The Problem With Simon Wessely Is Not That He Worked For Pharma…



The problem is he doesn’t seem to realize (or seem to care) that this is a problem and if he does realize (and still doesn’t care), then that is an even more disturbing problem…

Simon Wessely is the former president of the Royal College of Psychiatry UK, and I think it’s safe to say that he is not well liked by the public generally, in particular those harmed by psychiatric medications (and those who dispute his M.E. claims). Simon has been on my radar for a few years now, ever since I heard him declare on the radio (in a debate with James Davies) that he ‘has never worked for pharma‘; a quick google search revealed that he had in fact been sponsored (done talks etc) for pharma over the years (how many we don’t know, and how much money he earned we don’t know either).

When questioned subsequently on this  (by the writer -and ex-Seroxat addict– Will Self – and Scottish psychiatrist Peter Gordon) Simon didn’t seem to think that his talks for Pharma were worthy of note- or even- debate. He also seemed to think that they didn’t really constitute ‘working‘ for Pharma.

Let me tell you this Simon, if you got paid by any pharmaceutical company for talking for them, or at a conference they sponsored, or a drug they sponsored/wanted you to promote etc, then you have worked for Pharma. Let’s not kid ourselves. Even if you think that they cannot influence you, the fact that you worked for them has already tainted you, and as the (former) head of psychiatry UK you should understand this. The fact that you don’t care is disturbing.

So did Simon Wessley work for Pharma? it seems he did. However whether Simon did a few talks for Pharma or not is merely a red herring because it’s Simon’s Royal College of Psychiatry UK (the body and institute itself) and the members of the profession -broadly- who have been corrupted by pharma for decades. Simon might have done a few talks for pharma, and he really might also believe he is not corrupted by that- however internationally- it is psychiatry as a whole that has been utterly corrupted by pharma (particularly in the US).

One psychiatrist doing a few talks for some pharmaceutical companies seems relatively harmless enough (doesn’t it Simon?), however when most psychiatrists all over the world are doing a few, some a lot, and some too many- that adds up to a whole lot of influence from Pharma doesn’t it? One little tainted apple on its own in a barrel might not rot, but put a load of rotten apples in and mix it with some relatively healthy ones and what will you get?

A seriously rotten barrel of apples.

When Pharma funds a lot of psychiatric research, provides drugs to peddle, and has many key opinion leaders in its pocket, then that – to me- is a dangerously unethical situation.

A situation which has created, drug scandal after drug scandal: Zyprexa, Risperdal, Seroxat, the Benzo crisis…. need I say more?

However, even this is a red herring, because Big Pharma’s influence on psychiatry is just one tentacle of influence that pharma has on society, and how it operates. Pharma also sponsors charities, funds medical research in colleges (medical and academic). Many rich and wealthy individuals (Lords, MPs as well too), corporations, pension funds etc have shares in pharmaceutical companies, and pharma provides jobs- loads of them. Big Pharma has the backing of governments world-wide. It has a stranglehold on medical research and health care. It’s a corrupt apple cart that nobody wants to rock… and it’s too big to be prosecuted.

So Simon did a few talks for pharma… no big deal really is it?

As Simon says, it’s really a ‘non-problem‘..





Donald Trump Accuses Big Pharma Of ‘Getting Away With Murder’…

Interesting story today regarding president elect- Donald Trump. Regardless of your views on Trump (mine are very mixed) he certainly does seem to be causing a stir. I have to agree with him about Big Pharma ‘Getting away with murder’ though. I have been in contact with many people harmed by Big Pharma over the last decade or more, and I have even met and spoken to people who have lost loved ones and friends to Big Pharma.

GSK’s track record on (what we could perhaps call) ‘Corporate Murder’ (or corporate manslaughter) has been well documented over the years.

Read GSK Whistle-Blower – Greg Thorpe’s hair raising complaint against GSK from their 2012 3 Billion dollar fine for a serious schooling in how unethical GlaxoSmithKline are…

People still contact me regularly about damage they suffered because of GSK, either though Seroxat (Paxil), Myodil, Avandia or other GSK products…

It will be interesting to see how Donald Trump shakes up the drugs industry… and indeed- the world…

Trump’s Comments Are Big Pharma’s Nightmare

I cover science and medicine, and believe this is biology’s century.

The drug industry is just wrapping up what looked like an upbeat week here at the J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference in San Francisco, where all of the healthcare industry’s biggest executives come every year to court investors and negotiate deals. This is the where big mergers are conceived. But now every pharma and biotech executive has a lump in his throat (they’re mostly men). Because of Donald Trump.

Many pharmaceutical executives hoped that because of the Republican Party’s long-term opposition to price controls and love of free markets, a Trump presidency would involve fewer controls on drug prices than a Hillary Clinton one. But at his first press conference today, Trump made it very clear that is not the case. Here’s what he said, via NPR:

I think a lot of industries are going to be coming back. We have to get our drug industry coming back. Our drug industry has been disastrous. They’re leaving left and right. They supply our drugs, but they don’t make them here. To a large extent. And the other thing we have to do is create a new bidding procedures for the drug industry because they’re getting away with murder.

Pharma has a lot of lobbies, a lot of lobbyists and a lot of power. And there’s very little bidding on drugs. We’re the largest buyer of drugs in the world, and yet we don’t bid properly. And were going to start bidding and were going to save billions of dollars over a period of time.

The “we have to get our drug industry coming back” refers to tax inversions–companies like Mylan, Allergan, and Valeant that have tax domiciles outside the U.S. but operations based here. It also seems to refer to that fact that many drugs are manufactured outside the U.S. So it might sound like a hug, but it’s not. But it’s that second part that will really hurt pharmaceutical companies: the idea that Medicare, the biggest buyer of drugs, will start negotiating drug prices. This is an idea that was popular with Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. It is something drug companies have spent years fighting, because if Medicare has power to insist on a price, they will probably have to pay it.

As with most of Trump’s statements, there is no detail on how this would happen. If Medicare doesn’t have the ability to refuse to offer a medicine, it won’t really be able to lower prices much. Much of Medicare is now run by private sector insurers like Humana or Aetna, who already bid on drugs to get lower prices (this is known as Medicare Advantage). Republicans in Congress may not go along with this. Creating real government bidding on pharmaceuticals could be difficult and tiresome.

Those are details. Donald Trump doesn’t care much for details. The message here is simple and clear:

Donald Trump is going to be a populist president. Pharmaceutical companies are a popular villain. That’s it.

And there are ways Trump could use executive power to hurt drug companies that charge high prices. When Dendreon, a Seattle biotech since bought and sold by Valeant Pharmaceuticals, introduced a cancer drug that cost almost $93,000 in 2010, Medicare put it through a gauntlet called a National Coverage Determination, slowing adoption of the drug. (It flopped.) There are plenty of steps a Medicare administrator motivated by working for an angry Donald Trump could take to hurt a drug company whose price had been deemed too high.

