Puzzle head
24 Apr

Is there An Antidepressant / Autism Link?

Puzzle headA new study shows a connection between women who take antidepressants in the last 6 months of pregnancy and an increase of children born with autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

JAMA (The Journal of the American Medical Association) Pediatrics concluded that “Use of antidepressants, specifically selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors [SSRIs], during the second and/or third trimester increases the risk of ASD in children, even after considering maternal depression. Further research is needed to specifically assess the risk of ASD associated with antidepressant types and dosages during pregnancy.”

The authors of this article, despite their own research study yet assert that the risk of ASD is controversial, and can include genetic predispositions and environmental risk factors.

In other words, because a psychiatrist is unable to evaluate the devastating evidence of his own study, many children will face a lifetime of autism. Their “further research” involves experimenting with the lives of children who have no voice in the matter.

Unborn children are not lab rats, and psychiatrists have no right to hide their findings behind psychiatric jargon and the need to put more lives at risk to “see” if additional data can be gleaned.

Earlier Study Yielded Similar Results

Another study, from the spring of 2014, found that boys who had autism were 3 times more likely to have been exposed to antidepressants such as Celexa, Zoloft, Paxil, Prozac and Lexapro while in the womb.

Li-Ching Lee is a scientist in the department of epidemiology at John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore.  He asserts “We found prenatal SSRI exposure was almost three times as likely in boys with autism spectrum disorders relative to typical development, with the greatest risk when exposure is during the first trimester.”

However, authors of this study were careful to point out that “there are risks to both the mother and the fetus from untreated depression.”

Whistleblower Psychiatrist Warns Against Antidepressant Use In Pregnancy

Here is what psychiatrist Peter Breggin has to say about the supposed “risks” of untreated depression during pregnancy versus the possible physical and mental damage to the unborn child.

“Drug advocates, including the CDC, justify the use of SSRIs during pregnancy on the basis that depression has its own hazards. But these hazards pale in comparison to the upheaval that will befall new mothers, fathers and the extended families of the children who are born with profound birth defects.

“The worst hazards of depression in pregnancy are those of suicidality and, very rarely, infanticide. But the SSRIs are implicated in increasing the risks of both suicide and violence … In fact, the new FDA labels for antidepressants specifically warn about SSRI-induced suicidality in youth and in young adults, the very group most likely to become pregnant … Now we know that the SSRIs not only threaten to cause the death of the mother through suicide but the death of the child as well through lethal birth defects.”

With self-education, a pregnant mother can find alternatives to taking psychiatric drugs during the crucial months of her baby’s development. There is much data on handling depression with nutrition, rather than drugs or other psychiatric treatments. A bit of research can result in a wealth of useful information that can increase the peace of mind of parents-to-be.


Read More
sad child
24 Apr

Dangerous Trend: Antidepressant Use In Children Soaring

sad childThe number of children prescribed antidepressants is on a steep upward trend.

In 2004 there was a fall in the use of these drugs after warnings of suicidal risk. But between 2005 and 2012, the increase shot up by more than fifty percent in the UK alone. The same study showed substantial rises worldwide; in the US there was a 26% increase, and there has been no indication of a slowdown in prescribing these drugs to kids in the ensuing four years.

The World Health Organization’s Director of Mental Health, Dr. Shekhar Saxena, is troubled by the trend. He states, “Anti-depressant use amongst young people is and has been a matter of concern because of two reasons. One, are more people being prescribed anti-depressants without sufficient reason? And second, can anti-depressants do any major harm?”

In answer to Dr. Saxena’s first question; unfortunately, the “sufficient reason” is left up to the prescribing psychiatrist or MD based on ailments listed alphabetically in a heavy tome known as the DSM. This “Bible” of the psychiatric profession is loaded with disorders voted into reality by nothing but a show of hands.

One does not have to search far and wide to answer Dr. Saxena’s second question, “Can anti-depressants do any major harm?”

Prozac, the only antidepressant approved by the FDA in treating children, has these common side effects, none of which most people would care to see their children suffer through:

  • Anxious
  • Chronic trouble sleeping
  • Drowsiness
  • Dry Mouth
  • Excessive sweating
  • Feeling like throwing up
  • Head pain
  • Indigestion
  • Involuntary Quivering
  • Loss of Appetite
  • Nervousness
  • Rash
  • Sinus Irritation
  • Throat Irritation
  • Yawning

Here are some less common, but quite severe side effects that could affect a grade school child on Prozac:

  • Chills
  • Hives
  • Trouble Breathing
  • Abnormal Dreams
  • Abnormal Heart Rhythm
  • Chest Pain
  • Confused
  • Cough
  • Excessive Thirst
  • Fast Heartbeat
  • Feeling Restless
  • Fever
  • Flu-Like Symptoms
  • Frequent Urination
  • Gas
  • Hair Loss
  • Heart Throbbing or Pounding
  • Hyperactive Behavior
  • Incomplete or Infrequent Bowel Movements
  • Itching
  • Joint Pain
  • Problems with Eyesight
  • Ringing in the Ears
  • Stomach Cramps
  • Taste Problems
  • Weight Loss
  • Widening of Blood Vessels

The rare, but obviously still occurring side effects include:

  • Abnormal liver function
  • Bleeding of the stomach, intestine or uterus
  • Spasm of the larynx
  • Giant Hives
  • Suicidal thoughts
  • Hepatitis
  • Life-threatening allergic reaction
  • Mild degree of mania
  • Very rapid heartbeat
  • Teeth grinding
  • Loss of memory
  • Loss of one’s own sense of reality or identity
  • Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome (characterized by fever, muscular rigidity, altered mental status, and autonomic dysfunction; this would include a dysfunction of breathing, heartbeat and digestion)

Some of these side effects are life threatening. All of them are obvious signals that Prozac is nothing but a poison. Yet the FDA has approved it for use on children as young as eight years old. Even more disturbing is the increase in the prescribing of Prozac for children aged two and younger, which has risen 23 percent in just one year.

