Archive for the ‘Our Health’ Category

via World famous psychiatrist says: more psychiatric drug treatment means more mass shootings will happen

World Famous Psychiatrist Says: MORE Psychiatric Drug Treatment Means MORE Mass Shootings WILL Happen [https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2018/02/27/world-famous-psychiatrist-says-more-psychiatric-drug-treatment-means-more-mass-shootings-will-happen/OR: https://wordpress.com/post/randrewohge.wordpress.com/3559] By Jon Rappoport 02/27/18

Listen to this man.

You’d better listen.

His name is Peter Breggin.

He is a world famous psychiatrist.

He has been called the conscience of his profession.

Here is an excerpt from his bio:

“Peter R. Breggin MD is a Harvard-trained psychiatrist and former Consultant at NIMH [National Institute of Mental Health] who has been called ‘The Conscience of Psychiatry’ for his many decades of successful efforts to reform the mental health field.

His work provides the foundation for modern criticism of psychiatric diagnoses and drugs, and leads the way in promoting more caring and effective therapies.

His research and educational projects have brought about major changes in the FDA-approved Full Prescribing Information or labels for dozens of antipsychotic and antidepressant drugs.

He continues to education the public and professions about the tragic psychiatric drugging of America’s children.”

“Dr. Breggin has authored dozens of scientific articles and more than twenty books, including medical books and the bestsellers Toxic Psychiatry and Talking Back to Prozac.

Two more recent books are Medication Madness: The Role of Psychiatric Drugs in Cases of Violence, Suicide and Crime and Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal: A Guide for Prescribers, Therapists, Patients and their Families.”

“Dr. Breggin has unprecedented and unique knowledge about how the pharmaceutical industry too often commits fraud in researching and marketing psychiatric drugs.

He has testified many times in malpractice, product liability and criminal cases, often in relation to adverse drug effects…”

Here is an explosive excerpt from Dr. Breggin’s recent column at Mad In America: “Psychiatrist Says: More Psychiatry Means More Shootings”:

“In the early 1990s, a federal court appointed me to be the scientific expert for all of the combined product liability cases that were brought against Eli Lilly throughout the country concerning Prozac-induced violence, suicide and crime.

Since then I have been involved in many cases in which judges and juries, and even prosecuting attorneys, have determined that psychiatric drugs have caused or substantially contributed to violence.

For a lengthy list, see the Legal Section on my website [www.breggin.com].”

“In 2003/2004, I wrote a scientific review article about antidepressant-induced suicide, violence and mania which the FDA distributed to all its advisory committee members.

This took place as the FDA Advisory Committee members prepared to review new warnings to be put in the Full Prescribing Information for all antidepressants.”

“In my peer-reviewed paper [about the effects of antidepressants], I wrote:

‘Mania with psychosis is the extreme end of a stimulant continuum that often begins with lesser degrees of insomnia, nervousness, anxiety, hyperactivity and irritability and then progresses toward more severe agitation, aggression, and varying degrees of mania.”

“In words very close to and sometimes identical to mine, the FDA one year later required the manufacturers of every antidepressant to put the following observations in the Warnings section of the Full Prescribing Information:”

“’All patients being treated with antidepressants for any indication should be monitored appropriately and observed closely for clinical worsening, suicidality, and unusual changes in behavior, especially during the initial few months of a course of drug therapy, or at times of dose changes, either increases or decreases.

The following symptoms, anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility, aggressiveness, impulsivity, akathisia (psychomotor restlessness), hypomania, and mania, have been reported in adult and pediatric patients being treated with antidepressants for major depressive disorder as well as for other indications, both psychiatric and nonpsychiatric’.”

“These adverse drug effects—including agitation, irritability, hostility, aggressiveness, akathisia, and impulsivity—are an obvious prescription for violence.

Akathisia, which I also described in my article, is a psychomotor agitation that is strongly associated with violence.”

“The FDA Medication Guide for antidepressants warns clinicians, patients and families to be on the alert for the following:
• acting on dangerous impulses
• acting aggressive or violent
• feeling agitated, restless, angry or irritable
• other unusual changes in behavior or mood”

“This list (above) of antidepressant adverse effects from the Medication Guide should make clear that antidepressants can cause violence.”

“The FDA also acknowledges the risk of both psychosis and aggression from the stimulant drugs used to treat ADHD…”

“In the study of violence reports to the FDA, any predisposition toward violence in the patients themselves was largely ruled out because some of the most violence-inducing drugs were not psychiatric drugs, and were being given to a more general population.