Drug company executives have not been blithely unaware that this might happen. Some have been addressing it publicly. In December, at the Forbes Healthcare Summit, Allergan Chief Executive Brent Saunders announced an expanded patient assistance program to make sure that patients could get access to Allergan medicines for mental illness and infectious disease. He’d also pledged not to take large price increases, limiting Allergan to 10% increases no more than once a year. Here’s what he said about Trump at the time:

I worry today that the pharmaceutical industry has a very false sense of relief or security because of a Trump administration and a Republican Congress. I think we should recognize that the drug pricing issue is a populist issue. Americans are rightfully angry. The fault is not, surely, on the pharmaceutical industry’s shoulders, but we bear that because we make the drugs. We innovate the drugs, and as a result of that, whether we like it or not, or we want to try to explain it or not, we have to deal with it.

To think that President-elect Trump isn’t a populist, that he won’t jump on the next EpiPen scandal and tweet more than Hillary Clinton tweeted, or anybody else, because he’s a prolific tweeter, against any company that does something like that, you’re fooling yourself. I think perhaps the best thing that came out of this election is we have a moment in time to solve it ourselves. Maybe it’s a few months, maybe it’s several months, but we don’t have a lot of time. The next big scandal will revive the debate and probably then some because I think President-elect Trump will be more vicious, more focused on taking down or fighting whoever does something egregious again.

It turns out that Trump didn’t wait for the next egregious drug price increase. He just threw his comments into his first press conference. It doesn’t matter that Gilead Sciences cured hepatitis C, or that vaccines made by Merck and Pfizer and Sanofi keep American kids from dying of meningitis or measles. (In fact, yesterday, Trump said he was considering a commission on autism that might look at the issue of whether vaccines cause the disorder–even though it is settled.) People are mad about drug prices, and they don’t like drug companies, and that makes this a great issue for Trump.

Better yet, it could become a bipartisan issue, one of the few where Democrats will come across the aisle to support change, if anybody can figure out what change is. The pharmaceutical industry has just been thrown in a hole, handed a shovel, and told to dig itself out.

One of the key voices to listen to on this is that of Leonard Schleifer, the founder of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, a Tarrytown, N.Y., biotechnology company. Regeneron has become a $4.7 billion (sales) company thanks largely to a drug called Eylea, which treats age-related blindness. Schleifer, who is a billionaire because of his Regeneron stake, has become a critic of his peers. Here at the J.P. Morgan meeting, he went off-script during his investor presentation and spent more time talking about drug pricing and the industry’s reputation than about his own company’s finances.

It was a line of discussion that he’d started at the Forbes Healthcare Summit. I asked a panel of pharmaceutical chief executives why the industry is so hated. After the others had answered, Schleifer was literally quivering in his seat. “If you look at the prices of drugs, they have gone up, sometimes double digits twice a year as a very efficient way of increasing profits without coupled to any innovation,” Schleifer said. “It’s ridiculous. It’s no wonder. I hate us also when I see all this stuff.”

Ian Read, the chief executive of Pfizer, disagreed. “The point I want to make is that the total cost of drugs as a percentage of healthcare has not changed in two decades,” Read says. “I don’t know whether you talk about three prices a year, two prices a year, double digits, not double digits. The cost of drugs have not changed as a percentage of healthcare in two decades, so it’s a red herring.”

Schleifer zinged back that drug companies are not “entitled to a fraction of the GDP,” but Read had a point. John Milligan, the chief executive of Gilead, had an even better one when he said, “Let’s talk about the people who are alive.” Gilead was vilified for charging $96,000 a year for Sovaldi, its hepatitis C drug. It didn’t get any credit for the fact that the drug was a cure, and arguably a cost-saving one. But here’s the reality: Schleifer and Saunders are reflecting the popular mood. The arguments Read and Milligan are making are arguments drug companies have been making for years. The pharmaceutical industry used to be one of the most respected in the country but now–maybe because of bad things it’s done, maybe because of a general anti-science sentiment, perhaps because of both–it is one of the least. And those arguments aren’t about to start working in 2017.

There’s no doubt that Trump’s statements are merely an opening salvo, a negotiating position. Things may not be as bad as they sound. It’s also almost certain that Trump and the Republican Congress will put through tax policies that will allow pharmaceutical companies to bring back many billions of dollars in off-shore cash they’ve been protecting from U.S. taxes. The industry is still launching all sorts of innovative products, and these will make money. But for the drug industry as a whole, things just got materially worse.

FDA Officially Belongs to Big Pharma With Senate Confirmation of Dr. Robert Califf

FDA Officially Belongs to Big Pharma With Senate Confirmation of Dr. Robert Califf

Martha Rosenberg, AlterNet | February 25, 2016 9:19 am | Comments

It is hard to believe only four senators opposed the confirmation of Robert Califf, who was approved Wednesday as the next Food and Drug Administration (FDA) commissioner. Vocal opponent Bernie Sanders condemned the vote from the campaign trail. But where was Dick Durbin? Where were all the lawmakers who say they care about industry and Wall Street profiteers making money at the expense of public health?

It is hard to believe only four senators opposed the confirmation of Robert Califf, who was approved today as the next FDA commissioner. Photo credit: Les Todd / Duke Photography
It is hard to believe only four senators opposed the confirmation of Robert Califf (left), who was approved Wednesday as the next FDA commissioner.
Photo credit: Les Todd / Duke Photography

Califf, chancellor of clinical and translational research at Duke University until recently, received money from 23 drug companies including the giants like Johnson & Johnson, Lilly, Merck, Schering Plough and GSK according to a disclosure statement on the website of Duke Clinical Research Institute.

Not merely receiving research funds, Califf also served as a high level Pharma officer, say press reports. Medscape, the medical website, discloses that Califf “served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant or trustee for Genentech.” Portola Pharmaceuticals says Califf served on its board of directors until leaving for the FDA.

In disclosure information for a 2013 article in Circulation, Califf also lists financial links to Gambro, Regeneron, Gilead, AstraZeneca, Roche and other companies and equity positions in four medical companies. Gilead is the maker of the $1000-a-pill hepatitis C drug AlterNet recently wrote about. This is FDA commissioner material?

Califf has gone on record that collaboration between industry and regulators is a good thing. He told NPR, “Many of us consult with the pharmaceutical industry, which I think is a very good thing. They need ideas and then the decision about what they do is really up to the person who is funding the study.” What?

He is known for defending Vioxx which is reported to have caused at least 50,000 heart attacks and events before its withdrawal. (Merck is said to have known about Vioxx’ cardio effects but marketed the blockbuster drug anyway).

Califf was instrumental in the Duke drug trial of the blood thinner Xarelto and a cheerleader of the drug despite medical experts’ objections to its approval and 379 subsequent deaths. Xarelto’s serious and foreseeable risks were back in the news this week.

