team used the records from 1980 to 2000 of a Midwestern medical center. He notes that the period of the data followed a 1974 decision to remove the term “homosexuality” from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). The DSM is the standard reference book that describes all psychiatric illnesses.

“As it became less acceptable to overtly diagnose homosexuality, it became increasingly acceptable to diagnose threats to female-male relationships as conditions that required psychiatric intervention,” Metzl said.

Back then, doctors and psychiatrists increasingly began to prescribe antidepressants to patients experiencing problems with heterosexual love and its discontents. Not surprisingly, the researchers also report that this is the same time-frame in which Prozac and other SSRI antidepressants were introduced and heavily marketed by pharmaceutical companies.

Unfortunately, the trend of prescribing dangerous antidepressants for unhappy marriages or marital issues is still continuing today.

Cultural pressure and insecurity

Relationships can be very challenging. When somebody is spiraling out of control and not entirely sure about the relationship he or she is in, it is much harder to be fully present in the relationship. This often comes with out-of-control feelings of despair and depression.

After analyzing the data, the researchers discovered a pattern. Metzl said that attaining or maintaining heterosexual relationships was often seen as a symptom of depression. However, these marriage woes have little or no connection to the current DSM criteria for depression.

Metzl said it has much more to do with the picture society paints of how men and women should behave. Nonetheless, cultural pressure and couple insecurity are decisive factors when making a diagnosis and prescribing antidepressants.

Isn’t that just making things worse? What happened to couple talk therapy or other natural solutions like diffusing essential oils in combination with meditation to ease feelings of insecurity, depression or anxiety?

Instead of suppressing feelings through the use of harmful antidepressants that may induce suicidal thoughts, therapy provides a long-term solution.

Talk therapy vs. antidepressants

Under pressure from Big Pharma, antidepressants have become the first line treatment for a broad range of ailments and conditions, including both unhappy marriages and binge eating. Addictive antidepressants should be reserved for only the most severe cases of mental disorders. And even then, they should only be prescribed as a last-resort when therapy or other treatments have failed.

A person with a binge-eating disorder often uses food to suppress negative emotions such as anxiety and depression. While antidepressants have proven their effectiveness in treating these people, a review published in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine found that talk therapy or cognitive behavioral therapy is as effective as most antidepressants on the market.

Nonetheless, harmful antidepressants are still the preferred way to go to treat binge-eating disorders and other conditions that can more safely be remedied with therapy or other natural approaches.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

British MP Jo Cox Murdered: Now Comes The Psyop

logic word
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
June 17, 2016

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

“Create a killer? Take someone who’s unstable, pump him up with SSRI antidepressants, fill his head full of ideas about violent action, point him in a desired direction, and stand back.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

On June 23rd, the UK will vote on whether to stay in the European Union (the “remain” campaign) or leave the EU (“Brexit”).

The polls show a marked shift, with Brexit supporters gaining. Then a British MP, Jo Cox, who has urged Brits to remain, is murdered.

The man who is arrested, Thomas Mair, is alleged to have shouted “Britain First!” (Brexit) as he killed Cox. However, now witnesses on the scene are saying they heard no such thing.

Too late. Social media and news media are running with the “Britain First, Brexit killer” narrative.

Here is the psyop formula:

MP Jo Cox wanted to remain in the EU. Her killer was a “Brexit right-wing crazy” who yelled “Britain First!” as he murdered her. Therefore, all people who want Brexit are right-wing crazies. Therefore, vote to remain in the EU.

This is how you demonize millions of people.

Jo Cox=good=remain in the EU. Her killer=leave the EU=all people who want to leave the EU are killers.

And then there is this. The arrested killer, Thomas Mair, is widely acknowledged to have been mentally unstable. Well, read this local news story from several year ago, for yourself:

“Thomas Mair, 46, started volunteering at the park [creating a garden] after learning about the opportunity through the Mirfield-based Pathways Day Centre for adults with mental health problems.”

“He said: “I can honestly say it has done me more good than all the psychotherapy and medication in the world.”

“All these problems are alleviated by doing voluntary work.”

“Getting out of the house and meeting new people is a good thing, but more important in my view is doing physically demanding and useful labour.”

“When you have finished there is a feeling of achievement which is emotionally rewarding and psychologically fulfilling.”

Mair states he had been on medication. Specifically which drugs? SSRI antidepressants are a distinct possibility. If so, that’s a potential clue, because these drugs are known to push people over the edge into violent behavior, including suicide and homicide. The same violence can be generated by suddenly withdrawing from the drugs.

For example:

A shooting massacre at Columbine High School took place on April 20, 1999. Astonishingly, for eight days after the tragedy, during thousands of hours of prime-time television coverage, virtually no one mentioned the word “drugs.” Then the issue was opened. Eric Harris, one of the shooters at Columbine, was on at least one drug.

The NY Times of April 29, 1999, and other papers reported that Harris was rejected from enlisting in the Marines for medical reasons. A friend of the family told the Times that Harris was being treated by a psychiatrist. And then several sources told the Washington Post that the drug prescribed as treatment was Luvox, manufactured by Solvay.

In two more days, the “drug-issue” was gone.

Luvox is of the same class as Prozac and Zoloft and Paxil. They are labeled SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors). They attempt to alleviate depression by changing brain-levels of the natural substance serotonin. Luvox has a slightly different chemical configuration from Prozac, Paxil, and Zoloft, and it was approved by the FDA for obsessive-compulsive disorder, although many doctors apparently prescribed it for depression.

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 NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.