You read that right, there are now 83,000 babies on Prozac.

One marvels how far we have slipped into justifying irreversible psychiatric damage to our children. Fortunately, there is still time to do something against this erosion of our future and stop the downward spiral of innocent children’s lives.


Read More
Officials stand by the University Loop and Aggie Road intersection Thursday, Dec. 10, 2015, at the Arkansas State University campus in Jonesboro, Ark. An armed man who had posted on Facebook that he was homicidal drove onto the campus Thursday, sparking a lockdown before police took him into custody, university and police officials said. (Staci Vandagriff/The Jonesboro Sun via AP) MANDATORY CREDIT
17 Apr

Mass Shooting Incident Averted

Officials stand by the University Loop and Aggie Road intersection Thursday, Dec. 10, 2015, at the Arkansas State University campus in Jonesboro, Ark. An armed man who had posted on Facebook that he was homicidal drove onto the campus Thursday, sparking a lockdown before police took him into custody, university and police officials said. (Staci Vandagriff/The Jonesboro Sun via AP) MANDATORY CREDIT

Officials stand by the University Loop and Aggie Road intersection Thursday, Dec. 10, 2015, at the Arkansas State University campus in Jonesboro, Ark. An armed man who had posted on Facebook that he was homicidal drove onto the campus Thursday, sparking a lockdown before police took him into custody, university and police officials said. (Staci Vandagriff/The Jonesboro Sun via AP) MANDATORY CREDIT

Brad Kenneth Bartelt, charged recently with “aggravated assault, terroristic threatening, possession of explosive material and carrying a firearm in a publicly owned facility” was also, according to himself, taking psychiatric and pain medication.

The 47 year old man, in possession of a 12-gauge shotgun, drove onto the Arkansas State University campus with containers of gasoline and propane. He called 911, informing the dispatcher that he was on the campus and had a gun, with which he threatened to shoot the tank of propane.

The incident caused a campus lockdown. Afterwards, Bartelt admitted his original purpose was to shoot other people, but thankfully he “changed his mind” and planned on suicide instead.

He was arrested before he killed himself.

What ties this man to other potential or actual homicidal incidents in the past several years is his stated involvement with psychiatric drugs.

After his arrest, Bartelt said he had been “seeing demons” in the woods around his home, and attempted to photograph them.

In a recent Facebook post, Bartelt stated he was feeling homicidal and suicidal.

Apparently this man was upset over an injury he suffered in 2012 that happened while he was training to drive an 18-wheeler at the Newport Campus of Arkansas State, 45 miles from where the incident occurred.

Although Bartelt did not harm anyone this time, the fact that he is to be “evaluated mentally” while under arrest does not bode well. The modus operandi of modern psychiatry is treatment using drugs with possible suicidal and homicidal side effects, and his potential release back into society with a “new prescription” for a psychiatric drug is something to be concerned about.

Prisoners Treated with Psychiatric Drugs 

Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) data in 2014, the USA’s largest prisons system spent over $36.5 million on psychotropic drugs going back to 2010. About 10% of all inmates receive medications for psychiatric disorders including depression, bipolar disorder and acute schizophrenia.

The total of federal inmates on psychotropic drugs was around 20,000 last year.

In 2006, a Justice Department analysis asserted that 45% of federal inmates had a mental health problem.

On The Medical Whistleblower Advocacy Network site, a site defending human rights according to various UN Legal instruments, the following information was given regarding the overuse of psychiatric drugs.

“Psychiatric medications frequently cause severe side effects, some of which can be irreversible and for other patients these psychotropic medications fail to help patients…”

The site goes on to explain how one side effect, akinesia, “is typified by drowsiness and the need to sleep a great deal.  This effect is appreciated by those wishing to chemically restrain patients and prevent their moving around or demanding care in the middle of the night.  But this allows caretakers to ignore patient’s problems and use ever increasing amounts of drugs to achieve the desired ends.  This is not treatment of the underlying disease but instead forced drugging for the convenience of the caretakers.  In addition, polypharmacy, which is the prescribing for a single person of more than one drug of the same chemical class (such as antipsychotics), is widely practiced despite little empirical support, and can result in serious adverse reactions and intensified side effects and can lead to early death.”

With psychiatrists holding the reigns of authority on who in the prison population is mentally ill (despite having no actual cures for mental illness) the treatment of those unfortunately designated as mentally ill is not likely to change anytime soon.

Without question, dosing a criminal with psychiatric drugs that have severely negative health, suicidal or homicidal side effects is not only cruel, it is extremely dangerous.


Read More
17 Apr

Psychiatrists Say Being Neurotic is Great – Now You’re a Creative Genius!

LobotomyPsychiatrists like to promote the idea that we’re all capable of going crazy and displaying psychotic behavior out of the blue.

While admitting they have no idea what causes all the invented disorders of the brain and mind they have created over the years, they are champions of “early detection” and preventative drugging with any and every mind bending chemical they can get the FDA to approve.