Duke, where Califf directed clinical research, is still recovering from a major research fraud scandal that resulted in terminated grants, retracted papers and a “60 Minutes” special. It is the least appropriate place from which to choose an FDA commissioner.

Many had high hopes for the FDA when Margaret Hamburg was confirmed as commissioner in 2009 because of her public health background. But she swiftly moved to loosen conflict-of-interest rules governing those who can serve on FDA expert advisory committees and appointed Califf the FDA deputy commissioner for medical products and tobacco as she was leaving.

Califf was also Obama’s choice for FDA Commissioner.

This is not the first time the FDA has brought in a Big Pharma cheerleader to lead the agency that regulates Big Pharma.

In 2005, a 33-year-old Wall Street insider known for recommending hot medical stocks, Scott Gottlieb, was named FDA deputy commissioner for medical and scientific affairs. When a multiple sclerosis drug trial was stopped because three people lost blood platelets and one died, Gottlieb called it “an overreaction” because the disease, not the drug, might be to blame. He rushed Chantix, Pfizer’s stop-smoking drug, varenicline, to market, which was linked to a string of 2006 suicides and the violent death of Dallas musician Carter Albrecht. Gottlieb was forced to recuse himself from planning for a possible bird flu epidemic because of his financial ties to Roche and Sanofi-Aventis and had to bow out of work related to Eli Lilly, Proctor & Gamble and five other drug companies.

Even without a Pharma-funded FDA commissioner, many dangerous drugs approved by the agency have been withdrawn due to great harm. Who remembers Vioxx, Bextra, Baycol, Trovan, Meridia, Seldane, Hismanal, Darvon, Mylotarg, Lotronex, Propulsid, Raxar or Redux?

Califf’s confirmation amounts to a handover of the agency to Big Pharma.

Watch Out: Big Pharma’s Dirty Tricks And Tactics…

Ex-Merck employee turned anti-vaccine activist now terrorized by Big Pharma Black Ops branch

Monday, August 10, 2015 by: Julie Wilson staff writer

Today | Week | Month | Year

Ex-Merck employee turned anti-vaccine activist now terrorized by Big Pharma Black Ops branch
California to throw adults in JAIL if they refuse government-mandated vaccines

(NaturalNews) “We may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live,” wrote a Merck & Co. employee who was actively plotting to murder or discredit doctors who had voiced concerns regarding the adverse health effects of an anti-inflammatory drug called Vioxx.

Launched in 1999, Vioxx was extremely popular (with more than 80 million users worldwide), as its makers heralded the drug as being the answer to inflammation, minus the nausea that often follows with anti-inflammatory medication.

It was later discovered that the New Jersey-based Merck & Co. was knowingly selling a drug that frequently caused heart attacks and strokes in its unsuspecting victims. A study revealed that Vioxx actually doubled the risk of heart attacks and strokes, prompting the company to voluntary withdraw the drug from the market in 2004.

Prior to the drug being pulled from the market, several Merck & Co. staff exchanged emails in which they discussed a “hit list” they drafted of doctors whom they believed needed to be “neutralised” or “discredited” due to their criticism of Vioxx.

Merck & Co. long history of harassing and threatening those who stand in the way of drug profits

The emails surfaced in court after 58-year-old Graeme Peterson claimed the drug caused him to have a heart attack in 2003 after taking the medication for three years to treat his back pain and arthritis.

Merck & Co. and its Australian subsidiary, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, were sued for damages by more than 1,000 Australians (and many others in the US), who claimed that they suffered heart attacks and strokes at the hands of Vioxx.

The court ruled in Peterson’s favor, allotting him just under $300,000 in compensation; however, the ruling was reversed in 2010 by an appeal panel in Federal Court in Melbourne.

The court said it wasn’t proven that Vioxx caused Peterson’s heart attack, despite accusations that the American pharmaceutical company misconstrued Vioxx’s health risks in medical literature, advertisements and statements to doctors by sales representatives.

Big Pharma’s domestic terrorism branch emerges as vaccine truth tellers are terrorized

It seems that Merck & Co. was never held accountable for the threats it made against doctors, researchers and academics, in which at least eight clinical investigators were harassed and intimidated, giving the drug company no reason to stop such intimidation tactics.

Those same tactics are in play to this day and are carried out against anyone who stands in the way of Big Pharma’s profits. One of the most recent, and particularly disturbing, examples of this involves a woman named Brandy Vaughan, an ex-employee of Merck & Co. who used to rep Vioxx.

Vaughan worked for Merck & Co. from 2001 to 2003, but resigned after learning that her employer falsified safety data on Vioxx, covering up the fact that it doubled the risk of heart attacks and stroke.

After living overseas for quite some time, Vaughan returned back to the US with her six-month-old son and took him to a wellness visit in California. Knowing little about vaccines, but enough to know not to trust pharmaceutical companies, she asked the doctor, who was pushing for her son to be vaccinated, to see the inserts. This angered him.

He accused her of not trusting him before storming out of their visit, after which the nurse made sure to let them know that they weren’t welcome back.

The experience sent Vaughan down the rabbit hole of vaccine research, which unveiled a multitude of concerning information leading her to decide to not vaccinate her son. After learning about the flawed data on vaccines, the toxins they contain and the total lack of safety testing, Vaughan turned to activism as she began to spread awareness about the risks of vaccines, focusing particularly on speaking out against California’s SB277 forced vaccination law.

“If there’s a risk, there has to be a choice,” says Vaughan, who at the time could not predict the repercussions she would face for the influence she was having.

“Just because things are on the market, does not mean they’re safe” — Vaughan

After attending a rally against SB277 at the capitol, Vaughan returned home to a startling discovery when she found her hide-a-key laying on her front door step – with the door left open – which had been hidden in the bushes a year earlier after she purchased her home. Six months ago, she searched for the key, but it wasn’t where she had left it.

Whoever did this, their message was clear – we’re watching you and we have access to your home. Unnerved by the experience, Vaughan installed a $3,000 security system.

The second incident occurred after Vaughan exposed the names of who she believed to be the “controlled opposition” in the fight against SB277 on Facebook.

She returned home that night to her house having been broken into. Someone had picked the lock before entering through the font door and disabling her alarm system by entering the master code – a code that only she knew.

Vaughan learned through her security system that the assailant spent just four minutes in her home, walking down the hallway and opening and shutting a back window before exiting through the front door.

She called the police and spoke to a security expert with a history of carrying out intimidation tactics for corporations. Her home was likely “tapped” during the break in, she was told, meaning that everything she said and did was probably being listened to and even watched.

While the police investigated the break in, Vaughan checked to see if her computer was still in its hiding spot; it was and appeared to be undisturbed.

Terrified by this point, Vaughan decided not to stay there any longer. When she returned home two days later to pack up some of her belongings, she discovered that her computer had been removed from its hiding place and laid blatantly on the kitchen floor.

