VIRGINIA TECH AND BEYOND: AN EXPLOSIVE INTERVIEW WITH A REBEL PSYCHIATRIST
in [Immunology]
|
Prev: World Renown Immunologist speaks on MAXGXL, Watch the Video Now
Next: New Proteins Detected On Silicone Breast Implants
From: JOHN on 22 Apr 2007 06:31 VIRGINIA TECH AND BEYOND: AN EXPLOSIVE INTERVIEW WITH A REBEL PSYCHIATRIST by Jon Rappoport http://nomorefakenews.com/index.php APRIL 20, 2007. REPRINTED FROM MAY 23, 2005, with new material added, and small edits made in the original text, to straighten out minor transcription errors. As you read this, you'll notice possible echoes of the Virginia Tech mayhem. For the past two years, I've been receiving communications from a practicing American psychiatrist, who has an office in the southeastern US. He sees patients privately. Increasingly, this man has been expressing doubts about the drugs he has been prescribing. Now, he has blown the lid off his own profession, and it appears he is ready to switch careers or become an alternative health practitioner. Here is an excerpt from our recent conversation. (New material is added at the end.) Q: Why do you doubt the psychiatric drugs? A: They're toxic and injurious. Q: Which ones? A: All of them. Q: And in particular? A: The antidepressants. Paxil, Prozac, Zoloft, and so on. They are not showing, on balance, good results, and patients have been experiencing adverse effects. Q: Such as? A: Sleeplessness, nightmares, erratic behavior, highs and lows, crashes, attempts to commit suicide, exacerbated depression, violence, dramatic personality changes. Q: Why do you think this is happening? A: To be honest, I don't know. But my sense is, in general, that the drugs interfere in unpredictable ways with various neurotransmitter systems. I also believe they can work extreme changes in blood sugar levels and electrolyte levels. You know, it's not hard to create these effects with chemicals. The body is not able to integrate them in its normal functioning. I would compare it to suddenly setting up all sorts of roadblocks and detours and forced lane changes on a busy highway. You will get big trouble. Q: Have you tried to communicate your concerns to colleagues and medical groups? A: For a short time, I did. But I was given the cold shoulder. I got the distinct feeling I was being treated like some wayward child who had his facts all wrong. Q: Who do you blame for this drugging catastrophe? A: At the moment, everybody. The doctors, the drug companies, the FDA, the psychiatric teaching institutions, even the press. And at some point, patients are going to have to take responsibility and not follow the orders of their doctors. Q: Do you believe that doctors should cut back and give the drugs to some people and not others? A: That sounds good, but there is no way to know what effects the drugs will cause in any given individual, especially as time passes. Even in the short term, I have seen some frightening things. Q: Do you believe the profession of psychiatry has made some kind of overarching deal with the drug companies? A: Yes. The drug companies are everywhere. They stick their noses into everyone's business. Q: What lies about the drugs have you had to purge from your own mind? A: The main one is that they're some kind of miracle breakthrough. Another one is that I can rely on the judgments and certifications of the FDA. We're playing Russian Roulette out here. It's a very dangerous situation. Q: Do you believe that some of the school shootings have resulted from children being on the antidepressants? A: I didn't, until one day a sixteen-year-old patient of mine showed up for his appointment with a 9mm handgun. Then I began to comb back through reports on a bunch of those shootings. I can tell you, it focuses the mind to see a young patient sitting across from you---you've put him on an antidepressant and now he's talking about "a new day" and he takes the gun out of his pocket and lays it on a table next to him by the Kleenex. You think to yourself, "I may have created a killer and his first victim could be me." People want to outlaw all guns. I'd start with the drugs. Q: How about the diagnosis of depression itself? A: I've come to realize that you can't do an interview with a patient and then come out with a shorthand assessment. It's wrong. It reduces all sorts of problems down to a label, and then you have your official gateway into the drugs. Q: Your colleagues think you're over-reacting? A: I think I'm under-reacting. I think we have an epidemic on our hands, but it has nothing to do with mental disorders. It has to do with the chemicals we're facilitating. Q: This boy with the gun---were you able to talk him down? A: I spent two hours with him that day. I told him he was having a reaction to the drug. At first, it made no sense to him. He was on a manic sort of ride. That really scared me---that I couldn't make him see what was happening to him. He was in the middle of an episode and he couldn't stand outside it. Finally, he eased up a little. He began to weep in my office. It wasn't really crying. Tears just ran down his cheeks while he was talking. He didn't seem to notice them. He had almost stopped being human. He was a...creature. He was on a mission of some kind. His view of the world had totally changed. In his mindset, destruction was the only course of action. Q: And then? A: He calmed down a little. I was afraid to ask him for the gun. He just picked it up and put it back in his pocket. After he left, I called his mother. She went home from her job and met him. I had asked her to call the police but she wouldn't. Later, she told me she sat and talked with him for a long time and then he handed over the gun. It was a very tense situation. I had her remove the bottle of pills from her medicine cabinet. Then