Since most people are not crazy and never will be, there is a tendency to reject, and rightly so, the idea that such psychiatric theories have anything to do with them.

So, our mental health condition is now being presented in a more acceptable way – psychologists are reporting it’s great to be a neurotic!

Adam M. Perkins, from the Department of Psychological Medicine, King’s College London was the lead author in an opinion piece that appeared in Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

The authors are funded by the National Institute for Health Research Mental Health Biomedical Research Centre, the NHS Foundation Trust, the Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London, and the Academy of Medical Sciences.

Their work made it across the pond and appeared in The L.A. Times and other news and science media in the US.

Perkins’ title was “Thinking too much: self-generated thought as the engine of neuroticism”.

Neuroticism is defined as a fundamental personality trait in the study of psychology characterized by anxiety, fear, moodiness, worry, envy, frustration, jealousy, and loneliness.

Neurosis is one of five basic personality traits that modern psychology uses to label the basic dimensions of personality. The others are agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness and extraversion (sometimes called extroversion).

Since neuroticism looks like the bad apple in the lot and the least desirable label to receive, clever minds have found a way to put a positive spin on being neurotic.

The L.A. Times article title reads “Neurotic? Here’s the silver lining”.

The Daily Mail from the UK wrote “Are you a worrier? Chances are you’re a GENIUS: Neurotic people are more likely to be imaginative and creative”.

The Seattle Times title was “Neurotics have something to feel good about”.

Creative people are neurotic , so it’s now cool to be neurotic. Which means it’s cool to be filled with anxiety, worry and anti-depressants. You just might become an artist or invent something.

How did Perkins and his team arrive at such a false conclusion?

Perkins starts out by arguing that there is a part of the brain responsible for self-generated thoughts. And that this part of the brain is highly active in neuroticism yielding both creativity and neurotic unhappiness.

Perkins mentions the most popular explanation for why people are neurotic came from British psychologist Jeffrey Gray, who proposed in the 1970s that neurotics have a heightened sensitivity to threat. Gray reached this conclusion after observing how antianxiety drugs reduced the sensitivity of rodents to cues of punishment and also helped to relax and liven up psychiatric patients.

So, giving psychiatric drugs to rats and psych ward patients caused both groups to put their heads in the sand and cease observing any survival threats in their environment and stop worrying about it.

Then Perkins got wind of psychologist Jonathan Smallwood at York University who was using MRIs to try and find the part of the brain that got active during times of negative thoughts. Next Perking found Dean Mobbs of the Columbia University Fear, Anxiety, and Biosocial Lab, also studying brain activity. Mobbs had shown that there is a switch from anxiety-related fore-brain activity to panic-related mid-brain activity as a threat stimulus moves closer. After digesting Mobbs previous work, Perkins said “This could mean that for specific neural reasons, high scorers on neuroticism have a highly active imagination, which acts as a built-in threat generator.”

The fourth and final member of the team was Danilo Arnone, a psychiatrist who felt this new model for Neuroticism might explain why patients with depression compulsively focus their attention on the symptoms of their distress, and on its possible causes and consequences, as opposed to its solutions.

The illustration for their article shows how psychologists attempt to measure brain changes caused when a threat stimulus, in this case a spider, approaches closer and closer to the test subject. At what distance does the spider cause him to “freak out”? That determines his degree of Neuroticism and thus his ability to create art.

A more realistic test might be to measure the subject’s fear reaction at the approach of the psychiatrist.

Perkins admits “We’re still a long way off from fully explaining neuroticism, and we’re not offering all of the answers, but we hope that our new theory will help people make sense of their own experiences, and show that although being highly neurotic is by definition unpleasant, it also has creative benefits”.

The L.A. Times writer tells us “neurosis is, by definition, a fixed and stable personality trait”  parroting the psychiatric idea that you can never really get rid of an unwanted mental or emotional state but must learn to live with it and control it with various drugs for the rest of your life.

That bleak view is the best psychiatry and psychology can offer.


Read More
Anti-psychotics in Juvenile Jails
15 Mar

Baker Acting 7 year-olds

Anti-psychotics in Juvenile JailsFlorida’s mental health law, the Baker Act, gives law enforcement the right to detain someone, restrain them in a police vehicle using force as needed and take them to a designated psychiatric facility. An individual can be detained against their will for up to 72 hours for evaluation.

For a Baker Act form to be signed, the person must be engaging in actions of a serious nature that might be harmful to themselves or others.

But should school children as young as 5, 6 or 7 years old be marched out of their schools, handcuffed, and strapped into a squad car driven by an adult they have never seen before and deposited into a psychiatric clinic to be examined by even more strangers?

Most Florida parents send their grade school kids off in the morning expecting their child will encounter reading, writing and arithmetic and have no idea these provision of the Baker Act even exist and don’t become aware of it until the day it happens to their child.

In January of 2014 a Flagler County father named Chance Hancock visited board members of the Bunnell Elementary School in Bunnell, Florida and spoke to them about an incident in which the school principal threatened to Baker Act his kindergarten-age son.

Mr. Hancock stated, “On Dec. 11, I was contacted by Mr. Dupont, principal of Bunnell Elementary school, that my kindergartner was having a tantrum. On the phone, I was able to talk with my student, my kindergartner, and calm him down. Shortly after the phone was transferred back, he got upset again. Mr. DuPont then told me, if I didn’t get there promptly, he would Baker Act my kindergartner. Of course by the time I got there, my kindergartner was calmed down, had full control of himself.”

