Are Psychotropic drugs the hidden prescription for mass murder?

by Suzanne Eovaldi
 
Why are no medical or media authorities investigating the dangers of psychotropic drugs given to teens, especially to teenage boys?  The inevitable B rolls on our television screens which follow each and every school shooting incident never mention the prescription meds the teen shooter may have been given.  The Adam Lanza possible psychotropic drug of choice was mentioned early in Sandy Hook media frenzy, but was dropped as a likely factor in the killings in later reports.
  
Two very important civil cases are being analyzed by outstanding investigative reporter Jon Rappoport who has for years warned about these toxic psychiatric drugs.  “As I’ve demonstrated in previous articles, none of these mental disorders for which these destructive chemicals are prescribed are legitimate.  That is, there are zero objective and defining tests for any mental disorder diagnosis. . .no saliva, blood, urine, or hair test.  No brain scan.  No genetic assay.”  This great reporter in his earlier web essays has linked the teen male shooters with possible psychiatric medication usage. But this link has barely been covered by our mainstream media, perhaps to avoid interrupting the money stream from the drug and medical companies into media coffers.  Dr. Michael Savage several years ago went on at length about the dangers involved in giving these very dangerous black box pills to brains not fully developed.  Rappoport states if these industry tests were definitive, “they would be listed in the bible of the psychiatric profession, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. . .THEY’RE NOT THERE,” he says. (1)

In the 2014 civil lawsuit Angel v. Segal, a Chicago jury gave a $1.5 million award to an autistic child who was given Risperdal and Zyprexa. Dr. Peter Breggin (www.breggin.com) was the expert witness who turned the case for the boy. “The boy developed two conditions, called tardive dyskinesia and tardive akathisia.” (2) Unrelenting motion, twitches, motor disabilities, and other neurological problems made this autistic boy’s condition worse, points our Rappoport!
 
This brave expert witness had come forward in 2012 in a drug-induced suicide case in Syracuse, NY. (3)  “I found that a glaring negligence had been committed in the (Joseph Mazella) case,” said Dr. Breggin. (3) A family doctor “prescribed Paxil for Mr. Mazella for 10 years without seeing him…despite having no contact with the patient for a decade, by telephone (the man’s doctor) doubled his Paxil and added Zyprexa.” The man died one month later by taking his own life. The jury award then totaled $1.5 million.
 
Perhaps, yet again, the media are our biggest enemies in these cases as they lie by omission!  The media fail to tell the American people of the dangers inherent in many of the drugs which are flooding our airwaves and appearing in glowing print ads.  By taking ad revenue while failing to disclose all of the facts, the media joins their medical advertisers in a complicity of silence.  Only brave doctors like Dr. Peter Breggin and brave reporters like Jon Rappoport show us the love and concern they have by telling us the real story of these dangers.  Would Columbine, Sandy Hook or Aurora have taken place without brain disabling treatments?  Why are we not being given the entire story of the likely involvement of anti-psychotic medications in the horrific male, teen shooter tragedies?
  
edit note:  Dr. Breggin is addressing a Clearwater, Florida conference about “Psychotherapy Without Medication for the Most Challenging Clients” in the outstanding Empathic Therapy Conference happening 2-28, March 1.  Go to http://www.empathictherapy.org/conference.html

SOURCE: (1) (2) (3) (4)  www.nomorefakenews.com

This very helpful quote can be found on Dr. Breggin’s website:  “There is no such thing as a spontaneous anxiety or endogenous depression. If a patient is anxious, there is something to be scared of.  If a patient is depressed, there is something to be depressed about.  If it is not in consciousness, then it is unconscious. If it is not in the present, then it is in the past, and something in the present symbolizes it.”  Bertram Karon, PhD

Angel v Segal: State of Illinois, Circuit Court, Cook County. Law Division No. 09L.3498

Be Sociable, Share!

2 thoughts on “Are Psychotropic drugs the hidden prescription for mass murder?”

  1. Point 1. ” . . .none of these mental disorders for which these destructive chemicals are prescribed are legitimate. That is, there are zero objective and defining tests for any mental disorder diagnosis. . .no saliva, blood, urine, or hair test. No brain scan. No genetic assay.” This is nonsense. The majority of medical diagnoses in all specialities are clinically based, not “objectively” confirmed by tests. Want to tell a family member of someone with a serious psychiatric condition that they aren’t legitimate? How about the suffering person themselves? How is this article compassionate, when the conditions are being safely treated by the thousands every day?
    Point 2. Causality is not the same as relationships. Recognition is not the same as causation. Violence has been with us since our origins. The media hype which connects treatment with these events overlooks the fact that most of them had been connected in some way with psychiatrists because of their behavior. The fact they were treated with medications is a reflection of their disturbance, not the cause of it.
    Point 3. Breggins has been a shill for Scientologists, a highly paid expert witness against treatment, and has become a very rich man for his lies and innuendo. Notice the location of his speech: Clearwater, Florida, world HQ of Church of Scientology. Brave, my a– ! Brave people are found among who seek help, and those that give it.
    Point 4. Do you trust anything that comes out of Michael Savage’s mouth?
    Point 5. Psychiatric medications are some of the safest in all of medicine. Ever take gout medications, antibiotics, statins, anti-hypertensives, chemotherapy? The problems in the case cited above are profoundly rare, but made a lot of money for the trial attorneys. Look at the actual percentages of possible adverse events for the real story; don’t fall for the sensational adjectives.
    Point 6. The answer to the question posed in the title is no. The premise is absurd. There would no future in it for treaters if it were. This article is another example of amplifying stigma and prejudice.

Comments are closed.