Some of the violence-inducing drugs were antibiotics, including Lariam (Mefloquine), which Sgt. Robert Bales was taking when he slaughtered 16 helpless, innocent villagers in Afghanistan.”

“[The authorities] do not foresee that the psychiatric strategy for treatment will sometimes lead to tragic outcomes like the school shootings.

Nor do they realize that the overall evidence of harm from psychiatric drugs is infinitely greater than the evidence for good effects, as scientist Peter Gøtzsche has confirmed in Deadly Psychiatry and Organized Denial.”

“Calling for more spending on mental health and on psychiatry will make matters worse, probably causing many more shootings than it prevents.”

“Not only do psychiatric drugs add to the risk of violence, but psychiatric treatment lulls the various authorities and the family into believing that the patient is now ‘under control’ and ‘less of a risk.’

Even the patient may think the drugs are helping, and continue to take them right up to the moment of violence.”

“Even when some of their patients signal with all their might that they are dangerous and need to be stopped, mental health providers are likely to give drugs, adding fuel to the heat of violent impulses, while assuming that their violence-inducing drugs will reduce the risk of serious aggression.”

NOTE: DR. BREGGIN ISSUES THIS WARNING:

“Most psychiatric drugs can cause withdrawal reactions, including life-threatening emotional and physical reactions.

So it is not only dangerous to start psychiatric drugs, it can also be dangerous to stop them.

Withdrawal from psychiatric drugs should be done carefully under experienced clinical supervision.

Methods for safely withdrawing from psychiatric drugs are discussed in Dr. Breggin’s book: Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal: A Guide for Prescribers, Therapists, Patients and Their Families.”

My comments: The tragedy of many mass shootings—many more than are highlighted by the press—is mirrored by the tragedy of psychiatric drug treatment.

Overwhelmingly, psychiatrists bury their heads in the sand, as they continue to dose patients with compounds that cause horrendous effects, including violence.

The psychiatric solution to mass shootings—more diagnosis and more drugs—becomes the cause for increased shootings.

Many mainstream reporters are aware of this, but they are constrained from telling the whole truth.

Their media outlets are relying on pharmaceutical advertising for their very existence.

Legal authorities make it very difficult, if not impossible, to obtain information about which psychiatric drugs shooters were taking before they went on their rampages.

Case in point, Sandy Hook, 2012—the (purported) killer, Adam Lanza, had been under psychiatric treatment.

But an assistant attorney general for the state of Connecticut stated that the list of Lanza’s meds would not be disclosed, because that “can cause a lot of people to stop taking their medications.”

Better for patients to keep taking those drugs—and then some of them will violently go off on innocent persons.

In conversations with attorneys over the years, I’ve been told that judges, police officers, and prosecutors avoid the “psychiatric drug issue.”

They don’t want to touch it.

After all, friendly psychiatrists are part of the legal system.

They often testify at trials.

Further, “medical experts” will lash out and go on the attack against law enforcement if an attempt is made to link a violent crime to the effects of psychiatric drugs.

(Dr. Breggin has managed to break through this code of silence. He is one of the only psychiatrists who has been able to testify in court about the true effects of psychiatric drugs.)

At the federal level, lobbyists for drug companies are crawling all over Washington DC.

They exert an astonishing level of influence on law makers and bureaucrats.

The issue of psychiatric drug-induced murder is obviously not on the list of permitted issues for open and extensive discussion.

Then there is the FDA.

This is the agency tasked with approving every medical drug as safe and effective before it can be released for public use.

The FDA will never admit its decisions have been fueling mass shootings across America.

The Agency views the pharmaceutical industry as its partner. Placing warnings on informational drug inserts (as described above by Dr. Breggin) easily escapes the attention of psychiatric patients.

Doctors who prescribe the drugs may or may not read those warnings.

Even if they do read them, the drugs are THE solution to “mental disorders.”

Very few doctors will seek other means of treatment.

The public is in the middle of a psychiatric plague.

Learning the truth is the first step forward.

After that, we MUST preserve the right to refuse medication.

Freedom and life itself hang in the balance.

Advertisements

via Incredible vaccine lies from the Ministry of Truth

Incredible vaccine lies from the Ministry of Truth Feb
By Jon Rappoport 02/18/18 [https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2018/02/18/incredible-vaccine-lies-from-the-ministry-of-truth/] Or[https://wordpress.com/post/randrewohge.wordpress.com/3550]

For many years as a reporter covering medical stories, I have taken to task public health agencies, such as WHO and the CDC.

I’m used to their lies.