The father said that his son never had tantrums at home and the dad was unsuccessful in his attempts to discuss the incident with the school board attorney and district student services.

Mr. Hancock felt strongly that the Baker Acting of children should be banned.

Katrina Townsend, the district’s director of student services, said it is not a principal’s choice to invoke the Baker Act nor should a principal threaten a parent in that manner.

In this case, the father saved the day and his young son was not involuntarily committed.

But a 7 year old girl was not so lucky.

In February of 2014 this Flagler County child was in class at Belle Terre Elementary school in Palm Coast, Florida.

According to the dean of students at the school, the little girl’s teacher had taken away the girl’s recess because she grabbed something she wanted from another student. Reportedly the girl then struck and kicked the teacher who took her into the dean’s office.

There she was said to have thrown a temper tantrum, disorganizing items in the office and tossing some thumb tacks on the floor. When made to pick them up, the girl apparently stabbed the dean in the knee with a tack causing a small cut.

The girl’s mother said her child had been previously labeled as “bi-polar”. Perhaps the little girl was already on a drug that caused her misbehavior in school.

WebMD, a source many parents check for quick medical advice says, “Diagnosing bipolar disorder in young children is difficult, because many of the symptoms are similar to those of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or conduct disorders — or even just normal, childhood behavior.”

Since there is no objective test to prove someone is “bi-polar” or has “ADHD”, psychiatrists are just guessing in the dark by tossing out these labels.

Psychiatrists also invented “oppositional defiant disorder” – a disorder in a child marked by defiant and disobedient behavior to authority figures. That would cover all other possible school behavior!

Or maybe this little girl was displaying “just normal, childhood behavior”.

Since it’s difficult to really know what’s going on with such a child, drugging her would cover all the possibilities, even though she could be just a normal kid.

Her mom, like many other mothers who have not looked into the real origins of psychiatry and the real effects of their treatments, trusted the system and felt she would be doing the best thing for her daughter by getting the help of a psychiatrist.

The child was Baker Acted right from the school and taken to Halifax Behavioral Service in Daytona Beach.

Katrina Townsend, the director of student services for this school district, apparently believes in the failed system of psychiatric labeling of mental disorders followed by doses of powerful psychoactive drugs.

Townsend said, “Sometimes with the younger students it is difficult to imagine putting them through a Baker Act, but a Baker Act is not a punishment. Our responsibility and our legal responsibility not just our ethical responsibility, is to keep a kid safe.”

So, what is a 7 year old bi-polar child given to keep them safe?

No real studies have been done on what these drugs do to young children.

The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry in their publication “Parents’ Medication Guide for Bipolar Disorder in Children & Adolescents” tells us:

“It is also possible that your child may be treated with a medication that is only FDA approved for adults with bipolar disorder. The evidence that these medications are safe and effective in children and adolescents is more limited than in adults. Prescribing medications for a use or for an age-group other than what they were approved for is called ‘off label’ use.”

Not exactly a reassuring message.

This brochure goes on to list Risperdal, Seroquel, Abilify, Lithium, and Zyprexa as some of the drugs your 5 to 7 year old might be given. Possible known side effects for these drugs include:

  • Weight Gain
  • Vomiting
  • Convulsions
  • Uncontrolled jerky movements in arms and legs (tardive dyskinesia or TD)
  • Stupor
  • Seizures
  • Coma
  • Increased risk for Parkinsonian side effects (such as tremor and muscle stiffness)
  • Increased risk for seizures
  • Neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS)-life-threatening reaction to atypical antipsychotic medication requiring immediate medical attention and hospitalization. NMS causes muscular rigidity (typically, “lead pipe” rigidity), body temperatures over 104 degrees and delirium progressing to lethargy, stupor and coma.

Clearly, Baker Acting young children into psychiatric facilities and onto these drugs does not “keep a kid safe.” and it must be stopped.



Read More
14 Mar

Brain Damage Caused By ECT

ECTElectroconvulsive therapy, or ECT, “works” by creating an intense seizure or convulsion in the patient. This assault on the brain causes a temporary coma and flat-lining of brain waves, which is a sign of impending brain death.

After several (or only one) of these treatments, the patient experiences headaches, nausea, loss of memory, disorientation and emotional instability, and other symptoms. These are typical signs of the severe head trauma and injury that electroconvulsive therapy causes.

Lasting Brain Damage

Psychiatrist Peter Breggin states in no uncertain terms that, “The purpose of ECT is to cause an intense seizure or convulsion. The process always damages the brain and causes mental dysfunction.”

The “proof” (according to psychiatry) that ECT works is the discovery of new cell growth in the brain after ECT treatment. According to Dr. Breggin, this does nothing but confirm that brain injury has occurred. This cell growth is known as neurogenesis and is something also seen in Traumatic Brain Injury.

There have even been animal experiments proving that ECT causes cell death and hemorrhages throughout the brain.

But even without experiments and clinical trials, common sense and concern for one’s fellow man (and woman) should be enough to end this psychiatric torture.

American Psychiatrists Sold on Brain Damage as Mental Therapy

ECT was first introduced to America in a 1941 paper by Dr. Walter Freeman entitled Brain-Damaging Therapeutics. In it he states “The greater the damage, the more likely the remission of psychotic symptoms . . . Maybe it will be shown that a mentally ill patient can think more clearly and more constructively with less brain in operation.”