I had to follow up. I weaned him slowly from the drug. It took two months. He finally sort of returned to being the person he was. Even then I wasn't sure he'd be okay. He was definitely addicted to the drug. Luckily, I didn't cut him off suddenly. He might have killed people during the withdrawal cycle. Q: Did you continue to see this boy as a patient? A: I did a nutritional assessment with the help of a doctor who is very good with that. We found the boy was having strange reactions to certain soft drinks that have speed-type boosters in them. We gradually weaned him off them. Then we discovered he was reacting to dyes and other chemicals in junk food. So we had to change his diet. That wasn't easy. Q: He was addicted in several ways to chemicals. A: That's right. There was peer pressure for him to keep eating junk. All his friends did. They called him weird for going off the food they were eating every day. Finally, I discovered that, five years before I saw him, he'd been on Ritalin for almost a year. You know, for ADHD. He'd been driven into depression by that. He basically felt, at eleven, that his life was all over. All paths and interests were closed to him. Q: How is he now? A: Much better. But he's not all the way back. I wish he were. Q: Do you think there is permanent brain damage? A: I don't know. He's now living outside the US with his father. I get reports once in awhile. Q: How does he [the son] feel about his own experience? A: He wants it to be an example to other families. Q: You didn't go into medicine to deal with this. A: No. In school, my ideals were high. But I allowed myself to be led down the garden path. I fell for the sales pitch. I'm telling you, this is not a good situation. We are a society on the brink. Something has to be done. Q: How do you feel about Bush's mental health screening program for all children? A: All in all, it may turn out to be the worst thing he's done as president. It's just a tip of his hat to his pharmaceutical supporters. But the long-range consequences---if this plan gets rolling---will be devastating. Q: Is there some underlying principle at work here? Some paradigm that everyone is accepting that is putting us into a bad situation? A: You know the answer to that. It's the combination of easy diagnosis plus the drug fix. The pill craze for everything. Take a drug and everything will work out. I see it as the classic street-drug promotion. Feel good. Take this drug and you'll feel different and better. Combine that with the basic immaturity of most people and you have the interlock. Why work out your problems and strive to have the life you want when you can arrive at the best destination with a pill? I'd take this a step further. If you stacked up all the tranquilizers and antidepressants, for adults, next to, say, marijuana, as a way of dealing with stress, I'd say that a very modest amount of a mild marijuana would be more successful than all those other drugs at the levels they're normally prescribed. If I were forced to recommend one or the other, I'd go with the marijuana. And I'd say the drug companies know this. Which is one reason why, in the US, the enforcement on marijuana has been stepping up. But again, you're always dealing with an individual. Each person is different. I've seen people who react very badly to pot. It affects them like a psychedelic. Q: You're saying the science behind the antidepressants is false. A: Absolutely. Judging by the effects of the drugs, it has to be. It may sound good and proper. All the right words are used. But I don't care about that anymore. I go by results. My eyes have been opened. Q: Then why are the drug companies pushing these drugs? A: I'm not an expert to speak to about that. Certainly there is the profit motive. But I think there is also the myth of progress. Q: What do you mean? A: That myth states that technology must keep making advances. It's the legend of forward motion. If technology is to be seen as good, it has to keep turning out better advances---otherwise something is wrong. And there can't be anything wrong. Q: It's like a hectic race. A: Yes. If you stop, you might fall down. Secrets might be exposed. Shortcomings might show up. So you have to keep pushing. You have to keep saying you're doing better and better. I'm sure you can see where this gets you. You make new mistakes to cover up old mistakes. You become careless. You lie. You hire promotion people to tout your work. You keep the whole thing rolling forward, no matter what. That's where we are. Q: And you were carried on that wave. A: For many years. But now I've stopped. Q: Is it uncomfortable? A: Not so much anymore. But at first I was very upset and angry. I was blaming everyone but myself. I felt like I was in chains, that my whole education and career were at stake. And I WAS my career. What else did I have? Getting off the boat was quite difficult. I had every advantage this society has to offer. I was--- Q: The expert. A: Yes. That's a powerful feeling. People come to you with questions and you have the answers. If you don't, then you're thrown down in the pit with everyone else. Part of being a doctor is being above the pit, out of the problem. You're the solution. You don't want to fall. And the only thing that keeps you from falling is what you've learned. Your knowledge. When you see that that's based on lies, you don't know what to do. It's like being a priest and realizing that everyone gets to the far shore by his own means. You don't want to let go of the doctrine that put you on the pulpit. Q: So what would a new paradigm look like? A: For mental health? We have to get rid of all the old classifications and disorders. We have to let all that go into oblivion. That was wrong. That was largely fantasy. Q: It was a story. A: We told it, and now we have to stop telling it. Because we've ended up intervening in people's lives in a very pernicious way. Q: Part of the story necessitated that kind of intervention. A: Yes. And, not to take myself off the hook, but people want that kind of story, as you say. They want that "expert story." They want someone else to come in and tell them what to do and what to think and what drug to take. Q: Why do you think that is? A: Because people have taken the easy path. They have opted for what I would call a flat version of reality. If they started adding dimensions on their own--- Q: They would be forced to tell their own story. A: In the terms you're using, yes. That's what would happen. Q: And how would society look then? A: Much different. Much more risky, perhaps, but much more alive. Psychology and psychiatry don't allow for that kind of outcome. All mental disorders are constructs. They're named by committees, as I'm sure you know. They're a form of centralized pattern. In this context, the word "shrink" is very appropriate. That's what we've been doing. Shrinking down the perception of what reality and the mind are all about. Q: Can you imagine what would happen if the lid were taken off? A: I work with that idea every day now. Q: And how does it look? A: More and more appealing. (From this point on, the material is new, dated April 9-17, 2007.) Q: What are your thoughts about all the revelations of cheating and lying in medical-drug studies? A: It doesn't surprise me. I expected that that sort of thing was going on, and that it was pervasive. The drug companies don't want to admit failure. They wants their billions. I've come to see them as much more cold-hearted. Q: How complicit are the medical journals that publish these studies? A: I blame them as well. If they really wanted to, they could police what comes into them much more carefully. They could publicize cheaters. They could blackball them. But drug advertisers keep some of these journals afloat. Q: So vows of ethical behavior on the part of the journals? A: Half-truths and lies. Q: If you can't believe the journals. A: I believe my patients. I listen to them. I work with them, not on them. I trust my own observations. Q: Do you prescribe psychiatric drugs? A: Never. Q: Could you get into trouble for that? A: Yes. It's hard to say exactly which brand of trouble, but yes. Q: Do you diagnose patients with the conventional mental-disorder names and labels? A: Never. Not anymore. I don't divide up the brain or the mind of the patient into fictional categories. ..Q: What do you think about the Virginia Tech shootings? A: It's horrible. I don't know what else to say. Q: Were you reminded of that boy who brought a gun into a session with you? A: Reminded? It was like a hand on my throat. Q: Do you think the accused killer had been on antidepressants? A: It's possible. I have no way of knowing. But if he was, there will be efforts to downplay it or cover it up. Q: Would you say some of his behavior leading up to, and including, the shootings, is consistent with the effects of the SSRI antidepressants [Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, etc.]? A: Consistent? Yes. That could have been the way it played out. I'm not saying there were no other factors. But to push him over the brink from ideation to murder.yes. The drugs can do that. Q: So it's quite possible that, in the absence of the drugs--- A: He would have thought about it, but he wouldn't have done it. Q: There are some very messed-up people out there who think about doing all sorts of things. A: Yes. And they don't do them. And then you have lots of other people who just fantasize. They imagine destruction, but they're quite healthy. They.you see, as a society, we're creeping closer to the official premise that no healthy person imagines destruction, and therefore if you do that, you're sick. That's a crock. It's not only a crock, it's a pretense. It's an attempt to construct a delusional model of what a healthy human being is. But a person with no destructive thoughts is a doll in a toy store. Meanwhile, you have men who go out with semi-automatic weapons and kill harmless animals. What is that? Is that supposed to be normal? How many rounds do those weapons fire every second? The thrill of the hunt? What thrill? It's like driving over a beetle with a tank. JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com WHERE ARE THE PSYCHIATRIC RECORDS FOR CHO? APRIL 20, 2007. Investigating authorities in the Virginia murders know, by this time, who treated Cho and when and where. They certainly know. And if they haven't released a statement that Cho never took psychiatric drugs, I believe the chances are good that he did take them. Vague claims are being made that the records are confidential. Doctor-patient privilege. Really? The patient is dead. And when Cho was alive, Virginia Tech University felt no obligation to inform his parents that he was a problem on campus. In fact, there is apparently a law against sharing such information. In other words, the parents do not deserve to know what their son is doing. So now, why would the parents deserve the right to withhold his psychiatric records---if they tried to assert that right? In matters of discipline, the University treated Cho like an adult. No parental involvement. Therefore, in matters of medical and psychiatric records, the same standard should apply. At the heart of the issue is the simple question: what psychiatric drugs were given to Cho? On April 17, the Chicago Tribune ran a story headlined "Danger Signs festered below the surface." One brief paragraph stated, "Investigators believe Cho at some point had been taking medication for depression." What investigators? One day after