In that regard, I came across a mind-boggling CDC quote dug up by Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, who has done terrific work researching vaccine dangers.

The quote comes from the 6th edition of Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases, published by the CDC.

It’s an attempt to squelch debate about the DPaT vaccine, which is given to prevent diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis.

Over the years, much has been written about the severe adverse effects of this combination vaccine—e.g., brain damage, seizures, very high fever, death.

The CDC quote asserts that, generally, there is no definable disease “syndrome” caused by vaccines.

It then makes several more astonishing claims.

“There is no distinct syndrome from vaccine administration, and therefore, many temporally associated adverse events probably represent background illness rather than illness caused by the vaccine…

The DTaP may stimulate or precipitate inevitable symptoms of underlying CNS [Central Nervous System] disorder, such as seizures, infantile spasms, epilepsy or SIDS [Sudden Infant Death Syndrome].

By chance alone, some of these cases will seem to be temporally related to DPaT.”

Read the quote several times to absorb the full force of its message.

It reminds me of the attempts to shunt aside deaths caused by AZT, the AIDS drug, which viciously attacks the immune system.

In that case, the doctor or researcher will say, “The patient didn’t die from the effects of AZT.

The destructive action of AIDS, by coincidence, simply speeded up after the drug was given.”

The CDC is claiming the DTaP vaccine stimulates a PRE-EXISTING CONDITION in a baby:

The baby already had a life-threatening central nervous system illness.

The illness was temporarily on hold.

The vaccine brought it to light, and then the baby died.

Suddenly—with no evidence offered—vaccines have this magical ability to cause underlying illness to jump into action.

The vaccine isn’t at fault.

The baby was already on the road to brain damage or death.

I’ve seen some pretty wild excuses offered for vaccine-induced destruction, but this one takes the cake.

Whoever cooked it up should receive some sort of medical prize for Bald-Faced Lying.

Then he can be arrested for contributing to negligent homicide.

Generally speaking, the untested medical assumption is this:

“We know vaccines cause no harm.

Therefore, if a vaccine recipient becomes ill or dies, the cause must reside in the patient.”

In the field of logic, this is called assuming what you are trying to prove.

I have written many times about the 100,000 people who die every year, in the US, as a result of correctly administered FDA-approved medicines.

Perhaps the CDC or the National Institutes of Health could issue a statement blaming all these deaths on underlying, pre-existing illness that was stimulated by these drugs.

Surgical errors could be accounted for in this way, too.

“Yes, we did remove the patient’s testicles while we were doing the appendectomy.

But you see, we knew he had testicular cancer, so we needed to take care of that while we were in the area.

What’s that?

How did we know he had testicular cancer?

Well, we would never remove his testicles by mistake.

Therefore, we must have known we had a legitimate reason to take them off.

Can’t you see that?”

Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin pills, gave $4.7 million to advocacy groups that have promoted the medications’ use, according to a new report from U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill. Toby Talbot/AP

The Senator’s report cites Center for Public Integrity/AP series on how drug companies relied on allied patient advocacy groups to help fight state opioid limits

By Matthew Perrone & Geoff Mulvihill  02/13/18  https://www.publicintegrity.org/2018/02/12/21567/opioid-makers-paid-millions-advocacy-groups-promoted-their-painkillers-amid Or https://wordpress.com/post/randrewohge.wordpress.com/3543

Companies selling some of the most lucrative prescription painkillers funneled millions of dollars to advocacy groups that in turn promoted the medications’ use, according to a report released Monday by a U.S. senator.

The investigation by Missouri’s Sen. Claire McCaskill sheds light on the opioid industry’s ability to shape public opinion and raises questions about its role in an overdose epidemic that has claimed hundreds of thousands of American lives.

Representatives of some of the drugmakers named in the report said they did not set conditions on how the money was to be spent or force the groups to advocate for their painkillers.

The report from McCaskill, ranking Democrat on the Senate’s homeland security committee, examines advocacy funding by the makers of the top five opioid painkillers by worldwide sales in 2015.

Financial information the companies provided to Senate staff shows they spent more than $10 million between 2012 and 2017 to support 14 advocacy groups and affiliated doctors.

The report did not include some of the largest and most politically active manufacturers of the drugs.

A report from Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill outlined $10 million paid to advocacy groups by five major opioid makers.

The findings follow a similar investigation launched in 2012 by a bipartisan pair of senators.

That effort eventually was shelved and no findings were ever released.

While the new report provides only a snapshot of company activities, experts said it gives insight into how industry-funded groups fueled demand for drugs such as OxyContin and Vicodin, addictive medications that generated billions in sales despite research showing they are largely ineffective for chronic pain.