One of his peers, United States psychiatrist Dr. J Stainbrook, concurs with Freeman’s nonsense, taking it a step further. In 1942 Stainbrook wrote: “[It] may be true that these people have . . . more intelligence than they can handle and that the reduction in intelligence is an important factor in the curative process . . . Some of the best cures one gets are in those individuals who one reduces almost to amentia.” (amentia definition: lack of intellectual development; imbecility; severe mental retardation)

Apparently a docile, manageable (if completely apathetic) patient is the desired result. In this case, one must concur that ECT is a roaring success.

Psychiatrists Mistake Brain Damage “Euphoria” for a Cure

A seizure can cause a surge of “well-being” neurotransmitters and hormones, writes Dr. Michael Corry, psychiatrist, in The Irish Times. It is this physical reaction that can temporarily mask mental disorders immediately after the administration of ECT.

This euphoria is seen after any head injury or physical trauma. It has even been observed after prolonged labor.

Psychiatrists, chronically unable to apply the Scientific Method, see this euphoria as a psychiatric “cure”. This skewed reasoning encourages them to administer ECT on a continuing basis, especially in elderly patients.

Medical doctors have long agreed that seizures are damaging to the brain, and every effort is directed towards preventing them. The only “doctor” who administers and deliberately causes seizures in patients is the psychiatrist.

Why Psychiatrists Continue to Administer ECT

Although psychiatric whistle blowers do exist, there are still close to 100,000 people a year who receive ECT treatment, mostly in psychiatric hospitals and psychiatric units.

Since so many have been damaged by ECT, the profession of psychiatry is loathe to admit their failure with this barbaric “treatment”. After all, admission of damage through ECT could leave them open to extensive litigation.

The Irish Times writer Dr. Corry states psychiatry’s dilemma clearly:

“The magnitude of their error is too great and the consequences so enormous and far-reaching that most find it impossible to admit they may be wrong.”

It is up to the citizens of our country and the world to bring psychiatrists to justice, and to prevent the continuing damage they inflict on men, women and even children.


Read More
06 Mar

The Baker Acting of Children – A Florida Tragedy

ChildWhat’s it really like for a kid in Florida when he or she gets Baker Acted? How about their parents?

These stories are hard to imagine but they actually occur.

A little girl named Lee, age 8, began to show some difficult behavior at home and her mother spent a lot of time researching child disorders and methods to handle them. Finally, her parents sought professional help believing in good faith that the physicians involved knew their field and were experts in diagnosis of mental disorders and knew exactly what drugs would successfully relieve their daughter’s symptoms.

Lee was diagnosed with “bipolar disorder” and given Seroquel and Risperdal – heavy duty drugs originally created for adult psychotics. Some months later, when Lee showed an obsessive fear of germs, the doctor added Paxil to the mix.

Her mother soon observed increased aggression in the little girl. The psychiatrist assured the mom this was an acceptable side-effect and not to worry.

Though still trusting the doctors, her parents began to be concerned.

Lee’s father said “We felt like she was a guinea pig” because the doctor tried one drug after another. Her dad then added, “But it seems like that’s the only way of finding out what works.”

How true that is!

Psychiatrists are just experimenting on young children by trying this and that in various dosages and combinations hoping some mix will calm down the behavior deemed unacceptable at school.

While her Paxil dose was being fiddled with, Lee’s hostility and aggression grew. She stomped around, kicking at walls, saying repeatedly she wanted to kill herself.

One day she grabbed a knife and threatened her younger sister. Her parents took her to Community Hospital of New Port Richey, and she was sent along to the crisis center at Morton Plant Hospital in Clearwater.

The hospital said her Paxil dose was too low! (a Paxil deficiency!?)

On the way home she threw a fit. They took her back to Morton Plant for more “treatment”. She was fine at home for a few hours and then told her parents she wanted to electrocute herself that night.

So, her parents tried a crisis center in New Port Richey, The Harbor Behavioral Health Care Institute. They were told there was a bed available and waited for a social worker to write a Baker Act order.

During the wait attendants separated Lee from her parents and the little girl sat by herself in her pajamas in a room with an unkempt older man and a teenager in handcuffs.

With the Baker Act form signed, the parents discovered this unit was full and the staff offered to send Lee back to Morton Plant. Her parents were leery of sending her back there and Lee ended up at a crisis center in Tampa, run by Mental Health Care Inc.

She was sent home on a new drug – Zoloft.

On her fourth day back, she tried to run away from home. Her family took her back to the hospital and Lee jumped out of the van and ran. “Emergency workers cornered her behind the office and tied her to a gurney. She screamed and thrashed the whole way to the Community Hospital emergency room and screamed throughout the afternoon as nurses tried to sedate her. They finally succeeded by giving her a shot of Thorazine.”

This all happened to an eight year old little girl.

Lee was aware that the correct action when facing psychiatric treatment was to run for her life!

Her parents refused a transfer to Morton Plant and Lee got a bed at a crisis center run by Coastal Behavioral Health Care in Sarasota. There a doctor actually took a special interest in Lee. He kept her for 10 days in the facility and made sure she stopped taking the psychiatric drugs.

Not taking the drugs was the only treatment Lee had ever responded to and she was able to go home. Her father stated, “She’s in a much better place, mentally. She has some peace and stability, which was all we wanted in the first place.”

Massachusetts psychiatrist Michael Jellinek, responding to a University of Maryland study citing the sharp rise in psychiatric drug prescriptions to children, said that the findings pointed to a weakness in public and private insurance health plans: they would rather pay for drugs than for costly and time-consuming counseling.

