Re: OT: Illinois school shooter on Prozac- article

[Guest guest]

I've been on prozac for many years. Without it, I'd probably be dead.

Don't be so quick to judge. For some people SSRI's have saved their

lives. The problem here is -- you just don't STOP taking it. You

have to taper off slowly. I suspect that he didn't.

I'm not a fan of pharma either, but sometimes it's necessary.

>

> Kazmierczak's girlfriend went on CNN and said that he had gone off

> Prozac just before shooting. The NYT article spends a lot of time

> quoting apologists for Prozac, that it's " not as dangerous " as the

> other SSRIs, but this isn't what the research says and probably

> merely reflects Eli Lilly's PR power. Sound familiar?

>

[Guest guest]

At what age did this young man start taking Prozac and or other meds?

That's what I would be interested in knowing. What could these drugs

have done to his developing mind over the years? It's one thing for

an adult to take these type of meds, and a completely different thing

for children/adolescents. As with all the vaccines we load kids up

with...it's all just one big experiment.

> >

> > Kazmierczak's girlfriend went on CNN and said that he had gone

off

> > Prozac just before shooting. The NYT article spends a lot of time

> > quoting apologists for Prozac, that it's " not as dangerous " as

the

> > other SSRIs, but this isn't what the research says and probably

> > merely reflects Eli Lilly's PR power. Sound familiar?

> >

>

[Guest guest]

, I agree with you. I know some people that do great on prozac. Yes, there needs to be caution taken when using it and age often matters, but the fact that he suddenly went off it may have some bearing too. I don't think we should slam every med for every person. Maurineandrea52521991 <mkeller@...> wrote: At what age did this young man start taking Prozac and or other meds?That's what I would be interested in knowing. What could these drugs have done to his developing mind

over the years? It's one thing for an adult to take these type of meds, and a completely different thing for children/adolescents. As with all the vaccines we load kids up with...it's all just one big experiment.> >> > Kazmierczak's girlfriend went on CNN and

said that he had gone off > > Prozac just before shooting. The NYT article spends a lot of time > > quoting apologists for Prozac, that it's "not as dangerous" as the > > other SSRIs, but this isn't what the research says and probably > > merely reflects Eli Lilly's PR power. Sound familiar? > >>

Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Search.

[Guest guest]

I'm not actually for prohibition. First off, I don't care what adults

to in the privacy of their own homes if it's not bothering anyone. I

think the whole war against drugs is an idiotic, damaging failure. I

suppose some substances should be somewhat controlled, but at what

price? And what drugs on what standards? PCP which make some people

go violently nuts or pot which mostly makes people munch and smell

like old ham sandwiches? Coca leaves or cocaine? And should people be

allowed to drive while on any mind altering drug? There's a lot of

questions that I can't answer.

People have always taken mind altering substances, emotional pain

killers and stimulants since the first poppy grew or the first coca

leaf was chewed or the first grape fermented. And it can't be

stopped, partly because life is fricking hard. People will always do

this.

Check out the Mindfreedom.org site. I heard Oakes speak at the

ICSPP conference and he's not against people taking drugs if they

want to. What he's against is research fraud, regulatory capture by

the drug industry which perpetuates court ordered drugging, coercion

and the spinning of myths that the drugs " correct brain chemical

imbalances " -- in other words, the myth that they cure brain disease.

That's the stand I agree with.

As some people know, Nation was originally a battered women's

advocate who was just following a bad theory. The leading theorists

of the time made a common apologia for domestic violence, saying that

the " drink made them do it " . Studies were published. This was

considered radical becuase alcohol was viewed both as a curse and as

a " medication " . Nation and others believed this and smashed

up pubs and fought for prohibition. Alcohol retained its status as

a " medication " and people would just get " prescription booze " under

prohibition.

As it turns out, the idea that alcohol causes domestic violence is

patently false. Domestic violence is committed by dead sober tee-

totallers along with drunks and occurs in every walk of life. It's

more that an abuser will drink to justify the violence than that the

disinhibition of alcohol will make them do it. Domestic violence is

its own addiction, its own problem that has to be addressed through

social means.