the massacre, investigators apparently had found some medical records or talked to doctors. There is obviously pressure not to release the names of the drugs, if indeed Cho did take antidepressants. Why the pressure? Because, as I've been detailing in articles over the last several days, these drugs can force a person into a psychotic state where suicide or homicide, or both, are the new objective. Imagine if, today, the story broke: Cho was taking Paxil. Boom. There is a recent history of suits against the manufacturer, Glaxo, with many more suits waiting in the wings. Those suits involve adverse effects of the drug. Think of the impact on Glaxo's stock price, on its reputation, on its future. To say nothing of tainted jury pools. Very big bucks are involved. The manufacturers of Paxil, Prozac, and Zoloft have every reason to want to bury this aspect of the story. They are certainly not asleep at the wheel. They have contingency plans in place already, when these school shootings occur. Here is my estimate of their orders of priority: One, if at all possible withhold medical records and prevent doctors from talking about the drugs. Use confidentiality as the rationale. Two, if that doesn't work, stall as long as possible, and try to keep the names of the drugs from surfacing until the story starts to die down. Three, in the absence of that, claim there is no proof the person actually took the drug, even if it was prescribed. Or say that he was also drinking alcohol or doing street drugs, which would cancel out the "benefits" of the psychiatric med. Four, suggest that if he had taken the med, chances are he wouldn't have committed violence. Five, get doctors to say the drug didn't cause violence, the mental disorder did. (This strategy permeates all the others.) Six, play up other aspects of the person's character and past history---to give the impression that he was always a bad seed. (This strategy permeates all the others as well.) Seven, make sure to release statements accusing drug critics of "keeping millions of people away from the relief they need from mental disorders"---relief they can only get from the drugs. And of course, use a handy list of politicians and other influential types to lean on investigators, through the chain of command, to keep details of the drugs out of the press. Generally speaking, cops have developed a reflex aversion to introducing medical-drug evidence in criminal cases. They know the defense can counter with its own psychiatric experts---and then the case drops down into a muddle of experts battling each other in court. So cops would already be predisposed to downplaying drug evidence. And in this, they would be backed up by district attorneys, who shy away from wars of medical experts. Notice there is nothing in the press about an autopsy on Cho's body. Certainly, an autopsy should be performed. Drug screens would be run. These screens would look for, among other compounds, antidepressants. Why are we hearing nothing about this? If evidence of antidepressants were found, that would be a blow to the drug-company manufacturer. If no evidence were discovered, announcing the fact would provoke the obvious question: well, did he take antidepressants in the past? JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com
From: editor on 22 Apr 2007 21:03 I really doubt use of prescription psychological drugs caused any of Cho's problems - as his own relatives back in Korea say he never was normal even in early childhood before his family moved to America, instead almost never talked with family members. His problems obviously didn't begin when he came to a Ritalin-soaked America at age eight - but, if his relatives in Korea are at all accurate, he was psychotic from very soon after birth. No $4 to park! No $6 admission! http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com
From: JOHN on 23 Apr 2007 04:11 <editor(a)netpath.net> wrote in message news:1177290221.592854.135630(a)q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >I really doubt use of prescription psychological drugs caused any of > Cho's problems - as his own relatives back in Korea say he never was > normal even in early childhood before his family moved to America, > instead almost never talked with family members. His problems > obviously didn't begin when he came to a Ritalin-soaked America at age > eight - but, if his relatives in Korea are at all accurate, he was > psychotic from very soon after birth. Yeah, well try and educate yourself--start with suicide http://www.whale.to/drugs/suicide.html
From: editor on 23 Apr 2007 20:22 On Apr 23, 4:11 am, "JOHN" <j...(a)btinternet.com> quoted me: > >I really doubt use of prescription psychological drugs caused any of > > Cho's problems - as his own relatives back in Korea say he never was > > normal even in early childhood before his family moved to America, > > instead almost never talked with family members. His problems > > obviously didn't begin when he came to a Ritalin-soaked America at age > > eight - but, if his relatives in Korea are at all accurate, he was > > psychotic from very soon after birth. and replied: > Yeah, well try and educate yourself--start with suicide Try reading what I said. Cho was born in - and spent his first years in - Korea, not in an America where psych drugs for teenagers has become a fad in recent years. Nonetheless, his relatives in Korea say he was messed up from the start, pretty uncommunicative from Day One - long before ending up in America in a subculture where psych drugs for kids are "normal." No $4 to park! No $6 admission! http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com
From: JOHN on 24 Apr 2007 17:31
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/blackburgexecutions18apr07.shtml |