Clearly, someone had been listening and probably watching.

Below is a powerful 12-minute video detailing the intimation tactics being orchestrated against Vaughan. I encourage you all to watch as it will send chills down your spine and open your eyes to the extreme lengths corporations are willing to go to protect their profits.

Natural News felt that it was very important to inform the public about what’s happening to Vaughan. By exposing her story, we can provide her with more protection.

Moving forward with absolute bravery, Vaughan continues her activism through the non-profit she founded, the Council for Vaccine Safety, which seeks to “increase public awareness and education on the risk of vaccines while advocating for safer vaccines.”

You can check out some of her powerful speeches, as well as upcoming speaking events on her Facebook page.

The war on natural health freedom

With the discovery of at least nine dead or missing Florida-based naturopathic doctors , the passing of SB277 and the harassment toward Miss Vaughan, it’s clear that there’s a war against natural health freedom and anyone who seeks to expose the corruption so deeply rooted in the medical establishment.

Based on the recent chain of events, it’s become clear that the Black Ops branch of Big Pharma is real, and its hired assassins will go to great lengths, including murder, to silence those who stand in their way.

Natural News’ Mike Adams is no stranger to threats and intimidation tactics, as he’s been on the receiving end of many, which is why he never leaves home unarmed.

“A surprising number of people in the natural health community have come to learn, by necessity, that they need to carry concealed firearms as a practical matter of personal protection,” says Mike.

“In an age where the medical industry routinely murders babies to harvest their organs, it should be no surprise to learn that global pharmaceutical companies also hire terrorists and Black Ops personnel to try to silence anyone who interferes with their profits.”

Shroud of mystery surrounds case of dead and missing doctors

Dr. Teresa Sievers, a Florida-based naturopath who is now deceased, left conventional medicine to open her own practice, a holistic center that focuses on the mind, body and spirit connection.

On June 29, Sievers was found dead in her Bonita Springs home. She was brutally murdered, and with a hammer, according to investigators. While Lee County Police Department’s Sheriff Mike Scott says the case “has the most evidence he’s ever seen,” no arrests have been made.

While we still don’t know who or why anyone would commit such a heinous act against an innocent woman – who not only was saving lives but was a wife and mother of two young daughters – the timing and circumstances of her death eerily coincide with other area doctors who shared a similar focus and fate.

(An Indiegogo campaign was launched to help raise money for Sievers’ daughters’ college tuition; you can donate here.)

Among those found dead are Dr. James Jeffrey Bradstreet, Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez, Dr. Bruce Hedendal, Dr. Baron Holt and Dr. Lisa Riley – all of whom practiced alternative medicine. Learn more about what Bradstreet and Gonzales were studying here, here and here.

Dr. Patrick J. Fitzpatrick, a retired ophthalmologist from North Dakota and Dr. Jeffrey Whiteside, a pulmonologist from Wisconsin, both went missing in early July. More than a month has passed, and there’s still no information about their whereabouts. It appears that both doctors practiced Western medicine, so it’s unclear if they’re connected to the Florida naturopaths.

Three other doctors went missing on June 19 in Guerrero, Mexico, the same area in which 43 student teachers went missing in September 2014.

While authorities say they’ve identified the bodies, as well as found the vehicle they were riding in riddled with bullet holes, at least two of the victims’ families said the bodies they were asked to identify at the morgue was not their loved one.

The family is accusing Guerrero’s attorney general of “manipulating” the case and pretending it’s solved in order to shelf it, along with thousands of other unsolved murders in the region.

Brilliant article on James Holmes and the myriad of psych drugs he was prescribed, by his psychiatrist, prior to the cinema shooting spree in Aurora

The Best Reason to NOT Execute James Holmes: He May Have Been a Victim of Both Medical and Legal Malpractice

The Colorado

Q: If Bartenders can be Held Liable for Violent acts Committed by their Customers, Shouldn’t the Suppliers/Prescribers of Intoxicating Psychiatric Drugs be Considered Accomplices to Crimes Committed by Their Customers/Patients?

The mass murder trial of confessed “Batman Shooter” James Holmes is almost over. The grossly ill-informed jury was somehow convinced by the prosecution that Holmes’s increasingly psychiatric drug-intoxicated brain and the resultant drug-induced insanity had nothing to do with the irrational mass murders at the Aurora, Colorado movie theater on July 20, 2012.

And now this same ill-informed jury, who rejected the insanity plea a couple of days ago, will decide whether or not this victim of Big Pharma and Big Psychiatry (and the tragic “misdiagnosis and over-medication roller-coaster” that he and millions of others in America are on) will either be put to death or imprisoned for life in a non-psychiatric hospital – without possibility of parole. How the most pertinent facts of the case – and the cause of his obvious insanity have been over-looked or willfully ignored by the legal and psychiatric professionals would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious. One doesn’t laugh at a comedy of errors.

It is highly possible that the most important details in the Batman Shooter trial have been willfully overlooked by the legal and psychiatric professionals involved in the case. Whether or not there is legal malpractice involved I will leave to ethical legal professionals, if any can be found; but a strong case can be made for psychiatric malpractice – or at least medical malfeasance – in the case of Holmes’s prescribing (University of Colorado health center) psychiatrist, Dr Lynne Felton.  The possibility of either legal or medical malpractice by the involved professionals has not been raised by the journalists who have been breathlessly covering the emotionally-charged aspects of the case since the crime was committed exactly three years ago.

Tough on Crime Prosecution vs. Ill-informed Defense

The lead prosecuting attorney, District Attorney George Brauchler is, as is the norm for most politically motivated, tough-on-crime DA’s, going for the death penalty. The jury rejected the defense’s assertion that Holmes was insane at the time of the infamous shootings and should not be executed Anybody who saw the dazed and drugged look on Holmes’s face at his first hearing will know that he was intoxicated with some drug at the time. Brauchler was the individual who held back the identity of Holmes’s drugs for as long as he legally could. Apparently he even had possession of the pill bottles that had been taken from Holmes’s apartment, thus derailing the defense’s ability to plea insanity or to understand what had altered Holmes’s mind so drastically.

Holmes’s lead defense attorney was Dan King. As with all court appointed lawyers, King was a poorly-reimbursed court-appointed lawyer who never denied that Holmes was the shooter but he also never had the monetary resources to obtain a well-informed psychiatrist of the stature of Dr Peter Breggin, Dr David Healey or Dr Joseph Glenmullen to testify for the defense. He stated in his closing arguments that Holmes is/was schizophrenic, is therefore “not guilty by reason of insanity” (I prefer the phrase “guilty but insane”) and should not be executed. Holmes’s understandably distraught parents agreed.

King argued throughout the trial that Holmes was insane at the time of the shootings and should have been locked up in a long-term psychiatric facility rather than in a penitentiary, where, unfortunately, he would have been subject to the same “treatment” he received before his shooting rampage. He would have been under the care of prescribing psychiatrists with beliefs and prescribing habits similar to Dr Fenton.