But what's different about the SSRIs is that, unlike alcohol, they

can actually make a " good man (or woman, or kid) go bad " . I suppose

they're more like LSD in that sense, but much worse. There's no test

to determine which person will or will not go psychotic on the drugs

in order to keep the drugs around for those who, in all honesty,

probably feel better on them.

I doubt such a test will be developed any time soon, not just become

industry and regulatory agencies lie to themselves and the public

about how the drugs work (for instance, there's never been a lick of

proof they correct brain chemicals or that depression or any mental

illness is genetic) but because current understanding of how the

brain works is in the dark ages. They don't know the mechanism by

which people become psycotic on or off drugs. The few clues that

exist about drug induced violent psychosis is that the effect is

inseparable from the part of the drugs that makes some

people " pleasantly high " . Without comprehension or research

integrity, how are they going to invent such a test?

So I have to agree with the reformers who call for research

integrity, putting a fire wall between industry and government

regulatory agencies and demanding absolute, no-punches-pulled, non-

euphemized informed consent for anyone seeking drug solutions for

depression or mental disability. If a doctor doesn't carefully

oversee a patient on the meds or doesn't provide complete information

of risks, including the ACTUAL statistics of violence and suicide,

they go to jail if that patient goes nuts or dies. This would

naturally bring about the complete collapse of the " genetic brain

chemical imbalance theory " of depression, would obstruct drugging

mandates and the system which coerces or offers false reassurances

of " safety and efficacy " . These things would naturally force

attention onto investigating and resolving the social problems and

toxic threats which cause mental and emotional suffering.

One of the problems with the drugs is that the bystanders who've died

in all these shootings and bizarre crimes didn't have a chance

for " informed consent " . Many of the people who committed suicide on

them were falsey assured of " safety and efficacy " despite the black

box warnings. It's Russian roulette. And the rates of mental illness

have grown from .2 in a 1000 to 20 in a thousand in a hundred years,

with rate spikes directly following the introduction of new

blockbuster psych drugs--first antidepressants, then stimulants, then

SSRIs, now neuroleptics. And furthermore, the pharma lobby has

managed to bring about legislation which is virtually blocking civil

injury claims against drug makers, just like for vaccines. Your kid

dies on the drugs? Too bad. And now the mandates and the calls to

child services and forced institutionalizations when families refuse

to drug their kids-- NT as well as kids with disabilities, though our

kids are the most vulnerable to this.

It's so much like vaccines in every way. Lack of informed consent,

lack of legal recourse, the high body count, suppression of

scientific fact regarding risks, withholding of treatment for those

with adverse reactions because of the system's denial of adverse

reactions, the threats to our children from coercion and the research

fraud and kickbacks which lead to mandates, court ordered dosing.

As far as the effects of these drugs on developing minds and bodies,

the news isn't good. Flourine from Prozac and other SSRIs gets

sequestered in bone and tissue and they don't know the long term

effects of this, rates of cancer and other adverse outcomes. Also, I

was told by a neurologist that all psychotropes increase permeability

of the blood brain barrier. I looked up the studies and this seems to

be the case: some are investigated in cancer treatments because they

allow more of the cancer drugs to enter the brain. She agreed that

this could theoretically allow more pathogens and toxins to enter the

CSF and brain. That can't be good for a child with a mercury body

burden and efflux or methylation problem. The mechanism of the drugs

on brain permeability in regard to toxic metals was found to be a

problem in alzheimers.

What's known beyond a clinical shadow of a doubt so far is that these

drugs and others cut blood flow to one of the frontal lobes by about

fifty percent, can be seen killing brain cells, retard growth, induce

tics, cause cardiac abnoralities and permanent changes to brain

structure, grow breasts in some boys, increase risk of alcoholism,

not to mention the horrific withdrawal reactions which prevent some

from every getting off the drugs. The list goes on. What to do?

> > >

> > > Kazmierczak's girlfriend went on CNN and said that he had gone

> off

> > > Prozac just before shooting. The NYT article spends a lot of

time

> > > quoting apologists for Prozac, that it's " not as dangerous " as

> the

> > > other SSRIs, but this isn't what the research says and probably

> > > merely reflects Eli Lilly's PR power. Sound familiar?

> > >

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ---------------------------------

> Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with

Search.

>