Isn’t talking to a child superior to destroying his or her physical and emotional well-being with mind bending drugs? Unfortunately, psychiatrists routinely prescribe these drugs to thousands of children in office visits and during Baker Act stays in crisis centers.

As we have seen, the drugs themselves can cause new problems leading to additional Baker Act commitments.

It’s time to change the law and stop Baker Acting kids in Florida.



Read More
06 Mar

Psychologists Exposed as Key Players in U.S. Torture Programs

RestraintsThe American Psychological Association states that “Our mission is to advance the creation, communication and application of psychological knowledge to benefit society and improve people’s lives.”

How embarrassing to discover that some former APA presidents and other top psychologists were active advisers to the Pentagon and CIA in the creation of the torture techniques used by the US to interrogate prisoners – techniques that violate international law and all sense of human decency.

Psychologists not only developed the techniques but were actually paid huge sums of money to personally oversee the application of them to prisoners.

The APA’s Ethics Director, Stephen Behnke, coordinated the group’s public policy statements on interrogations with a top military psychologist and received a Pentagon contract to help train interrogators.

He and other APA officials sought favor with Pentagon officials by keeping the association’s ethics policies in line with the Defense Department’s interrogation policies. They did not want to hinder the ability of psychologists to remain involved with the military interrogation program. His ethics office “prioritized the protection of psychologists – even those who might have engaged in unethical behavior – above the protection of the public.”

The CIA asked Mel Gravitz, a prominent outside psychologist, and a member of the CIA’s advisory committee, whether it was ethical for psychologists to continue to participate in the CIA’s interrogations. Gravitz justified it this way “the psychologist has an obligation to (a) group of individuals, such as the nation,” and that the ethics code “must be flexible [sic] applied to the circumstances at hand.”

So much for APA ethics!

The New York Times published a series of articles on the topic including publishing a 542-page report that was the result of a seven-month investigation led by David Hoffman, a Chicago lawyer with the firm Sidley Austin. The APA requested this independent investigation and immediately issued the following “apology” once the report was published.

“The actions, policies and lack of independence from government influence described in the Hoffman report represented a failure to live up to our core values,” Nadine Kaslow, a former president of the organization, said in a statement. “We profoundly regret and apologize for the behavior and the consequences that ensued.”

Of course there is more to the story, including the fact that torture still continues and psychologists are still involved.

Psychologists’ Role in the Post – Sept. 11 U.S. Interrogation Program

A psychologist named Dr. Martin E. P. Seligman had discovered in the 1960s that dogs that learned they could do nothing to avoid small electric shocks would become listless and simply whine and endure the shocks even after being given a chance to escape. He called this “learned helplessness.”

In December 2001, small group of professors, law enforcement and intelligence officers met at his home to discuss Muslim extremism. Among them was psychologist Dr. Jim Mitchell, who expressed great admiration and praise to Dr. Seligman on his work and writings on “learned helplessness”. Dr. Seligman later said he was “grieved and horrified” to learn that Mitchell admired “learned helplessness” as the key concept behind brutal interrogation techniques.

Dr. Mitchell had been working in an Air Force program called SERE (Survival, Evasion, Rescue and Escape) which included simulated torture of US military personnel to prepare them for possible capture.

In 2002 Former APA president Joseph Matarazzo worked with Dr. Mitchell and Dr. Bruce Jessen, another SERE psychologist, to design a new CIA interrogation regimen, much of it based on techniques employed by Chinese Communist torturers. Mitchell and Jessen had never done real interrogations, had no language skills to do it and no expertise about Al Qaeda. But they were interested in torture.

These psychologists formed a private corporation and the CIA hired them to develop techniques, run the program and ultimately to apply torture to prisoners. Their total corporate pay was to be $181 million dollars! Their company received $81 million before their contract was cancelled in 2009.

Psychology Approved Techniques to Create “Learned Helplessness”

What techniques did they dream up? They borrowed from their SERE experience with Chinese communist torture methods.

Old APA President Dr. Matarazzo had ruled that sleep deprivation was “not torture.”

Of course, Dr. Matarazzo also owned a piece of the company that was being paid $181 million dollars so he wanted to be sure Mitchell and Jessen would get good interrogation results for the CIA.

After Abu Zubaydah, thought to be #3 in Al Queda, was captured, he voluntarily gave a great deal of information to the military. Then Mitchell and Jessen took over. They ordered Zubaydah stripped naked, exposed to cold and blasted with rock music to prevent sleep. They had him confined to a coffin size box for over 11 days. He spent 29 hours in a smaller box 2.5 feet x 2.5 feet x 21 inches.

They had him water-boarded 83 times before deciding he had nothing else to tell them. (Water boarding involves near drowning of the prisoner and creates convulsions and vomiting.) Toward the end the psychologist would snap his fingers and Zubaydah would walk over to the water-boarding table and climb up ready to receive his treatment.

Psychologists were supposed to be on hand at interrogations to “add value and safeguards” according to APA President Ronald Levant. In actual fact the psychologist participated in the torture and asked the questions.

Interrogation also involved slaps and “wallings” (banging detainees into walls). Sleep deprivation could run up to 180 hours, often forcing the prisoner to stand or hold the body in an unnatural position, sometimes with hands shackled above their heads. Other techniques included giving them rectal feedings instead of meals, use of ice baths, threatening harm to the prisoner’s mother or family, and threats of personal death.

