Like many of you, I am on the verge of total exhaustion regarding the subject of spree killers. Three such events, in such a short time is more than a
mind or a heart can really keep up with. People are, quite understandably, emotional over the stress.
Having said that? Now it seems people are trying to find a scapegoat to sacrifice - or are personalizing these events into some belief that this is
all a false flag to take away the Second Amendment.
Meanwhile we seem to be ignoring the HUGE elephant in the room with us.
There is a common denominator to be found. One that doesn't involve any of the agendas being pushed lately. It is something much more simple, and
sinister than any of the theories that are currently causing so much bitter dispute on the boards.
There is a special interest group behind it all, IMO. But it's not anyone with a direct desire to take away any assault weapons. This special
interest is one of the largest lobbies in Washington, has power beyond any and all rational understanding, and they dictate their own terms, to a
large degree, regarding almost every aspect of their own interests.
I speak of the legal drug dealers today. I am talking about big pharma and their profit generating chemical, spun off dozens of times into new
variants. A drug that, for some, is a miracle product - but for others is enough to turn mild psychiatric symptoms into fully blown psychotic
I am talking about SSRI's
. Street name, Paxil, Lexapro, Cymbalta,
Effexor, Wellbutrin, Celexa, Zoloft, and Prozac.... among many others.
THIS, people, is the connecting thread. I have evidence to support my claim.
Newtown Shootings: A Caution About Violence and SSRIs
SSRIs rank high in the top ten drugs that cause violence
As the debate moves forward about how to keep events like the shooting in Newtown from happening, the inevitable topic that comes up is how to best
detect and treat young people with mental illness.
Many of our politicians have opined on this subject, sometimes as a way of deflecting from the issue of gun control. While it is obvious that better
screening and treatment of troubled adolescents can be of enormous benefit, we also have to exercise caution.
But more relevant to the discussion, is that these very drugs we hope can treat mental illness are at the same time drugs that cause violent behavior
including suicide and aggression toward others. In fact, SSRI’s are the leading drugs in a recent list compiled of the Top Ten Drugs that cause
Japan Revises SSRI Warnings--Hostility, Violence
In Japan reports of violence linked to SSRI antidepressants have raised public awareness to the danger these drugs can pose. A Japanese psychiatrist
acknowledges: "To say that being able to tell the difference between depressives and mild manic-depressives is the test of a psychiatrist's true
skill is no exaggeration."
The absence of any empirically valid diagnostic tool in psychiatry puts patients at risk of trial and error --i.e., Russian roulette--diagnostic and
She indicates that The Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare has investigated news reports about antidepressant users "who developed
increased feelings of hostility or anxiety, and have even committed sudden acts of violence against others."
After its investigation, the Ministry decided to revise the label warnings on SSRI antidepressant stating, "There are cases where we cannot rule out
a causal relationship [of hostility, anxiety, and sudden acts of violence] with the medication."
So, why are millions of American children being prescribed a class of mind-altering drugs that in some people INDUCE VIOLENCE against self and
In fact six out of the ten most violence inducing legal drugs are from this
family of medications.
Thankfully, one doesn't have to take my word for it - besides being able to Google quite a bit of information on the topic - I can provide an
in depth study from an expert
and a link to a site devoted
specifically to discussing the real world horror stories from those with experience, both doctors and
All of this mindless dot connecting going on and nobody
seems to be connecting the real dots on the paper. The companies that have the
distinction ( shame ) of being the top three lobbying groups in America
must be good at their jobs - because not many folks are pointing the blame finger in the right direction:
If you had to guess the biggest lobbiers in the country, who would you say? Insurance companies? Oil and gas? Big Business?
No, no, and no again.
From 1998-2012, pharmaceutical companies and health products have led the political lobbying charge in the US by spending over $2 billion over the
period. Their total lobbying spend in 2011 alone was $241,481,544.
As of September of 2012 it's back in the Republican column--although only with 54%.
Those percentages add up to big money. Drug company donations totaled more than $54 million in 2010, and have already passed that amount since the
summer for the 2012 presidential and congressional elections. Additionally, in the first three months of this year alone the industry spent spent
$69.6 million on lobbying.
What's their motive???
Once depression came to be defined by its symptoms, however, the definition of the mental illness took on a life of its own. Mental health
advocates, for instance, liked the fact that it produced high estimates of the amount of depressive mental disorder so that it seemed as if depression
was a “public health problem” of massive proportions. Clinicians could get reimbursed for conditions that might actually be non-medical problems.
Perhaps most important, pharmaceutical companies found that they could portray people who suffered from widespread psychosocial problems in their
advertisements while at the same time marketing their products as treatments for depressive mental disorders. And, of course, many individuals find it
more acceptable to frame their problems as the result of a mental disorder and to take psychotropic drugs to attempt to relieve their distress than to
see their suffering as the result of psychosocial problems. So, although the internal dynamics of the psychiatric profession initially led to the
changes in the diagnostic criteria, once the criteria arose they have been perpetuated by a variety of groups that benefit from them.
Right there, in black and white. No mystery.