It is common knowledge that virtually all American psychiatrists reflexively “treat” with psychotropic drugs over 95 – 98% of their out-patients (and 100% of their in-patients) in various combinations of neurotoxic and psychotoxic, brain-altering chemicals like Holmes’s sertraline (generic Zoloft {Pfizer}, which is known to cause homicidal impulses, suicidal impulses, agitation, mania, psychosis, etc) and the benzodiazepine clonazepam (generic Klonopin {Roche}, which acts on the same brain synapses that the violence-inducing drug alcohol does).

Either one of those two drugs could have easily caused Holmes’s intoxicated brain to become psychotic and homicidally insane. Fenton had prescribed them for Holmes for the past several months, resulting in a state of chronic inebriation which likely caused his decline from a brilliant neuroscience grad student (he graduated with a 3.94 GPA as an undergraduate) into a paranoid, zombified loner who failed an important oral final exam a few weeks before the killings. His failure caused him to drop out of school, a shameful failure in his eyes and the eyes of others. Intolerable shame induces acts of violence, particularly in the isolated, the drug-intoxicated and the hopeless.

In my research about this case (of court records, media reports or testimony from “expert witnesses”) I have found not the slightest hint of anybody’s awareness of what is commonly known about the cocktail of drugs that Dr Fenton had prescribed for Holmes. In addition to the sertraline and clonazepam, Fenton had also prescribed propranolol [generic Inderal, a “beta-blocker” drug which can cause depression and should be used with extreme caution with psychotropic drugs], drugs that Dr Fenton testified under oath that she had increased (to toxic levels, in the case of sertraline) at Holmes’s last clinic visit a few weeks before he did the deed.

Holmes’s Irrational “Under-the-Influence” Weapons Purchases – a Sure Sign of (Probably Drug-Induced) Insanity

Wikipedia detailed the weapons and ammunition that the psychiatric drug-intoxicated Holmes had irrationally purchased in the two months before the massacre. This is clear evidence of how abnormal was the neurological-psychological state of his brain.

On May 22, 2012, Holmes purchased a Glock 22 at a Gander Mountain shop in Aurora. Six days later, on May 28, he bought a Remington 8870 Express tactical shotgun at a Bass Pro Shop in Denver. On June 7, just hours after failing his oral exam at the university, he purchased a Smith & Wesson M&P15 semi-automatic rifle from a Gander Mountain store in Thornton, and bought a second Glock 22 pistol in Denver on July 6. All the weapons were bought legally and background checks were performed.  In the four months prior to the shooting, Holmes also bought 3,000 rounds of ammunition for the pistols, 3,000 rounds for the M&P15, and 350 shells for the shotgun over the Internet. On July 2, he placed an order for a Blackhawk Urban Assault Vest, two magazine holders, and a knife at an online retailer. He also purchased spike strips, which he later admitted he planned to use in case police shot at him or followed him in a car chase.

Every So-called Expert in Court, Except Holmes, Was Clueless About the Brain/Drug Connection

Among all the “smartest people in the room” only Holmes seems to have suspected that his psych drugs could have been part of the problem. In a pre-trial interrogation (and in a tone that sounded like he was offended by Holmes having the temerity to suggest that the psych drugs had anything to do with the murder spree), an investigator asked about that notion. Holmes replied: “I’m only saying that I think it is a possibility.”

If there was any thought of Holmes being accused of never showing remorse after having his drug doseages reduced in jail, the jury was shown a videotape of Holmes saying “I kind of regret that she (Dr Fenton) didn’t lock me up so that everything could have been avoided.”

Nobody in a position of authority in the courtroom, the legal “experts” or the psychiatric “experts”, seemed to have a clue about some of the most important issues. And therefore the laypeople on the jury are about to make another life or death decision about the fate of the publicly despised Holmes, who is just another one of the millions of innocent victims of involuntary drug intoxication. How can we feel good about the first of their verdicts if they haven’t been given all the facts?

Justice is not going to be done. And the accomplices to these murders (Big Pharma and the American Psychiatric Association, for starters) will probably go scot-free.

Alarmingly, none of the above “experts” seem to comprehend the serious consequences of Dr Fenton’s decision to, first of all, prescribe three (!) psychoactive drugs to a stressed-out grad student who was suffering a traumatic breakup with his girlfriend; and then, secondly, incrementally raise the doses to increasingly toxic levels (rather than lower them) when the previously brilliant Holmes was losing his cognitive abilities and, suffering the final insult, failing to pass his oral exams.. Dr Fenton testified that, at the last visit, she increased the dosages of all three of Holmes’s drugs, admitting to actually bumping up the sertraline/Zoloft dose to150 mg per day, a potentially lethal dose!! (The normal starting dose for Zoloft is 25 – 50 mg per day.)

Dr Fenton (who was a board-certified specialist in psychiatry) obviously hadn’t heard of (or at least failed to consider) the well documented possibility that a significant minority of Caucasians (10%) are deficient in one of the Cytochrome P 450 liver enzymes that metabolizes/degrades SSRIs into supposedly less potent forms of the chemical. Therefore, not having tested the already suicidal/homicidal, drug-intoxicated Holmes for the possible absence of that enzyme (and the predictable increased toxicity of the drug), there was a 10% possibility that she was lethally poisoning her patient’s brain and body.

But Fenton was very likely an over-busy and therefore a likely over-prescribing psychiatrist who was unaware of the “pure and uncontaminated” (non-pharmaceutical company-influenced) neuroscience literature that has established the above facts.

One wonders if even the budding neuroscientist James Holmes (or his intelligent RN mother and scientist father) was aware of what the drugs were doing to his brain and how dangerous they could be. He showed some awareness of the toxicity of psych drugs in that he refused to accept a fourth prescription for Seroquel offered by Fenton. (Seroquel [AstraZeneca] is a heavily sedating so-called “antipsychotic” drug that is commonly prescribed for insomnia, mania and psychotic symptoms like hallucinations.) Holmes refused this fourth drug because he didn’t want to be too sedated when he was studying for the oral exams that were coming up.

Choosing to not take the witness stand (standard advice given by many lawyers for fear of having their clients chewed up by opposing attorneys) we may never know what serious drug effects he was suffering.

Foolishly Trusting the Corrupted Science of the Multi-national Pharmaceutical Corporations

Instead, Fenton, like the vast majority of her psychiatric and medical colleagues around the nation, believed (and blindly trusted) the corrupted science of the cunning multinational psycho-pharmaceutical corporations who pay for the rat lab experiments (as well as all of the human clinical trials) that lead up to the huge profits the companies hope to make selling their dependency-inducing (aka addictive) blockbuster drugs at criminally inflated prices.