“It looks pretty damning when these groups were pushing the message about how wonderful opioids are and they were being heavily funded, in the millions of dollars, by the manufacturers of those drugs,” said Lewis Nelson, a Rutgers University doctor and opioid expert.

The findings could bolster hundreds of lawsuits that are aimed at holding opioid drugmakers responsible for helping fuel an epidemic blamed for the deaths of more than 340,000 Americans since 2000.

McCaskill’s staff asked drugmakers to turn over records of payments they made to groups and affiliated physicians, part of a broader investigation by the senator into the opioid crisis.

The request was sent last year to five companies: Purdue Pharma; Insys Therapeutics; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, owned by Johnson & Johnson; Mylan; and Depomed.

Fourteen nonprofit groups, mostly representing pain patients and specialists, received nearly $9 million from the drugmakers, according to investigators. Doctors affiliated with those groups received another $1.6 million.

Most of the groups included in the probe took industry-friendly positions.

That included issuing medical guidelines promoting opioids for chronic pain, lobbying to defeat or include exceptions to state limits on opioid prescribing, and criticizing landmark prescribing guidelines from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“Doctors and the public have no way of knowing the true source of this information and that’s why we have to take steps to provide transparency,” said McCaskill in an interview with The Associated Press.

The senator plans to introduce legislation requiring increased disclosure about the financial relationships between drugmakers and certain advocacy groups.

A 2016 investigation by the AP and the Center for Public Integrity revealed how painkiller manufacturers used hundreds of lobbyists and millions in campaign contributions to fight state and federal measures aimed at stemming the tide of prescription opioids, often enlisting help from advocacy organizations.

Bob Twillman, executive director of the Academy of Integrative Pain Management, said most of the $1.3 million his group received from the five companies went to a state policy advocacy operation.

But Twillman said the organization has called for non-opioid pain treatments while also asking state lawmakers for exceptions to restrictions on the length of opioid prescriptions for certain patients.

“We really don’t take direction from them about what we advocate for,” Twillman said of the industry.

The tactics highlighted in Monday’s report are at the heart of lawsuits filed by hundreds of state and local governments against the opioid industry.

The suits allege that drugmakers misled doctors and patients about the risks of opioids by enlisting “front groups” and “key opinion leaders” who oversold the drugs’ benefits and encouraged over-prescribing.

In the legal claims, the governments seek money and changes to how the industry operates, including an end to the use of outside groups to push their drugs.

U.S. deaths linked to opioids have quadrupled since 2000 to roughly 42,000 in 2016. Although initially driven by prescription drugs, most opioid deaths now involve illicit drugs, including heroin and fentanyl.

Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin, contributed the most to the groups, funneling $4.7 million to organizations and physicians from 2012 through last year.

In a statement, the company did not address whether it was trying to influence the positions of the groups it supported, but said it does help organizations “that are interested in helping patients receive appropriate care.” On Friday, Purdue announced it would no longer market OxyContin to doctors.

Insys Therapeutics, a company recently targeted by federal prosecutors, provided more than $3.5 million to interest groups and physicians, according to McCaskill’s report.

Last year, the company’s founder was indicted for allegedly offering bribes to doctors to write prescriptions for the company’s spray-based fentanyl medication.

A company spokesman declined to comment.

Insys contributed $2.5 million last year to a U.S. Pain Foundation program to pay for pain drugs for cancer patients.

“The question was: Do we make these people suffer, or do we work with this company that has a terrible name?” said U.S. Pain founder Paul Gileno, explaining why his organization sought the money.

Depomed, Janssen and Mylan contributed $1.4 million, $650,000 and $26,000 in payments, respectively. Janssen and Mylan told the AP they acted responsibly, while calls and emails to Depomed were not returned.

Perrone and Mulvihill report for The Associated Press.

via What’s behind the norovirus outbreak at the Olympics?

What’s Behind The Norovirus Outbreak At The Olympics?
By Jon Rappoport 02/06/18 https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2018/02/06/whats-behind-the-norovirus-outbreak-at-the-olympics/ – Also: https://wordpress.com/post/randrewohge.wordpress.com/3527

First, here’s the official story:

USA Today: “The organizing committee for the Pyeongchang Olympics has called in 900 military personnel after more than 1,200 security workers were pulled off duty because of concerns about the spread of the Norovirus, Christophe Dubi, IOC executive director of the Olympic Games said Tuesday.”

“Later Tuesday evening, the organizing committee said 32 cases of Norovirus had been confirmed and those people were quarantined after being treated.

Those 32 cases involve 21 private security staff members from the Horeb Youth Center and 11 people from other locations, including three foreigners.”

“In a statement, POCOG said that starting Sunday workers reported headaches, stomach pain and diarrhea.

The Gangwon Province Health and Environment Research Center found 41 workers with symptoms that might be related to the virus.

The others have been pulled from duty to prevent possible spreading of the illness.”

“The workers are largely responsible for checking credentials and screening baggage entering the venues.

The military personnel were brought in from about 40 minutes away.”

Here’s the problem.

Officials admit the illness appears to be coming from contaminated water, and you can’t reduce that situation to a single virus.

Forget the sophisticated analysis.

Bad water contains bad things.

A number of them.

If you didn’t clean up the water in the first place, you’re going to have trouble.

The norovirus, as an explanation, is a convenient cover story.

It seems to explain the outbreak of illness—but it doesn’t.

The virus hunters at the CDC are trained to look for the single viral culprit.

That’s what they always do.

They’re medical, not environmental.

They don’t want to find the true answer when it’s something in the environment, because medical solutions don’t work.

You have to clean up the water.

Over the past 30 years of investigating medical ops, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen this pattern repeated.

Ignore the environmental contamination; blame a single virus.

It’s a sham.

Taken to an extreme, you would get something like this—gene researchers look forward to day when genetic modifications would protect humans from all sorts of environmental contamination.

Translation: Let corporations and governments pollute to their heart’s content; “altered” humans would be safe.

That may sound like science fiction.

And it is.

But researchers are working to make it fact.

They’ll fail.

Meanwhile, at the Olympics, there better be a fleet of huge trucks carrying clean water to the workers and the athletes, or the problems they’ve encountered so far are going to get worse, much worse.

Years ago, in an off-the-record conversation, a public health official readily admitted to me that contaminated water always contains a number of noxious substances that endanger human health.

“If you’re saying it’s this virus or that virus, you’re lying,” he said.

“You have to go back to the beginning and clean up the water.”

“Virus hunters don’t like that solution,” I said.

“Of course they don’t. It puts them out of business.”

The norovirus is just one more lame medical cover story.

via How the press creates medical fantasies for the gullible

How The Press Creates Medical Fantasies For The Gullible
By Jon Rappoport 01/31/18 [https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2018/01/31/how-the-press-creates-medical-fantasies-for-the-gullible/]

While avoiding deep scandals that would crack the pillars of modern medicine, the press uses a tactic to paint a glowing picture of medical research.

These fantasies have one element in common:

The use of “could be,” “may be,” “possible,” and other bloviations to suggest breakthroughs are right around the corner.

This is not “new research is confirmed.”

This is vague suggestion on the level of stock market predictions and long-term weather forecasts.

Let me show you.

I’m looking at medicalnewstoday.com, for January 31st.

Here are headlines:

BLOCKING VITAMIN B-2 MAY STOP CANCER.

E-CIGARETTES MAY CAUSE CANCER AND HEART DISEASE.

BODY CLOCK DISRUPTIONS MAY BE AN EARLY SIGN OF ALZHEIMER’S.

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS: ‘GUARDIAN MOLECULE’ MAY LEAD TO NEW TREATMENT.

THIS PEPTIDE MAY EXPLAIN FEMALE SEXUAL BEHAVIOR.

AEROBIC EXERCISE MAY BE KEY FOR ALZHEIMER’S PREVENTION.

That’s just one day of headlines on one medical site.

The use of MAY is everywhere.

“This may be the case—or not.”

Maybe yes, maybe no.

Why not run these headlines instead?

THIS PEPTIDE MAY NOT EXPLAIN FEMALE SEXUAL BEHAVIOR.

‘GUARDIAN MOLECULE’ MAY NOT LEAD TO NEW TREATMENT.

Over the years, I’ve read thousands of medical articles, and most of the MAYBES disappear down the memory hole with no further comment.

They’re just pap.

Here today, gone tomorrow.

Besides serving the function of filling up space, the articles are public relations propaganda, designed to convince readers that “the cutting edge” of research is very fertile territory, and new advances are always “on the way.”

This press gibberish is little more than, say, producing new reasons to believe people who are holding Iraqi Dinars are on the verge of becoming millionaires.

Nevertheless, large numbers of people are encouraged by these MAYBE medical stories.

They want to have faith.

They don’t want interruptions to their trance-state.

They would say, “If a dozen ‘maybe’ stories are published, at least a few of them will pan out, and that’s a good thing.”

If you have a lot of time on your hands, copy the headlines above and track what happens over the next few years.

See if any of the “possible breakthroughs” actually turns into a useful medical treatment.

Better yet, perhaps, track the thousands of articles touting new discoveries in genetic research.

Keep an eagle eye out for ONE form of gene therapy that cures ANY disease across the board.

I’m not talking about a claim that a single patient has experienced a remission.

I mean a therapy that cures a given disease for every diagnosed patient.

After all, that’s the heraldic promise.

Good hunting.

Meanwhile, maybe there is a MAYBE.

And DEFINITELY there is propaganda-riddled medical news.

via When deranged psychiatrists became social justice warriors

When Deranged Psychiatrists Become “Social Justice Warriors”

By Jon Rappoport 01/30/18 [https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2018/01/30/when-deranged-psychiatrists-became-social-justice-warriors/]

I wrote and posted this article on October 11, 2012.

What I revealed then is still happening now.

I offer the article as an illustration of how far “social justice” can go in actually punishing people classified as victims—not helping them as advertised.

Buckle up:

It’s the latest thing.

Psychiatrists are now giving children in poor neighborhoods Adderall, a dangerous medical stimulant, by making false diagnoses of ADHD, or no diagnoses at all.

Their aim?

“Promote social justice,” to improve academic performance in school.

The rationale is, the drugged kids will now be able to compete with children from wealthier families who attend better schools.

Leading the way is Dr. Michael Anderson, a pediatrician in the Atlanta area. Incredibly, Anderson told the New York Times his diagnoses of ADHD are “made up,” “an excuse” to hand out the drugs.

“We’ve decided as a society that it’s too expensive to modify the kid’s environment. So we have to modify the kid,” Anderson said.

It would be hard to find a clearer mission statement from a psychiatrist: mind control.

A researcher at Washington University in St. Louis, Dr. Ramesh Raghavan, goes even further with this chilling comment:

“We are effectively forcing local community psychiatrists to use the only tool at their disposal [to “level the playing field” in low-income neighborhoods], which is psychotropic medicine.”

So pressure is being brought to bear on psychiatrists to carry out and sustain a heinous behavior modification program, using drugs, against children in inner cities.

It’s important to realize that all psychotropic stimulants, like Adderall and Ritalin, can cause aggressive behavior, violent behavior.

What we’re seeing here is a direct parallel to the old CIA program, exposed by the late journalist, Gary Webb, who detailed the importing of crack cocaine (another kind of stimulant) into South Central Los Angeles.

It is widely acknowledged, and admitted in the Times article, that the effects of ADHD drugs on children’s still-developing brains are unknown.

Therefore, the risks of the drugs are great.

At least one leading psychiatrist, Peter Breggin, believes there is significant evidence that these stimulants can cause atrophy of the brain.

Deploying the ADHD drugs creates symptoms which may then be treated with compounds like Risperdal, a powerful anti-psychotic, which can cause motor brain damage.

All this, in service of “social justice” for the poor.

And what about the claim that ADHD drugs can enhance school performance?

The following pronouncement makes a number of things clear:

The 1994 Textbook of Psychiatry, published by the American Psychiatric Press, contains this review (Popper and Steingard):

“Stimulants [given for ADHD] do not produce lasting improvements in aggressivity, conduct disorder, criminality, education achievement, job functioning, marital relationships, or long-term adjustment.”

So the whole basis for this “social justice” program in low-income communities—that the ADHD drugs will improve school performance of kids and “level the playing field,” so they can compete academically with children from wealthier families—this whole program is based on a lie to begin with.

Meddling with the brains of children via these chemicals constitutes criminal assault, and it’s time it was recognized for what it is.

In 1986, The International Journal of the Addictions published a most important literature review by Richard Scarnati.

It was called “An Outline of Hazardous Side Effects of Ritalin (Methylphenidate)” [v.21(7), pp. 837-841].

Adderall and other ADHD medications are all in the same basic class; they are stimulants, amphetamine-type substances.

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

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

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

In what sense are the ADHD drugs “social justice?” The reality is, they are chemical warfare.

Licensed predators are preying on the poor.

The US government, through a labyrinth of rules and licensing requirements, has established psychiatry as a virtual monopoly in the arena of “mental health.”

To say this act is unconstitutional would be a vast understatement.

Close to 50 years ago, psychiatry was dying out as a profession.

Fewer and fewer people wanted to see a psychiatrist for help, for talk therapy.

All sorts of new therapies were popping up.

The competition was leaving medical psychiatry in the dust.

As Dr. Peter Breggin describes it in his landmark book, Toxic Psychiatry, a deal was struck.

Drug companies would bankroll psychiatry and rescue it.

These companies would pour money into professional conferences, journals, research.

In return, they wanted “science” that would promote mental disease as a biological/chemical fact, a gateway into scores of new drugs.

Everyone would win—except the patient.

So the studies were rolled out, and the list of mental disorders expanded by leaps and bounds.

The FDA was in on the deal as well, as evidenced by their drug “safety” approvals, in the face of the obvious damage these drugs were doing.

So this is how we arrived at where we are.

This was the plan, and it worked.

And now, as a “humanitarian gesture,” psychiatrists are handing out ADHD drugs in poor neighborhoods, to children, without the slightest concern, in order to bring social justice to the downtrodden.

Finally, like all other so-called mental disorders, ADHD is diagnosed on the basis of behavior alone.

That’s how it was, yes, invented in the first place.

There are no defining diagnostic physical tests—no blood, urine, saliva tests, no brain scans, no genetic assays.

Let that sink in.

The whole business is a charade, with toxic consequences.

If that’s social justice, it only exists in the demented minds of psychiatrists.

via The Stomach-churning Violence of Monsanto, Bayer and the Agrochemical Oligopoly

By Colin Todhunter – Source: RINF

As humans, we have evolved with the natural environment over millennia. We have learned what to eat and what not to eat, what to grow and how to grow it and our diets have developed accordingly.

We have hunted, gathered, planted and harvested.

Our overall survival as a species has been based on gradual, emerging relationships with the seasons, insects, soil, animals, trees and seeds.

And out of these relationships, we have seen the development of communities whose rituals and bonds have a deep connection with food production and the natural environment.

However, over the last couple generations, agriculture and food production has changed more than it had done over previous millennia.

These changes have involved massive social upheaval as communities and traditions have been uprooted and have entailed modifying what we eat, how we grow our food and what we apply to it.

All of this has been driven by geopolitical concerns and powerful commercial interests with their proprietary chemicals and patented seeds.

The process of neoliberal globalisation is accelerating the process as farmers are encouraged to produce for global supply chains dominated by transnational agribusiness.

Certain crops are now genetically engineered, the range of crops we grow has become less diverse, synthetic biocides have been poured on crops and soil and our bodies have been subjected to a chemical bombardment.

We have arrived at a point where we have lost touch with our deep-rooted microbiological and social connection with nature and have developed an arrogance that has placed ‘man’ above the environment and all other species.

One of the consequences is that we have paid an enormous price in terms of the consequent social, environmental and health-related devastation.

Despite the promise and potential of science, it has too often in modern society become a tool of vested interests, an ideology wrapped in the vestiges of authority and the ‘superstition’ that its corporate-appointed priesthood should not be challenged nor questioned.

Instead of liberating humankind, it has now too often become a tool of deception in the hands of companies like Monsanto, Bayer and Syngenta which make up the oligopoly that controls what is an increasingly globalised system of modern food and agriculture.

These corporations have successfully instituted the notion that the mass application of biocides, monocropping and industrial agriculture are necessary and desirable. 

They are not.

However, these companies have used their science and propaganda to project certainty in order to hide the fact that they have no real idea what their products and practices are doing to human health or the environment (and in cases when they do know, they do their best to cover it up or hide behind the notion of ‘commercial confidentiality‘).

Based on their limited, tainted studies and co-opted version of science, they say with certainty that, for example, genetically engineered food and glyphosate are ‘safe’.

And when inconvenient truths do emerge, they will mobilize their massive lobbying resources to evade regulations, they will seek to hide the dangers of their products or they will set out to destroy scientists whose findings challenge their commercial bottom line.

Soil microbiologists are still trying to fully comprehend soil microbes and how they function as anintegrated network in relation to plants.

The agrochemical sector has little idea of how their biocides have affected soils.

It merely churns out public relations spin that their inputs are harmless for soil, plants and human health. Such claims are not based on proper, in-depth, long-term studies.

They are based on a don’t look, don’t find approach or a manipulation of standards and procedures that ensure their products make it on to the commercial market and stay there. The devastating impacts on soil are increasingly clear to see.

And what are these biocides doing to us as humans? Numerous studies have linked the increase in pesticide us with spiraling rates of ill health.

Kat Carrol of the National Health Federation is concerned about the impacts on human gut bacteria that play a big role in how organs function and our neurological health. The gut microbiome can contain up to six pounds of bacteria and is what Carroll calls ‘human soil’.

She says that with their agrochemicals and food additives, powerful companies are attacking this ‘soil’ and with it the sanctity of the human body.

And her concerns seem valid. Many important neurotransmitters are located in the gut.

Aside from affecting the functioning of major organs, these transmitters affect our moods and thinking.

Feed gut bacteria a cocktail of biocides and is it any surprise that many diseases are increasing?

For instance, findings published in the journal ‘Translational Psychiatry’ provide strong evidence that gut bacteria can have a direct physical impact on the brain.

Alterations in the composition of the gut microbiome have been implicated in a wide range of neurological and psychiatric conditions, including autism, chronic pain, depression, and Parkinson’s Disease.

Environmental campaigner Dr Rosemary Mason has written extensively on the impacts of agrochemicals (especially glyphosate) on humans, not least during child and adolescent development.

In her numerous documents and papers, she cites a plethora of data and studies that link the use of agrochemicals with various diseases and ailments.

She has also noted the impact of these chemicals on the human gut microbiome.

Writing in The Guardian, Mo Costandi discusses the importance of gut bacteria and their balance. In adolescence the brain undergoes a protracted period of heightened neural plasticity, during which large numbers of synapses are eliminated in the prefrontal cortex and a wave of ‘myelination’ sweeps across this part of the brain.

These processes refine the circuitry in the prefrontal cortex and increase its connectivity to other brain regions.

Myelination is also critical for normal, everyday functioning of the brain.

Myelin increases a nerve fiber’s conduction velocity by up to a hundred times, and so when it breaks down, the consequences can be devastating.

Other recent work shows that gut microbes control the maturation and function of microglia, the immune cells that eliminate unwanted synapses in the brain; age-related changes to gut microbe composition might regulate myelination and synaptic pruning in adolescence and could, therefore, contribute to cognitive development.

Upset those changes, and, as Mason argues, there are going to be serious implications for children and adolescents. Mason places glyphosate at the core of the ailments and disorders currently affecting young people in Wales and the UK in general.

Yet we are still being subjected to an unregulated cocktail of agrochemicals which end up interacting with each other in the gut. Regulatory agencies and governments appear to work hand in glove with the agrochemical sector.

Carol Van Strum has released documents indicating collusion between the manufacturers of dangerous chemicals and regulatory bodies. 

Evaggelos Vallianatos has highlighted the massive fraud surrounding the regulation of biocides and the wide scale corruption at laboratories that were supposed to test these chemicals for safety.

Many of these substances were not subjected to what was deemed proper testing in the first place yet they remain on the market. 

Shiv Chopra has also highlighted how various dangerous products were allowed on the commercial market and into the food chain due to collusion between these companies and public officials.

Powerful transnational corporations are using humanity as their collective guinea pig.

But those who question them or their corporate science are automatically labelled anti-science and accused of committing crimes against humanity because they are preventing their products from being commercialized ‘to help the poor or hungry’.

Such attacks on critics by company mouthpieces who masquerade as public officials, independent scientists or independent journalists are mere spin.

They are, moreover, based on the sheer hypocrisy that these companies (owned and controlled by elite interests) have humanity’s and the environment’s best interests at heart.

Many of these companies have historically profited from violence. Unfortunately, that character of persists.

They directly profit on the back of militarism, whether as a result of the US-backed ‘regime change’ in Ukraine or the US invasion of Iraq.

They also believe they can cajole (poison) nature by means of chemicals and bully governments and attack critics, while rolling out propaganda campaigns for public consumption.

Whether it involves neocolonialism and the destruction of indigenous practices and cultures under the guise of ‘development’, the impoverishment of farmers in India, the twisting and writing of national and international laws, the destruction of rural communities, the globalization of bad food and illness, the deleterious impacts on health and soil, the hollowing out of public institutions and the range of human rights abuses we saw documented during The Monsanto Tribunal, what we are witnessing is structural violence in many forms.

Pesticides are in fact “a global human rights concern” and are in no way vital to ensuring food security.

Ultimately, what we see is ignorance, arrogance and corruption masquerading as certainty and science.

“… when we wound the planet grievously by excavating its treasures – the gold, mineral and oil, destroy its ability to breathe by converting forests into urban wastelands, poison its waters with toxic wastes and exterminate other living organisms – we are in fact doing all this to our own bodies… all other species are to be enslaved or driven to extinction if need be in the interests of human ‘progress’… we are part of the same web of life –where every difference we construct artificially between ‘them’ and ‘us’ adds only one more brick to the tombstone of humankind itself.” – from ‘Microbes of the World Unite!’ By Satya Sager.