These psychologists were inventing and using interrogation not approved by The Department of Justice or CIA headquarters. Apparently, if you give a psychologist an inch, they’ll take a mile.

Suddenly APA Votes to Ban Psychologists in National Security Interrogations

On August 7th, 2015, the APA voted 156 to 1 to ban any involvement by psychologists in national security interrogations conducted by the US government, even non-coercive interrogations now conducted by the Obama administration.

Sounds good and it’s a step in the right direction, but psychologists will still be involved.

The ban states “psychologists shall not conduct, supervise, be in the presence of, or otherwise assist any national security interrogations for any military or intelligence entities, including private contractors working on their behalf, nor advise on conditions of confinement insofar as these might facilitate such an interrogation.”

But, “psychologists may consult with the government on broad interrogation policy, but may not get involved in any specific interrogation or consult on the specific detention conditions for detainees.” In other words, they can still plan interrogation techniques but they’ll have to let others do the actual dirty work of interrogation.

The ban does not prohibit psychologists from working with the police or prisons in criminal law enforcement interrogations.

Most interrogations of important terrorism suspects now are conducted by the High Value Detainee Interrogation Group, an inter-agency unit led by the FBI that includes CIA and Pentagon personnel. This group also includes psychologists, who both conduct research and consult on effective means of interrogating terrorism suspects, and the Pentagon says psychologists are still assigned at the American military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, where they oversee voluntary interrogations of detainees.

The A.P.A. will be sending a letter to Mr. Obama and other top government officials informing them of the new policy, and requesting that psychologists be removed from Guantánamo Bay and other sites where national security interrogations are conducted.

Meanwhile the APA military psychologists were fuming mad and met separately after the vote to see how they can handle this to still remain on the military payroll.

As far as the APA goes, it said that psychologists could be subject to ethics complaints if they continued to be involved in national security interrogations once the new ethics code is published.

How many psychologists will turn down government millions to avoid an ethics complaint on their APA record? We will have to wait and see.



Read More
Raining Drugs
27 Feb

Psychiatric Child Abuse

Raining DrugsPsychiatrist Peter Breggin asserts the psychiatric drugging of children is nothing but child abuse. He remarks that in the past, abuse of vulnerable members of society was largely justified based on “moral, religious, patriotic or ethnic grounds.” But today’s child abuse by psychiatrists is rationalized on “scientific and medical grounds.”

This abuse is almost completely unacknowledged, according to Dr. Breggin. Yet most of us are grimly aware of an abundance of children diagnosed with ADHD, OCD, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, Bipolar and so on.

And what is the “treatment” for children so labeled? Antidepressants, psychostimulants, tranquilizers, mood stabilizers, and antipsychotics. A large number of kids are given a cocktail of these drugs.

In Florida, foster kids are especially vulnerable. In 2011 a two year investigation concluded that kids in Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oregon and Texas were “prescribed psychotropic drugs at rates 2.7 to 4.5 times higher than other children in Medicaid in 2008.”

Foster kids, of course, are the most vulnerable of all children. Who is standing up for their rights? Possibly parentless and already traumatized, they are subject to the worst abuse of all: psychiatric drugs that destroy what is left of their childhood.

Dr. Breggin makes another compelling point “… convincing children that they have ‘something wrong’ in their heads such as genetically crossed wires or biochemical imbalances is the surest way to rob them of self-esteem, personal responsibility, self-mastery and the hope of an unlimited future. Second, convincing children that they have a psychiatric diagnosis or treating them as if they have one and teaching them to rely on psychiatric drugs is a prescription for their becoming lifelong mental patients.”

Bravo, Dr. Breggin! If only more psychiatrists cared about the lives of the children placed under their care. The only abuse in history approaching the devastation caused by today’s psychiatry would be Hitler’s Germany, where vulnerable people were killed outright, used in medical experiments, tortured or starved to death.

According to Dr. Breggin, and easily backed up by innumerable case histories, all psychiatric drugs have the potential to cause horrendous and deadly side effects. Just a few he mentions are:

  • Chronic depression and stunting of growth (from stimulants)
  • Severe obesity, permanent and disfiguring neurological disorders, diabetes and shortened lifespan (from antipsychotic drugs)

Of course, there are many other “side effects.” The case of Gabriel Myers comes to mind. This seven year old boy hung himself in Florida a few years back, while on a cocktail of psychiatric drugs. And yes, some of them were well known to cause suicidal thoughts in children.

That tragedy made headlines. But there are everyday tragedies throughout our state; the lives of many of our youngest, brightest, most artistic children are being irrevocably damaged by psychiatric drugs.

These children are our future, too. And they have a right to their own lives. Many have said that some of the most brilliant thinkers and artists of the past would have been diagnosed as ADHD or ADD had those labels been invented. What if Albert Einstein, Pablo Picasso or Mark Twain had had their creativity snuffed out by psychiatric drugs?

When a psychiatrist with the credentials of Peter Breggin stands up against his peers, it is time to listen. And when our voices join his in protest against psychiatric abuse, the children of our state and nation will have a future to look forward to.



Read More
Psych Drugs - Follow the Money
27 Feb

Paxil’s Recipe For Success: Fraudulent Study & False Claims

Psych Drugs - Follow the MoneyA report on the drug trial results for the antidepressant drug Paxil (Seroxat in the UK) was published in The Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (JAACAP) in 2001 under the title “Study 329”. The authors of the study stated paroxetine is generally well tolerated and effective for major depression in adolescents.

The report claimed the drug was safe for children and claimed the trial had shown Paxil demonstrates “REMARKABLE Efficacy and Safety” in the treatment of adolescent depression. GlaxoSmithKline marketed the drug heavily and by 2002, more than two million prescriptions for Paxil were written for adolescents and children in the United States, yielding about $55 million in earnings.

But also in 2002, a U.S. Food and Drug Administration reviewer concluded:

“This trial should be considered as a failed trial, in that neither active treatment group showed superiority over placebo by a statistically significant margin.”

In 2004, the FDA added a black-box warning on the drug’s label about the increased risk of suicidal thoughts in teens who take it. Yet nothing was done to halt the growing Paxil sales.

It was later discovered that although Study 329 listed Martin Keller, Professor of Psychiatry at Brown University, and 21 other physicians and researchers as the authors, it had actually been ghost written by a PR firm called Scientific Therapeutics Information (STI) that had been hired by the drug manufacturer. So much for the ethics of these psychiatrists when there was money to be made! The author of Study 329 sold GSK 500 reprints of this article, 300 for Dr. Keller and 200 for GSK’s Paxil Product Management team, that were given out by the company’s neuroscience sales force.

Stories of suicides induced by Paxil began to appear followed by lawsuits and by 2012 GlaxoSmithKline was shown to have fraudulently promoted the drug and paid $3 billion in fines – “costs of business” for a company who made many billions on Paxil during the prior decade.

With the patent run out, the drug continues to be sold today in generic form by companies contracted to GSK who makes and delivers the product to them. In September of 2015, The British Medical Journal came forth with an article re-analyzing the 2001 Study 329 report and including a scathing editorial about the false reports that had launched Paxil into the world.

As it turns out there were 12 children and adolescents in the trial taking the drug who developed suicidal or self-harming behavior – not 5 as stated in Study 329. David Healy, Professor of Psychiatry at Bangor University in Wales, was surprised so many suicidal kids were not noticed. He commented,

“We think if you were to go in and look at this data, anyone without training will find there are at least of the order of 12 children becoming suicidal on this drug out of about 93 [who were given it].”

This is a very high rate of kids going on to become suicidal. It doesn’t take expertise to find this. It takes extraordinary expertise to avoid finding it. It’s interesting how the BMJ totally focused on correcting the errors in scientific literature, correcting the record and perhaps disciplining the authors – nothing about the horrific effects Paxil has created in the lives of families in the US and the UK.

Why Paxil Itself should be Retracted

Paxil’s side effects include hallucinations, seizures, confusion, suicidal thoughts and suicide. Women who took Paxil during pregnancy have had children with serious birth defects. And the withdrawal symptoms of Paxil form a very long list – here are a few of them:

  • Anger – Want to see someone get mad? Have them withdraw from Paxil. Coming off of this medication can make even the most docile human being turn into a raging evil monster.
  • Anxiety – The anxiety coming off of Paxil is among the worst many people ever experience in their lives.
  • Confusion – You may experience difficulties with thinking and may become easily confused throughout the day.
  • Crying spells – It is common for people coming off of Paxil to breakdown and start crying – often uncontrollably. Feelings of deep depression and desperation may accompany this crying.
  • Dizziness – You may experience an extreme case of vertigo for the first couple weeks coming off of this medication.
  • Electric shocks – You may feel as though you are being electrically shocked or experience what many refer to as brain zaps.
  • Fatigue – It is very common to experience lethargy or fatigue. You may feel like sleeping all day and not wanting to do anything.
  • Headaches – It is common to get severe headaches and/or feel pressure in the head during withdrawal.
  • Hypochondria – It is pretty common to fear that you are going crazy while withdrawing.
  • Insomnia
  • Mood swings – You may go from extreme anger, to extreme sadness, feel aggressive one minute, and be sympathetic the next.
  • Panic attacks – You may find yourself panicking in almost every major situation.
  • Poor concentration
  • Slowed thinking
  • Severe depression
  • Suicidal thoughts – Feel suicidal before you take Paxil? Coming off of it the suicidal thoughts may be 100x worse.

GlaxoSmithKline, knowing they are producing a harmful product, doesn’t even bother to maintain quality controls in its manufacture. In 2005 there were manufacturing problems at GSK facilities in Knoxville, Tennessee, and Cidra, Puerto Rico. The FDA seized suspect lots after discovering that the tablets could split apart causing some patients to receive a portion that lacks any active ingredient, or alternatively a portion that contains the active ingredient but does not have the intended controlled-release effect. Several months after this recall, GSK began producing Paxil again in these same facilities.

Then in 2014 GSK had to recall batches of Paxil and Seroxat because the active ingredient used to make them might have been tainted. But only after the FDA investigated the GSK plant in Cork, Ireland and sent a strong warning letter.

It criticized the drug maker for releasing some products made with solvents contaminated from a “waste tank.” It also was very critical of drug maker for deciding that the issue was not important enough to tell its customers and for deciding there was no reason to believe the products were affected.

“We are concerned that your firm does not consider the entry of pharmaceutical waste streams into your manufacturing process a significant deviation with a potential quality impact,” the FDA told GSK.

How did GlaxoSmithKline respond to the FDA?

“A medical assessment concluded that there is no risk of harm to patients by taking Paxil/Seroxat manufactured from the implicated batches of Paroxetine.”

It’s very evident that the psychiatrists who push Paxil sales and GSK who manufactures it could care less what the drug does as long as the money rolls in.


Read More
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.