Dr Fenton was probably a true believer in the well-propagandized (and mistaken) notion that Big Pharma’s highly profitable psych drugs (and their equally profitable vaccines) are safe and effective and can be passed out like candy. She, like all the other court psychiatrists (apparently even those that testified for the defense!) did not seem to be aware of the sobering fact that no combination of two or more psych drugs has ever been tested – even in the rat labs – for either long-term safety or efficacy.

Tragically, for the drug-intoxicated brain of James Holmes, Dr Fenton had placed her trust in the psycho-pharmaceutical industry’s pseudoscience – and Holmes will be the one who will suffer from her willful ignorance and misplaced trust. (It should be mentioned that there are charges pending against Fenton for her failure to properly alert authorities about Holmes’s clearly expressed homicidality.)

In Defense of Dr Fenton and Mr Holmes

If being a too-busy doctor is any defense (in a court of law [it is not]), Dr Fenton probably can be forgiven for not taking the time to read between the lines of Big Pharma’s powerful disinformation campaign that affects both prescribers and American consumers of drugs.

The ubiquitous attractive pharmaceutical sales reps that often get in to see the doctors ahead of patients are often able to seduce opposite–sex physicians to prescribe their unaffordable new miracle drugs, by giving them free samples, pizzas, pens and post-it notes that reinforce the messages of the absurd but seductive drug commercials on TV. (By the way, America is only one of two nations on the planet where it is legal to advertise drugs directly to consumers; New Zealand is the other one.) Those commercials create many dumbed-down patients to trust in the drugs that they are then advised to obediently swallow by their equally dumbed-down physicians. Of course we physicians are also easily influenced by the equally absurd medical journal advertising that cunningly shapes our belief systems and prescribing habits.

Was an Informed Consent Form Signed by James Holmes?

There is no reason to think that James Holmes was fully warned by Dr Fenton that taking high doses of sertraline (with or without clonazepam and propranolol) could result in violence, aggression, psychosis, apathy, suicidality or homicidality. Failure to obtain fully informed consent – about serious adverse effects of a drug – is grounds for a medical malpractice lawsuit.

Similarly, because Holmes was a struggling student under the neurotoxic and psychotoxic influence of three brain-disabling drugs, he also may have lacked the time, inclination or cognitive ability to be sufficiently suspicious of his cocktail of synthetic chemicals that were obviously disabling his brain.

If any person was inebriated, sleep-deprived, stressed-out, malnourished and strung out by months of daily ingesting some combination of illicit drugs (that were once upon a time legal substances) such as alcohol, amphetamines, methamphetamine, Ecstasy, heroin, cocaine, morphine, Quaaludes, barbiturates, rape drugs or LSD (with all the adverse effects that could be expected to occur), nobody would question the role of such intoxicating substances if the inebriated person perpetrated some act of aggression.

But Holmes was swallowing legal prescription drugs (that have not yet been declared illegal, as perhaps many of them should be); but we brain-washed sheeple have been led by powerful forces to disbelieve the connections between criminal activities and legal drugs, even though the illegal drugs have molecular structures and mechanisms of action that are indistinguishable from the legal ones.

What the psychiatrist Fenton and the budding neuroscientist Holmes should have been aware of is the fact that the drug industry has never done any long-term safety or efficacy studies on the so-called SSRI (“Selective” [which is a lie] Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors) antidepressants prior to their achieving FDA approval for marketing. Certainly the combination of an SSRI and a benzodiazepine (Klonopin) were never tested in combination for any outcome, even in the rat labs – where the microscopic, neurotransmitter and immunofluorescence studies of drugged brains are done.

Readers of the non-Big Pharma-influenced neuroscience literature (including many of my Duty to Warn columns over the years (available at, are well aware of the overwhelming evidence that brain-altering psychoactive drugs like Zoloft and Klonopin can cause serious neurological/mental aberrations in the otherwise normal brains of people (who might be temporarily sad, nervous, inattentive, hyperactive, sleep deprived, shy or lonely and therefore are at risk of being labeled permanently mentally ill if they ever enter the  mental health “system”).

The range of psych drug-induced abnormalities include this short list: acts of aggression. violence, homicidality, suicidality, akathisia, restlessness, anxiety, insomnia, an “I don’t give a damn” attitude, apathy, loss of memory, dementia, disruptions in academic performance, loss of cognitive abilities, loss of IQ points, remorselessness, manic psychosis, hallucinations, delusional thinking, confusion, depression and other signs, symptoms or behaviors that are irrational or viewed by concerned observers as atypical for the person taking the drug or drugs.

No More Fake News Please

Read what Jon Rappoport, of No More Fake News ( wrote on his blog (at a couple of years ago, shortly after the Aurora shooting.

People don’t get it. The media doesn’t get it and they don’t want to get it. Billions of dollars are riding on the drugs Dr. Lynne Fenton … prescribed to her patient, James Holmes, the accused Batman shooter.

And when billions of dollars in potentially lost revenue are hanging in the balance, the interested parties take action. They’re serious about their money. They don’t screw around.

You see, if James Holmes was, for example, taking Prozac, all of a sudden no one wants to take it. If doctors prescribe it to patients, the patients say, ‘Hey, wasn’t this the drug that nutcase took before he killed all those people in the theater?’

“The bulk of American media is afraid to go after psychiatric drugs as a cause of violence. This fear stems, in part, from the sure knowledge that expert attack dogs are waiting in the wings, funded by big-time pharmaceutical companies.

For much more on the tight connections between the unique American epidemic of school shootings among our over-drugged (and over-vaccinated) males and their psychiatric drugs, go to Rappoport’s “The School Shooting White Paper” at or my column on the issue at: Also go to for a sobering list of >5000 reports of irrational behaviors among people who were taking SSRIs.

Prescription Drugs and Iatrogenic Violence

“Prescription Drugs Associated with Reports of Violence Toward Others” is the title of a study that was published in 2010 in the Public Library of Science ONE.

The breakthrough study named sertraline and clonazepam as two of a group of drugs closely linked to violence, aggression, physical assaults, physical abuse and homicidality (homicidal ideation and homicidal actions). Dr Fenton probably didn’t read it, nor, in her defense, did many of her colleagues in the industry. If any of them did see the paper, most of them may have deferred to the opinion of their trade organization, the American Psychiatric Association that would likely discredit it.

The authors of the study (Thomas J. Moore, Curt D. Furbert, and Joseph Glenmullen [author of “Prozac Backlash”]) reviewed nearly 2000 cases of violent adverse drug effects that had been reported to the FDA from 2004-09. They found that 31 commonly prescribed drugs, including sertraline and clonazepam, accounted for 79% of all reported cases of violence.

Twenty of the violence-inducing drugs were psychiatric drugs (11 so-called antidepressants (including sertraline), 6 sedative/hypnotics (including clonazepam), and 3 drugs for so-called ADHD). (See my Duty to Warn column on the subject, which includes a ranking of the 31 culprits at

The authors concluded, “These data provide new evidence that acts of violence towards others are a genuine and serious adverse drug event that is associated with a relatively small group of drugs.” If Dr Fenton and Mr Holmes – and perhaps James’s parents – had been aware of this peer-reviewed study, there may have been no Batman Shooting. We need to find out why this study was not widely circulated, why was it suppressed and who did the suppressing?

In 2007, Health Canada, the Canadian drug regulatory authority issued a warning on clonazepam. The agency warned that clonazepam (nearly identical in molecular structure as the notoriously addictive Valium) can make addicts of patients within weeks or months of its use. The agency emphasized that the benzodiazepine drug’s “adverse” effects included hallucinations, delusional thinking, confusion, loss of memory, and depression, all symptoms that James Holmes suffered from.

Dr Fenton and her colleagues probably missed (or ignored) this warning as well, but so did Holmes, his parents, his lawyers, the psychiatric “experts” and all of the journalists covering the trial.

Of course, many other international agencies have issued warnings about psychiatric drug-induced mania, psychosis, aggression, violence, homicidality, suicidality, etc, notably those agencies in the United States, the European Union, Japan, United Kingdom, Australia and Canada. The information is usually ignored by busy or inattentive medical professionals (who may NOT want to know about such unwelcome truths, which then fails to be forwarded to their drug-consuming patients. Big Pharma, with the help of the corporate-controlled media and the medical and psychiatric industries, sees to it that such information stays submerged.

Join me in mourning the totally preventable tragedy of the Aurora mass murder and the loss of a once-brilliant neuroscience student who got tied up in an unforgiving psychiatric system, whose brain was severely disabled by legal neurotoxic drugs and who is now unjustifiably the most hated man in America. And please join the efforts to save James Holmes’s life by forwarding this information widely, especially to ethical lawyers and healthcare journalists who might send it to responsible persons involved in the case.

Dr Kohls is a retired physician who practiced holistic mental health care for the last decade of his career. He writes a weekly column for the Reader Weekly, an alternative newsweekly published in Duluth, Minnesota, USA. Many of Dr Kohls’ columns are archived at

Edelman PR And GSK..



It’s quite amazing how big pharmaceutical companies like GSK use their PR (Propaganda) machines. GSK spends tens of millions every year trying to spin stories, create positive buzz out of negative headlines, twist fallacies into facts, influence the narratives around their company’s reputation, and basically pull the wool over everyone’s eyes in the process.

Edelman is but one part of GSK’s vast PR armory, and it seems that Edelman were viewing my blog earlier. Therefore, I just wanted to say hello Edelman, how does it feel to do the propaganda work for one of the most corrupt corporations on the planet? How does it feel to know that GSK has harmed tens of thousands of consumers with dodgy drugs like Seroxat and Avanida, including kids, babies and the unborn? Does Edelman have ethical standards, or do they just gladly take a fat cheque and say screw it to ethics, morals and humanity?

The 3 Billion dollar complaint which GSK settled with the the department of justice in 2012 contained some of the most devious, unscrupulous acts that I have ever read about. Or as Ben Goldacre would say, GSK were ‘rather badly behaved”.. yes in the sense that they possibly committed corporate manslaughter on a number of occasions. GSK went beyond bad behavior, way beyond it. We’re talking about smashing ethics into smithereens, literally every ethical breech you can imagine occurred in GSK’s insatiable appetite for profit, and this went on for decades. Nevertheless, Edelman, (in this article from 2012) sees nothing but the optics of this sinister settlement, they perceive angles that they can spin positively for GSK.

Seriously… .Do the Edelman execs sit down with work like this and say stuff like: “How can we make dead babies from Paxil look like a positive thing?”, “How can we make a criminal fine for GSK look like it’s doing good for humanity?” or “how do we make the biggest healthcare fraud/corporate manslaughter allegations in US history look like GSK are doing the right thing?”

Edelman, and the spin doctors who work for them, and  everyone else on the GSK payroll (doctors, lawyers, execs), should be utterly ashamed of themselves.

They’ve all got blood money, and they’ve all got blood on their hands..

By owning-up, admitting it had done wrong and saying sorry, GSK has been seen to do the right thing.

Big Pharma Needs to Remember What It’s Mother Told It


Published November 6, 2012

In July this year GSK hit the headlines when the company agreed to pay $3 billion in fines and plead guilty to federal charges of illegally promoting off-label use of antidepressants and various other outstanding charges. Media coverage focused on the historic size of the fine but also found room to highlight some of the company’s excessive marketing practices (weekend “conferences” in lavish luxury resorts).

Now, you might think that this was a PR disaster for the company but in fact, it may yet prove to be quite the reverse. By settling a number of outstanding cases in one fell swoop, GSK avoids the constant drip-drip-drip of negative coverage which companies like Merck & Co have experienced with similar types of court case in the U.S. By being completely transparent and laying out all the wrong-doing of the past decades, GSK will not have to worry about new revelations damaging its reputation in the future.

By owning-up, admitting it had done wrong and saying sorry, GSK has been seen to do the right thing. It has drawn a line in the sand to put the errors of previous years firmly in the past. It’s acted decisively, swiftly and honestly. An editorial in The Times lauded the company for this and suggested that the beleaguered banks could learn a thing or two from GSK and might benefit from a similarly human and transparent approach.

It’s all too rare for big pharma to be quoted as an example to other industries in terms of ethical and moral behaviour and kudos are due to the senior management of GSK for taking this decision.

*Edelman works for certain GSK products in some parts of the world.

Carolyn Paul is the global mangaing director and European practice chair, Health. She is approaching her 13th (unlucky for some) anniversary at the firm and you can follow her on twitter if you can find her. 

Transparency Is Still A Problem As Big Pharma Struggles With Its Image

“Reputation, built on our past, shapes our present and future. A good reputation can open many doors; a bad reputation can close many more. A good reputation generates respect. A bad reputation breeds suspicion.”

Those are not the words of a business consultant or from a television talk show host like Dr. Phil. They are from Ian Read, the CEO of one of the world’s biggest companies, Pfizer PFE -0.7%. In a compelling article that he wrote on February 19th entitled “You Gain Respect in Drops, But Can Lose It in Gallons,” Read correctly talks about the importance of a company’s reputation, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry. But the industry continually stumbles in its efforts. Just last week, Takeda announced that it agreed to pay $2.4 billion in fines to settle lawsuits related to its diabetes drug, Actos. As outlined by Andrew Pollack in the New York Times, this is not a rare event in this industry. Pollack went on to list other large settlements such as the those against Wyeth for the fen-phen diet pills and Merck for Vioxx ($4.85 billion). These type of headlines are definitely in Read’s gallon category.

The industry also suffers from transparency issues on a variety of fronts such as the publication of clinical trial data, hiding or minimization of drug side-effects, and payments to physicians. In terms of the latter, the biopharmaceutical industry has been making progress. Partly due to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and partly due to their own initiative, companies have begun to make public the payments that they make to doctors. Before the enactment of the ACA, people could go onto the websites of Pfizer, Lilly , and GSK and see all the payments that are being made to doctors and institutions for the work they undertake for these companies. The advent of the ACA has now made it mandatory for all companies to do this via “Open Payment” databases. There was some trepidation as to the potential negative impact that such openness would create. However, as these data rolled out, it became clear that the vast majority of payments to physicians, roughly 80%, are for the discovery and development of new medicines. All payments to doctors are now available, not just for R&D but also those for meals, speaking fees, and consulting. Such transparency did result in concerns voiced by some, including those who believe that physicians should not receive ANY payments from biopharmaceutical companies as these exert undue influence on prescribing practices. However, on balance this transparency eliminated the “behind the curtain” view of company payments to doctors. With the majority of payments being made for critical clinical work, critics have to acknowledge that such payments are indeed justified.

However, as reported last week by the Wall Street Journal’s Ed Silverman, the biopharmaceutical industry seems to be regressing on this issue. In Australia, regulators have approved new rules that require biopharmaceutical companies to disclose all payments made to doctors for speaking and consulting, as well as for travel. However, excluded from the reporting requirements are all payments made for food or beverages given to doctors. The reason given is that ongoing reporting would impose a significant administrative burden on companies. That sort of rationale rings pretty hollow when these payments are routinely reported in the U.S. How can this be an administrative burden in Australia when a system is already in place in a far bigger country? Excluding these payments from reporting practices only serves to breed suspicion.

There is also pushback on aspects of financial disclosure now mandated by the ACA specifically with respect to payments for Continuing Medical Education (CME). These are events designed for doctors to get the latest information about drugs. As again reported by Silverman, Congress now has a draft of the 21st Century Cures bill, designed to jump start medical innovation, that includes a provision that that would eliminate CME payment disclosures now required by the ACA. The problem with doing this is that, again, the perception would be created that the biopharmaceutical industry is hiding these data as these types of events are a way for companies to influence the prescribing habits of the doctors who attend.

So, here’s a suggestion for the biopharmaceutical industry. The trade organizations representing these firms – the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) and the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) – should each issue statements that their members do not agree with the Australian payment position on meals, nor do they agree with creating an ACA exemption for CME payments. Instead, member companies of these organizations will make ALL payments to doctors available in Australia as is done in the U.S. and will NOT support a CME payment exemption in the current form of the 21st Century Cures bill now in the House of Representatives. Will such actions make major headlines? Probably not. But as Ian Read said, “You gain respect in drops”. A few drops would be helpful alleviating the drought suffered in pharma’s reputation.

We Cannot Condone The Poisoning of the Masses for Big Pharmaceutical Profit

“We cannot condone the poisoning of the masses for big pharmaceutical profit”


SEATTLE, December 29, 2012 – There are prescription drugs that are unnecessary, highly addictive, have dangerous side effects, and flat-out kill people. There are drugs for every subjective complaint and for the newly invented subjective complaints.

There are drugs being prescribed that have been proven to cause ill-health and death. People are taking drugs for systemic conditions like pain and inflammation with only a subjective diagnosis.

Then there are the mood altering prescribed medications.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) published by the American Psychiatric Association, is the official manual listing psychiatric disorders. But many times by perceiving ordinary life experiences as certifiable mental illness, the patient becomes treatable by psychotropic drugs and billable through insurance companies. (Friedman, NEJM, May 17, 2012).

“In nearly 50 years of prescribing anti-depressants the results are all to frequently the same – drug addiction, mental impairment, irrational and violent behavior, panic attacks, suicide, and death.” – IMS Health National Prescription Audit PLUS.

Pharmaceutical companies sell more than $16 billion in anti-psychotic drugs every year.

Many of these anti-psychotic drugs are Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRI’s). These drugs prevent the body from breaking down Serotonin. This notion came about from initially believing that depression was caused by too little of the neurotransmitter serotonin. At first this helped and many people who were suffering from stress, insomnia, and mild depression began taking serotonin-enhancing drugs like Prozac, Paxil, and Zoloft. Extensive research demonstrates that serotonin enhancement for depression is erroneous.

A 2010 study in Journal of American Medical Association found that anti-depressants are basically useless for the vast majority of people who take them. While researchers found no significant difference between anti-depressants drugs and placebos they find extreme differences in side effects.

Here are some facts found by research about SSRI’s:

  • People who use Prozac and other SSRI drugs are five times as likely to commit suicide than if they took no medication at all.
  •  Women who take these drugs are more than 7 times as likely to develop breast cancer.
  •  These drugs can cause helplessness, apathy, aggression, and sedation.
  • They can worsen Parkinson’s Disease.
  • Serotonin elevating drugs are prescribed for stress related emotional conditions, yet the evidence is that serotonin is already too high in people suffering from emotional stress. This is because stress liberates free fatty acids from storage, which, in turn, increases the uptake of tryptophan into the brain, increasing the formation of serotonin.
  • Serotonin is like estrogen in its association with aggression. A record of violence has clearly been associated with above average blood serotonin levels. Note that darkness stimulates both aggression and eating.

SSRIs raise not only serotonin levels they also increase the activity of epinephrine and norepinepherine. These are neuro-active substances that are part of the catecholamine family; adrenal function in the response to stress. They are important in normal biochemistry and neurotransmitter functions.

Paranoia, hallucinations, and violent behavior are hallmark side effects of SSRI’s. The Citizens Commission on Human Rights testified before the FDA in 1991 that psychotropic drugs are a contributing cause of adverse and dangerous mental instability, sometimes causing victims to commit suicide and/or murder.

Read more:
Follow us: @wtcommunities on Twitter


New Seroxat Videos on YouTube

There’s a ton of new Seroxat related videos on Youtube, some of them seem very good indeed, they seem to be a mix of piss take and seriousness and they are well worth a look, here’s a sample of a few of them and you can check out this new seroxat channel here: (new Seroxat related youtube channel – 22 in total)


the ecosystem approach to obgyn

My Life in my 60's

Finding joy in my 60's

The Vile Mint

Poetry, Short Stories and Violent Ideas



Rebel City Writers

A radical perspective on local, national and international issues from the pens of a few disgruntled agitators!

Critical Dispatches

Reports from my somewhat unusual life

~ L to the Aura ~

sustainability. compassion. inspiration.

Heroes Not Zombies

becoming not being.......

DES Daughter Network

Because Social Media increases Awareness and brings the DES Community Together

recovery network: Toronto

people can and do recover from what is sometimes called "mental illness"

Deidra Alexander's Blog

I have people to kill, lives to ruin, plagues to bring, and worlds to destroy. I am not the Angel of Death. I'm a fiction writer.

%d bloggers like this: