Theory: http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7006/psychopolitics.

html

PSYCHOPOLITICS - the art and science of asserting and maintaining dominion over the thoughts and loyalties of individuals, officers, bureaus, and masses, and the effecting of the conquest of enemy nations through "mental healing."
During the period that I was a member of the Communist Party, I attended their school which was located at 113 E. Wells St., Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and operated under the name Eugene Debs Labor School. Here we were trained in all phases of warfare, both psychological and physical, for the destruction of the Capitalistic society and Christian civilization. In one portion of our studies we went thoroughly into the matter of psychopolitics. This was the art of capturing the minds of a nation through brainwashing and fake mental health -- the subjecting of whole nations of people to the rule of the Kremlin by capturing their minds. We were taught that the degradation of the populace is less inhuman than their destruction by bombs, for to an animal lives only once, any life is sweeter than death. The end of a war is the control of a conquered people. If a people can be conquered in the absence of war, the end of war will have been achieved without the destructions of war. During the past few years, I have noted with horror the increase of psychopolitical warfare upon the American public. First, in the brainwashing of our boys in Korea, and then in the well financed drive of mental health propaganda by left-wing pressure groups, wherein many of our states have passed Bills which can well be used by the enemies of America to subject to torture and imprisonment, those who preach the gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and who oppose the menace of Communism. A clear example of this can be seen in the Lucille Miller case. In this warfare the Communists have definitely stated: "You must recruit every agency of the nation marked for slaughter into a foaming hatred of religious healing." Basically, Man is an animal. He is an animal which has been given a civilized veneer. Man is a collective animal, grouped together for his own protection before the threat of the environment. Those who so group and control him must have in their possession specialized techniques to direct the vagaries and energies of the animal Man toward greater efficiency in the accomplishment of the goals of the State.
Practice: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/06/19/drugging-children-to-keep-themquiet.aspx

Drugging Children to Keep Them Quiet This stunning news report finds that children, even toddlers as young as 2, are being given powerful psychotropic drugs in order to manage their behavior. Are these children being drugged because it is cheaper and easier than providing real care -- and because the practice is very lucrative for the pharmaceutical companies?

This video is proof of just how outrageous things have become in conventional medicine. Drugging 2 and 3-year-olds? Two out of three foster kids in Texas on medication, sometimes several of them? This is just reprehensibly irresponsible. Allegations of babies as young as 2 and 3 being given mind-altering drugs exist against foster care systems across the United States, including Texas, California, Ohio and Florida. I dont even advocate giving children cough syrup, Tylenol or antibiotics, as these alone can be very harmful. But when youre talking about powerful psychotropic, mind -altering drugs, youre entering an entirely different ballgame. The number of prescriptions for psychotropic drugs for children has more than doubled between 1995 and 2000. And psychotropic drugs, by definition, alter your mind, your emotions and your behavior. These drugs, many of which are not even approved for kids, act on your central nervous system, reduce your mobility and, as Gwen Olsen, the former pharmaceutical rep in the video told CBS News, are sort of like a chemical straightjacket. Even when prescribed properly, the various side effects of drugs like Prozac, Paxil, Ritalin, Zyprexa, Depakote and others are dizzying:

Anxiety, depression, impulsivity and obsession Anger, compulsion, temper tantrums and mood instability (this one, ironically, from a mood stabilizer drug) Social awkwardness, withdrawal, tics Sleep disturbances Separation anxiety Behavior problems Inattention and distractability

But give them to toddlers, whose brains and bodies are not fully developed, and combine them in hefty doses of two, three or more different meds, and the side effects are anybodys guess. There may even be a chance that as these kids get older, the mind-altering drugs could lead to violent hostility events like those that occurred at Virginia Tech and Columbine

High School. Drugs Are Not the Answer to Childrens Behavioral Problems Imagine being a 5-year-old entering the foster care system. Who wouldnt display some signs of mental upset at a time like that? Yet, what these kids need is some love and tending to their emotions, along with replacing all their toxic processed junk foods with life-giving, vital, healthy food -- not medications. Sadly, foster care systems are not only overloaded, theyre controlled by the government and their biggest supporter, the drug companies. For parents out there, I realize that many decide to put their children on a psychotropic drug because they believe it will help them and they have no choice. However, I have treated many hundreds of children with these types of disorders and have consistently seen them improve once the underlying toxicities and food changes were addressed, so parents let me assure you that there is hope! You can view my interview with the late pediatric expert Dr. Lendon Smith on this topic. There can also be extreme pressure to give your kids prescription drugs, with some public schools even accusing parents of child abuse when they resist giving their kids drugs such as Ritalin. In fact, parents who try to resist this insanity in their own homes can even have their children taken away. In one such case, a 6-year-old mildly autistic boy was taken into state custody after his mother refused medications for him. Without the presence of a single doctor, the court decided to put the child on five powerful anti-psychotic drugs, even though none of the drugs have been approved for use in children. So its highly unlikely that kids entering the government-controlled foster system will be given the care they really need. Maybe one day down the road, but sadly, not today. Correcting Behavioral Problems Without Drugs Behavioral problems in children are very frequently related to improper diet, emotional upset and exposure to toxins. To address these underlying toxins in your own child, without resorting to drugs: 1. Give your child plenty of high-quality, animal-based omega-3 fats like krill oil. 2. Balance your childs intake of omega-3 and omega-6 fats (from vegetables oils), by limiting their intake of vegetable oils. 3. Avoid giving your child ANY processed foods, especially those containing artificial

colors, flavors, and preservatives. 4. Replace soft drinks, fruit juices, and pasteurized milk in your childs diet with pure water. This is HUGE since high fructose corn syrup is the NUMBER ONE source of calories in children -- remember this includes fruit juices! 5. Reduce or eliminate grains and sugars from your childs diet -- yes even healthy organic whole grains can cause problems. Try eliminating them first for 1-2 weeks and see if you dont notice a radical and amazing improvement in your childs behavior. 6. Make sure your child gets plenty of exercise and outdoor playtime in the sunshine. 7. Give your child a way to deal with his or her emotions. Even children can benefit from the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT), which you or an EFT practitioner can teach them how to use.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2000/02/27/drug-use-in-toddlers.aspx

Psychiatric Drug Use In Toddlers Soars -- More Kids Ages 2 to 4 On Ritalin, Antidepressants

Young children are often prescribed psychotropic drugs for pain relief, anxiety, bed wetting and attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder. The number of preschoolers in the United States being prescribed antidepressants and stimulants soared 50 percent between 1991 and 1995s, despite limited knowledge about the effects of such drugs on young children. The number of 2- to 4-year-olds on psychiatric drugs including Ritalin and antidepressants like Prozac jumped 50 percent between 1991 and 1995, in a study of more than 200,000 preschool-age children. UNKNOWN EFFECTS Experts said they are troubled by the findings because the effects of such drugs in children so young are largely unknown. Some doctors worry that such powerful drugs could be dangerous for children?s development. Unresolved questions involve the long-term safety of psychotropic medications, particularly in light of earlier ages of initiation and longer durations of treatment. While it is reassuring that anecdotal reports have rarely documented these problems, the possibility of adverse effects on the developing brain cannot be ruled out. The reasons for prescribing such medications in young children include pain relief, anxiety associated with medical, pre-surgery and dental procedures, bed wetting

and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in kids 3 years and older. Although the study did not examine reasons for the increases, it suggested a few possibilities. With an increasing number of children attending day care, parents may feel pressured to have their children conform in their behavior. There is a much greater acceptance in the 1990s of psychoactive drugs. It?s become a quick fix. STUDY DETAILS The authors reviewed Medicaid prescription records from 1991, 1993 and 1995 for preschoolers from a Midwestern state and a mid-Atlantic state; and for those in an HMO in the Northwest. Use of stimulants, antidepressants, antipsychotics and clonidine ? a drug used in adults to treat high blood pressure and increasingly for insomnia in hyperactive children ? were examined. Substantial increases were seen in every category except antipsychotics, though in some cases the actual number of prescriptions was quite small. The number of children getting any of the drugs totaled about 100,000 in 1991, and jumped 50 percent to 150,000 in 1995. That year, 60 percent of the youngsters on drugs were age 4, 30 percent were 3 and 10 percent were 2-year-olds. The use of clonidine skyrocketed in all three groups. Although the numbers were small, the researchers said the clonidine increases were particularly remarkable because its use for attention disorders is new and largely uncharted. They noted that slowed heart beat and fainting have been reported in children who use clonidine with other medications for attention disorders. Since the effects of these medications on such young children are largely unknown, both epidemiological and clinical studies are needed. The researchers state that these findings are remarkable in light of the limited knowledge base that underlies psychotropic medication use in very young children. Overall, the use of stimulants increased about 3-fold. The majority of stimulant prescriptions were for Ritalin, but there was a modest but consistent decrease in the proportion of methylphenidate use relative to other stimulants across the three time periods. There was a "dramatic" increase in prescriptions for clonidine during the study period. This finding is "notable because its increased prescribing is occurring without the benefit of rigorous data to support it as a safe and effective treatment for attentional disorders. The Harvard Medical School physician who wrote the editorial to the study states that it appears that behaviorally disturbed children are now increasingly subjected to quick and inexpensive pharmacologic fixes as opposed to informed multimodal therapy associated with optimal outcomes. These disturbing prescription practices suggest a growing crisis in mental health services to children and demand more

thorough investigation.

JAMA February 23, 2000;283:1025-1030,1059-1060

Dr. Mercola's Comment:

This is a very sad commentary on the state of traditional medicine in this country. They are willing to sacrifice our children to the pharmaceutical companies and have their parents pay them a ransom of $50 to $100 a month in exchange for a "quick fix" to their medical problems. I really put most of the blame on the physicians. They have the training and are completely capable of researching an appropriate solution for their patients. They have been entrusted to protect and serve their patients and most took an oath to this effect. They have blown it BIG TIME. Diet will resolve most of the problems for which these drugs are prescribed. I have cared for hundreds if not thousands of these children and it is rare when dramatic if not complete resolution of the behavioral symptoms occur with the diet recommendations. Fortunately, if you are reading this, you or you loved ones do not need to be held captive to the ignorance (frequently arrogant ignorance) of the majority of physicians when it comes to managing this problem. If you have a child or relative or neighbor who is on these medications have them try the diet. When it works have them encourage their physician to learn this information so they can start helping other children by getting them off of these dangerous medications which are rarely appropriate. I am delighted to see that JAMA is taking an ever increasingly responsible role by publishing the truth, even when it clashes with the traditional paradigm.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2004/05/22/antipsychotic-drugs.aspx

Now They Want to Give Antipsychotic Drugs to "Disruptive" Kids

Researchers have reported that the antipsychotic drug Risperdal (risperidone) seemed to be a safe and effective long-term solution for decreasing disruptive behaviors of "below-average children." A study was conducted to determine if risperidone was an effective long-term treatment of children who possessed lower IQs and displayed severe disruptive behavior problems.

The study involved the evaluation of 107 children, aged 5 to 12 years old, with severe disruptive behaviors and lower IQs. Each of the children was given 0.02 to 0.06mg of risperidone a day. Some of the most common side effects from the drug included mild to moderate sleepiness, headache, runny nose and weight gain. Results of the study showed significant improvement of disruptive behavior problems after the first few weeks of the study and then continued improvement for the remainder of the study. Restlessness, muscle spasms and changes in cognitive function were not found to be common symptoms in the study. Based on these findings, researchers recommended further studies to assess the effectiveness and safety of risperidone for more than a one-year period.

American Journal of Psychiatry April 2004;161(4):677-84

Dr. Mercola's Comments: As I said in a past newsletter article, antipsychotic drugs have major problems and side effects. Four medical groups, including the American Psychiatric Association, have warned that the new drugs could increase a patient's risk of heart disease by increasing:

Obesity Diabetes High cholesterol

As I have said before, drugs are the easy answer and dont offer much more of a solution than a Band-Aid to the symptoms. The good news is that diet will resolve most of the behavior problems they are prescribing this unnecessary drug for. I have cared for hundreds if not thousands of these children and it is rare when dramatic, if not complete resolution of the behavioral symptoms occur with the diet recommendations. Fortunately, if you are reading this, you or your loved ones do not need to be held captive to the ignorance (frequently arrogant ignorance) of the majority of physicians when it comes to managing this problem. If you have a child, relative or neighbor who is on these medications, forward them this article using the "e-mail to a friend" feature in the upper right corner and have them try the nutrition plan.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2000/10/29/drugs-clots.aspx

Antipsychotic Drugs Cause Blood Clots People who take antipsychotic drugs, even those who are young and otherwise healthy, face an increased risk for potentially fatal blood clots, researchers report, extending previous findings to encompass a wider range of medications for schizophrenia, manic-depressive disorder, dementia, autism, and other brain disorders.

Researchers looked at nearly 30,000 patients on antipsychotic drugs over the course of 7 years. Patients younger than 60 who had no risk factors for blood clots, such as heart disease or diabetes. They found that these patients were 7 times more likely to

develop blood clots known as venous thromboembolisms than drug-free study participants.

The risk was greatest during patients' first 3 months on the drugs.

Lead researcher Dr. Gwen L. Zornberg of Boston University School of Medicine in Lexington, Massachusetts, said in an interview with Reuters Health, that doctors have been noting for decades that antipsychotic drugs seem to trigger blood clots in some patients. "What's fascinating," she said, "is that this was very well-studied from the 1960s until 1984...then for some reason it just fell through the cracks." Research on the link between the drugs and blood clots has been hindered by the fact that study patients have often had other risk factors for venous thromboembolism. To avoid this problem, Zornberg's team focused on patients younger than 60 who had no risk factors for blood clots, such as heart disease or diabetes. Dr. Zornberg notes that these clots might be prevented by something as simple as exercise or some type of physical activity. She also notes that, despite accumulating evidence, blood clots are not listed as a potential side effect of antipsychotic drugs.

The Lancet October 7, 2000;356:1219-1223.

Dr. Mercola's Comments: : Although these medications are not used very commonly, these potentially life threatening complications represent another failure of the traditional drug paradigm in treating chronic illness. There are far better options in most of these cases. One can investigate the use of orthomolecular medicine to help with this condition. Dr. Abram Hoffer has done quite a bit of pioneering efforts in this area.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2004/02/18/drug-companies-part-fifteen.aspx

Drug Companies Pay Off Government to Sell More Anti-Psychotic Drugs

The drug industry knows how to market their drugs. For the big named drugs they spend billions of dollars on consumer advertising, but to sell medicines that treat schizophrenia the companies focus on a smaller group of customers, the state officials who oversee treatment for patients with mental illness. These patients make states among the largest buyers of antipsychotic drugs. Past evidence has shown, since the mid-1990s a group of major drug companies had campaigned to convince state officials that a new generation of drugs--with names like Risperdal, Zyprexa and Seroquel--was superior to older and much cheaper antipsychotics. The campaign has led a dozen states, including Texas, to adopt guidelines for treating schizophrenia, which in turn made it almost impossible for doctors to prescribe anything but the new drugs, which resulted in transforming the new medicines into blockbusters. To adopt the guidelines, major drug companies wined and dined different state officials and urged them to follow the lead of Texas, according to evidence found. Evidence written in a report also showed that in May 2001, as Pennsylvania was deciding whether to adopt the Texas guidelines, a pharmaceutical company paid $4,000 to fly two mental health officials to New Orleans, where they ate at an elegant restaurant with the company executives. These reports show a lot more money was given out to other mental health officials at different times. With all this evidence floating around, it started to stir up some concerns about the drug companies new generation of the drugs, called atypical antipsychotics, used to treat a variety of mental illnesses. The concerns were coming from a joint panel made up of the American Diabetes Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, and the North American Association for the Study of Obesity who said, mental patients who take these drugs may be increasing their risk for obesity, diabetes and high cholesterol--all which lead to heart disease. The joint panel has issued a statement asking doctors to screen all patients on these medications for signs that could lead to any of these diseases, stating there is considerable evidence from studies conducted.

New York Times February 1, 2004

Dr. Mercola's Comments: These new antipsychotics are loaded with side effects. Four medical groups, including the American Psychiatric Association, have warned that the new drugs

could increase a patient's risk of heart disease by increasing:

Obesity Diabetes High cholesterol

This NY Times article details how the drug companies have manipulated and influenced state governments to purchase even more of these expensive side effect-riddled drugs. Questions have multiplied about the many ways that the drug industry tries to influence the medical information that determines its products' success or failure. This makes perfect sense to me. Drugs are in no way, shape or form the answer for mental illness. They may control symptoms, but they do so at quite a significant price, and one that many people are not willing to pay. Why exchange one set of horrible side effects for diabetes? This makes no sense to me, unless you are the drug company--and then it makes perfect sense. Fortunately, we do have some natural options. Dr. Stoll is the director of the psychopharmacology research lab at Boston's McLean Hospital and assistant professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. He discusses the use of omega3 extensively in his book The Omega-3 Connection. He reviews the new evidence supporting the use of omega-3 oils for mental illness. The book is excellent, but Dr. Stoll is seriously misinformed about cod liver oil. This is especially true in terms of schizophrenia, which seems to respond particularly well to therapeutic doses of vitamin D. A study I posted in 2002 strongly connected the dots from not enough sunshine and subsequent vitamin D to prevent schizophrenia. Optimal exposure to sunlight can provide enough vitamin D, but for most of us the winter provides a major lack of sun exposure and our levels fall in the dirt. Fortunately, cod liver oil can be used to replace this level to near ideal ranges. My favorite source of both omega-3 and vitamin D happens to be Carlson's cod liver oil. If you can't find this brand in your local health food store we carry the Carlsons brand in our Recommended Products section. In 1993 I was mistakenly diagnosed with a "mild psychosis" by a team of doctors at a city university hospital. I was in good health, physically. My only complaint was that I often felt scattered, and edgy. I self-admitted and, after about four days of evaluation, it was decided that I had a huge intelligence that was making me appear normal to the outside world but was in fact masking my "psychosis." I was immediately started on the drug, Haldol and, two days later, I was released. In very little time, I felt worse than I have even felt in my life: My world became colorless, flattened, two dimensional. I was

cut off from my feelings. I begged the head of psychiatry, my therapist's therapist, to take me off this drug. I knew it was cause for this disconnection. He insisted I give it time to work. I felt as though I was walking around dead, and I was the only one who noticed it. Finally, because this disconnection was worse to me than death itself, I tried to take my own life. At the last minute, I called a friend, and she called the ambulance. I was released two days later. I called my therapist and told her I was going off the drug, no matter what. She gave me directions on doing it slowly. I was placed on antidepressants and, after another year, I finally felt normal. I lost a year and a half of my life due to this misdiagnoses. A few years ago, I read an article stating that if Haldol is given incorrectly it can actually cause clinical depression. In early 2007, I was rushed to the ER because I was unable to breathe. I had been experiencing pain for over a year but, because I did not have insurance at the time, my doctor did not run a battery of tests. She did send me for an x-ray and an ultrasound, but these found nothing. An ER doc guessed that I might have a pulmonary embolism. In fact, I had "many." I was told that, had I waited much longer, I probably would have died. I was put on 7mg of warfarin and told I'd probably be on it for life
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2004/05/22/antipsychotic-drugs.aspx

Now They Want to Give Antipsychotic Drugs to "Disruptive" Kids

Researchers have reported that the antipsychotic drug Risperdal (risperidone) seemed to be a safe and effective long-term solution for decreasing disruptive behaviors of "below-average children." A study was conducted to determine if risperidone was an effective long-term treatment of children who possessed lower IQs and displayed severe disruptive behavior problems. The study involved the evaluation of 107 children, aged 5 to 12 years old, with severe disruptive behaviors and lower IQs. Each of the children was given 0.02 to 0.06mg of risperidone a day. Some of the most common side effects from the drug included mild to moderate sleepiness, headache, runny nose and weight gain. Results of the study showed significant improvement of disruptive behavior problems after the first few weeks of the study and then continued improvement for the remainder of the study. Restlessness, muscle spasms and changes in cognitive function were not found to be common symptoms in the study. Based on these findings, researchers recommended further studies to assess the effectiveness and safety of risperidone for more than a one-year period.

American Journal of Psychiatry April 2004;161(4):677-84

Dr. Mercola's Comments:

As I said in a past newsletter article, antipsychotic drugs have major problems and side effects. Four medical groups, including the American Psychiatric Association, have warned that the new drugs could increase a patient's risk of heart disease by increasing:

Obesity Diabetes High cholesterol

As I have said before, drugs are the easy answer and dont offer much more of a solution than a Band-Aid to the symptoms. The good news is that diet will resolve most of the behavior problems they are prescribing this unnecessary drug for. I have cared for hundreds if not thousands of these children and it is rare when dramatic, if not complete resolution of the behavioral symptoms occur with the diet recommendations. Fortunately, if you are reading this, you or your loved ones do not need to be held captive to the ignorance (frequently arrogant ignorance) of the majority of physicians when it comes to managing this problem. If you have a child, relative or neighbor who is on these medications, forward them this article using the "e-mail to a friend" feature in the upper right corner and have them try the nutrition plan.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2001/08/04/drowning.aspx

Did Drugs Cause Mom to Drown Her Five Children?

By Kelly Patricia O'Meara

Andrea Yates' crime shocked the nation. Did mind-altering drugs prescribed to treat her depression actually drive this young mother of five to drown the children she loved? Only weeks ago, Houston wife and mother Andrea Pia Yates methodically drowned each of her five children. One by one Yates forced her children, ages 6 months to 7 years, into the family's bathtub and held their struggling bodies under the water until each fell limp. Whatever possessed the 36-year-old mother to commit these unconscionable acts remains murky. Depression and postpartum syndrome topped early speculation, but there has been little discussion about the possible effects of the powerful mind-altering drugs she was taking. Although Texas District Judge Belinda Hill issued a gag order concerning the case, family members have released disturbing facts about Yates' psychiatric treatment that specialists say may account for her state of mind at the time of the murders.

During a two-year period, Yates was prescribed four extremely potent mindaltering drugs intended to help her through two episodes of severe depression that began after the birth of her fourth child. The first of these psychopharmacological cocktails included Haldol, an antipsychotic most often used to treat schizophrenia; Effexor, an antidepressant very similar to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs); and Wellbutrin, a unique antidepressant that has amphetaminelike effects. ccording to Yates' husband, Russell, his wife appeared to respond well to this treatment regimen and, after a short time, became her "old self." At the onset of the second episode of depression following the birth of her fifth child, and the subsequent death of her father, Yates again was prescribed a psychopharmacological cocktail. This one contained Effexor and, at the end, Remeron. While information about the Remeron dosage was not made public, Yates' husband has said that his wife was given Effexor at a dosage nearly twice the recommended maximum limit. Just days before the murders, the Effexor was for some reason reduced to just slightly more than the recommended maximum dosage of 225 mg per day and the Remeron was added. Psychiatrist Peter Breggin, court-qualified medical expert and author of numerous books, including Talking Back to Prozac and the recently released The AntiDepressant Fact Book, tells Insight: "The mixture of Remeron and Effexor would tend to be extremely agitating and certainly could lead to behavioral disturbances. The mixture of Haldol, Wellbutrin and Effexor is unpredictable in its effects. Haldol actually can cause depression, and putting the three drugs together is somewhat experimental." Breggin continues: "Haldol is a very blunting drug. It's difficult to come to any definitive conclusions with so little data about her state of mind at the time. However, Haldol is a drug that produces what can only be referred to as a chemical lobotomy that tends to make a person more docile and robotic." Many Americans who have read or heard reports about this case have little doubt that Yates was "out of her mind" when she killed her children. What appears to be developing, however, is an argument within the medical community about whether the mother's homicidal state of mind was triggered by the depth of her depression or by the mind-altering drugs prescribed to her. Were these the actions of a severely depressed woman who "lost it," or did the mind-altering drugs push this emotionally distraught woman over the edge? Should the latter be established in the criminal court, it could raise an even greater issue:

Who was responsible? Was it a chemically poisoned mother who carried out the crazed act, the physician who prescribed the mind-altering cocktails or the pharmaceutical companies that manufactured and marketed the treatment? Only recently have pharmaceutical companies been held responsible for violent behavior associated with their product lines of mind-altering drugs. A case in point is a June trial in which a jury in Cheyenne, Wyo., found that the antidepressant Paxil, one of the newer SSRIs distributed by GlaxoSmithKline PLC, "can cause some individuals to commit suicide and/or homicide." The jury said Paxil caused Donald Schell, a retired oil-rig worker, to shoot and kill his wife, daughter and granddaughter before turning the gun on himself. Schell had been on the mind-altering drug only two days. The jury awarded surviving family members $8 million in damages, finding that 80 percent of the fault lay with the drugmaker. Andy Vickery of the Houston law firm of Vickery & Waldner, lead attorney in the Wyoming case, has taken dozens of similar cases seeking to hold responsible those dispensing and manufacturing these drugs. "The important thing," Vickery explains, "is to lay the responsibility and accountability at the doorstep of those who ought to have it and those who could and should do something about it. Whether it's criminal or civil responsibility, there isn't a lot of difference." As Vickery puts it, "Look, if I give you a loaded gun and for whatever reason it's likely that you're going to shoot someone, then I'm an accessory before the fact of murder. Shouldn't the drug company that's encouraging doctors to prescribe a drug and is aware that these drugs cause adverse reactions be held responsible? No one can believe that a mother would do such a thing. It's too horrible. But the fact is these people get completely out of touch with reality because of these drugs. Unfortunately, in most of the cases that I get involved with, we never know if the people committing the violence knew what they were doing when they did it because they also killed themselves." Although alcoholic-beverage distillers have yet to be held responsible for the overwhelming number of fatalities resulting from alcohol abuse, in many states bartenders are held civilly and criminally liable when customers get drunk and cause automobile fatalities. With the growing number of physicians and psychiatrists prescribing mind-altering drugs and the alarming data filtering out about adverse reactions to them, tort lawyers are asking if medically trained dispensers of psychotropic drugs shouldn't also be held liable. For example, Yates' psychiatrist, Muhammad Saaed, reportedly prescribed at least one mind-altering drug (Effexor) at almost twice the maximum recommended dose

as part of a cocktail of mind-altering drugs that also included Haldol and Wellbutrin during her first bout with severe depression. A cautionary note in the Physicians Desk Reference says Effexor negatively interacts with Haldol. Apparently, Effexor hinders Haldol's drug clearance by a factor of more than 40 percent and can cause Haldol concentration levels to increase by nearly 90 percent, creating toxicity. Did Saaed know the contraindications associated with the cocktail he prescribed? If the psychiatrist was unaware of the toxic mix, would ignorance of the potential poisoning make him any less liable than if he had known and prescribed the mind-altering drugs anyway? These are just a few of the questions Saaed may be asked should he have to defend his treatment under oath. According to Ann Blake Tracy, executive director of the International Coalition for Drug Awareness and author of the recently updated book Prozac: Panacea or Pandora?, there is little doubt about Saaed's culpability. Tracy, a doctor of health sciences specializing in adverse reactions to serotonergic medications, tells Insight that "when doctors start prescribing 'off label' outside the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] guidelines, they run the risk of being sued for malpractice. In the case of Yates, her psychiatrist already had her on superhigh doses, and on the Monday before the tragedy he dropped the Effexor back to almost the maximum dosage, then added Remeron. It's well-documented that when doses are increased or decreased, patients experience negative reactions. A great many of the court cases, but certainly not all of them, are a result of the drastic change in the medication." According to Tracy, "There's a lot of science to demonstrate that depression is the result of an inability to metabolize serotonin, but somehow the drug companies have got the world believing that an increase in serotonin, rather than an increase in serotonin metabolism, is what the depressed person needs. This is the exact opposite of what research on depression shows and, if you look at the research over the last 50 years it is clear that there has been a horrible mistake. There is such a wanton disregard for life. Why can't these doctors at least read the package inserts so they know how to prescribe the drugs properly? They're not supposed to prescribe over the maximum doses, and they know that they are at toxic levels at that point. That's why they have maximum-dose information; that's why the Food and Drug Administration puts a maximum dose on the packaging. They do it to show that over the allowable dose level, a person becomes toxic and it's extremely dangerous." When asked what questions she might have for Yates' psychiatrist, Tracy tells Insight: "I'd want to know how he could have ignored so many warnings and

contraindications in [reportedly] giving this poor woman this dangerous drug cocktail. I'd also like to know which sleeping pill he uses to knock himself out at night when those five children's faces run over and over again through his mind?" Harsh words? It appears this is just the beginning. Many who follow such matters say that because of the high profile of the likely trial of Yates for capital murder, it may turn into a landmark case pitting the pharmaceutical giants against the medical practitioners and vice versa, perhaps even dragging in the American Psychiatric Association. George Parnham, Yates' attorney, has reported that he will enter a not-guilty plea on behalf of his client for reasons of insanity. After meeting with Yates and speaking with psychiatrists that had examined her, Parnham told reporters, "I've accumulated evidence in the last 24 hours that strongly suggests that the mental status of my client will be the issue." Just what Parnham has discerned is anyone's guess, including whether he'll defend his client by challenging the pharmaceutical companies and his client's psychiatrist. In the meantime, sources close to the case report that Yates still is being medicated. Saaed has turned his files on Yates over to the court and has, to date, made no public statement.

Insight Magazine July 2001

Dr. Mercola's Comments: Another sad tragedy. One doesn't need an advanced medical degree to recognize that no parent functioning properly would ever drown all their children. The timing of these powerful brain altering drugs appears more than an coincidence in causing this woman to commit such an unthinkable crime. Another potential factor in post-partum depression could be breastfeeding, or lack thereof. It would be very interesting to find out what percentage of women who go through such depression have breastfed their infants. Unfortunately, I don't know of any studies that have even addressed the issue. But since breastfeeding has many effects on a woman's hormones, it is certainly possible, and should be studied.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2001/08/04/serotonin-part-one.aspx

The Serotonin Surprise

By Gary Greenberg

'I think you have to accept that there's a structural change in your brain when you take drugs like Prozac'
Psychotherapists love to argue. We argue about treatment theories, about our clients and their families, about the office coffeepot. And during the past decade we have tended to fixate, as we say in the business, on the subject of Prozac.

It used to be fairly easy to agree about commonly prescribed psychiatric drugs such as Valium: They anesthetized people, covered up problems, illegitimately took the place of therapy. But Prozac and the other antidepressants that work by enhancing serotonin activity in the brain have eluded such easy criticism. Often we would find that our clients who took them felt more alive, more resilient, more able to engage in the honest self-reflection necessary to therapy. And we could not help but agree with Peter Kramer, who wrote in Listening to Prozac that the drug can remake the self - which was supposed to be our job. Therapists haven't been alone in their Prozac anxiety. Americans have always been ambivalent about mind-altering drugs, and many wonder if it is a good thing that today some 30 million Americans -- many of them not clinically depressed but rather among the "worried well" -- have taken serotonin enhancers at one time or another. But other issues are more troubling, like the serious side effects -- which include violent impulses, agitation, and sexual dysfunction -- that have been reported since the drugs first appeared and have never been fully confirmed or disproved. What's perhaps most disconcerting is the fact that 15 years after the first of the serotonin enhancers -- Prozac -- was put on the market, the precise reason why they relieve depression remains unknown. Some scientists, however, think they are on the verge of solving this mystery, suggesting that serotonin enhancers may work by encouraging the growth of new brain cells. At the same time, other researchers have found that high doses of these drugs cause changes in neurons that some would call brain damage -- a finding that may have some bearing on the range of reported side effects. And both sets of research point to the possibility that serotonin enhancers alter brains in ways researchers never imagined. Serotonin, also known as 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT), was first isolated in 1933, when it was discovered in the gut and called enteramine. In 1947 it was found in blood platelets, and the molecule earned its current name, serotonin, when it also proved to constrict blood vessels. Soon after, serotonin was identified in the brain. But its role was unknown until some drug tests in the 1950s drew unexpected results. In 1975 a group at Eli Lilly quietly reported that they had synthesized 110140, a substance that targeted serotonin with precision. Eleven years later, 110140 became Prozac, one of the most successful drugs ever brought to market, responsible in 1999 for 26 percent of the revenues of one of the largest companies in the United States. Drugs like Prozac work by interfering with the metabolism of the brain.

Serotonin travels from one neuron to another by crossing a gap known as a synapse. Normally, once the receiving neuron is activated, the chemical is reabsorbed by the brain. But Prozac prevents this reabsorption, allowing serotonin to remain in the synapse and interact with its targets for much longer than it otherwise would. Yet a crucial question remains: We simply don't know why having a synaptic lake brimming with serotonin makes people happier. While there is evidence that some depressed people have lower levels of serotonin breakdown products in their spinal fluid and different brain anatomies from the overall population, the proof of the commonly held notion that a deficiency or imbalance in the serotonin system causes depression remains weak. Nor is it known why the drugs generally take three to six weeks to alter mood, why they help people with nondepression-related problems like shyness or compulsiveness, why people who were not depressed in the first place sometimes feel "better than well," or why the drugs sometimes lose their efficacy over the long term. Despite gaps in our knowledge, the post-Prozac era has seen the rise of a singular idea, one that can be called mythic for both its explanatory power and its lack of evidence -- depression is best understood and treated as a biochemical aberration for which drugs like Prozac are the silver bullets. Adult monkeys routinely grow new brain cells, a process known as neurogenesis. There is an emerging body of evidence that people, too, undergo neurogenesis throughout their lives. The discovery is provocative because neurogenesis seems most prevalent in the hippocampus -- a region of the brain associated with learning, memory, and, perhaps, emotion. Psychologists have found that stress can often trigger depression. And stress floods the brain with certain hormones (glucocorticoids) that are known to suppress neurogenesis or even kill neurons, especially in an area of the hippocampus known as the dentate gyrus. Studies have found that depressed patients have somewhat smaller hippocampi than nondepressed people. Moreover, patients with diseases like Cushing's syndrome and temporal lobe epilepsy that cause cell loss in the hippocampus have a much higher risk of depression than the rest of the population. And it takes about three to six weeks for new cells to mature -- the same time it takes serotonin-enhancing drugs to make a difference in a patient. Add all this evidence up and you have, the leading candidate" for understanding what happens in the brains of depressed people and why drugs like Prozac help them. Perhaps people get depressed when chronic or acute stress brings about "the death of neurons or the failure to grow new neurons. People dwell on negative things and are incapable of forming new cognition about the future being positive and things getting

better -- until they have the ability to grow new neurons that mediate this new cognition. While nobody knows for sure what these new cells do in humans, a recent study in rats found the newborn neurons were crucial for forming certain kinds of memories. You have to accept that there is a structural change in your brain when you take drugs like Prozac. If people aren't comfortable with that, that's something else to consider. Harvard psychiatrist Joseph Glenmullen finds such brain-altering effects more unsettling than intriguing. Last year he published Prozac Backlash: Overcoming the Dangers of Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, and Other Antidepressants with Safe, Effective Alternatives, a book that details his brief against the drugs. They cause far more serious and common side effects than their manufacturers report. The Food and Drug Administration has failed to sufficiently investigate these reports; patients' complaints about the drugs are largely ignored; and the drugs are prescribed too often and for far too broad a range of distress. Perhaps most important, Glenmullen believes the way the drugs are marketed suggests that depression is primarily a biological problem to be solved by biochemical means, instead of a complex biopsychosocial phenomenon that can be resolved in many cases with traditional psychotherapies and without drugs. Glenmullen, who does prescribe serotonin enhancers when he deems it appropriate, likens them to such stimulants as amphetamines and cocaine -- drugs that were once used widely, without fear of side effects, to give people more energy, improved mood, and increased focus. Glenmullen has long suspected that drugs that alter serotonin metabolism cause profound changes in the brain. He bases his suspicion on a body of research during the last 20 years by scientists investigating another class of drugs that includes MDMA (Ecstasy) as well as fenfluramine, the diet drug recently removed from the market because of its association with heart valve problems. These drugs do more than just block serotonin reuptake; they primarily stimulate the release of large quantities of serotonin from nerve endings into the brain. The resulting flood is thought to cause the mind-altering effects of MDMA. And that flood, some scientists argue, leaves brain damage in its wake. When monkeys and rats are given high doses of serotonin releasers -- up to 40 times the dose that people generally take -- the microscopic architecture of their brains looks different from normal brains. The nerve fibers (axons) that carry serotonin to the target cells seem to change their shape and diminish in number -- effects some scientists claim are properly understood as brain damage. Glenmullen is convinced these results raise questions about other serotonergic drugs like Prozac, and a recent study has only increased his concern. Research conducted by

neurologist Madhu Kalia at Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia and scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed that the rats given very high doses (up to 100 times the human dose, by body weight) of Prozac and Zoloft contained the same kinds of brain abnormalities -- neurons with swollen or kinked tips -- as rats who were given high doses of serotonin releasers. Jim O'Callaghan, a Centers for Disease Control neuroscientist and a coauthor of the study, doesn't think the results indicate that Prozac causes brain damage. To the contrary, he and his team believe that neither serotonin enhancers nor serotonin releasers are properly understood as neurotoxic. According to O'Callaghan, the point of the study was to show that even a drug like Prozac, which virtually no one claims is neurotoxic, can produce some of the same abnormalities as the serotonin releasers. Other scientists, in his view, have been too quick to "deduce what they think is going on in the [nerve] fibers" from two pieces of data. The serotonin releasers deplete serotonin, and the microphotographs of brains exposed to high doses of these drugs look abnormal. O'Callaghan believes that scientists should rethink their definition of neurotoxicity, because high doses of Prozac and Zoloft, which do not deplete serotonin, cause the same transient abnormalities as do high doses of drugs such as MDMA. Street drugs are much more carefully scrutinized for potential harmful effects than pharmaceutical drugs, which are studied for their relative risks and benefits rather than for all imaginable dangers. In addition, toxic effects that are observed only at high dosages in short-term tests may also occur over long periods of time at much lower dosages. But once a drug is approved, a critical opportunity for turning up evidence during testing has been lost. Moreover, the manufacturer gains a strong interest in controlling what consumers know about drugs. In Glenmullen's view, regulatory agencies don't always do enough to help consumers either. He devoted a chapter in his book to the FDA's decision to allow Lilly not to include a warning with Prozac that the drug can cause or worsen suicidal symptoms -despite studies that indicated that up to 3.5 percent of patients might experience such effects. Add the advertising campaigns by the drug companies, he says, and you have a social climate in which "everyone wants a serotonin booster" and everyone believes in a "pharmacological fantasy" that we can use mood-altering drugs for a variety of ills without giving serious thought to the potential danger. Glenmullen offers a different Rx: fewer drugs and more therapy. He believes many people taking serotonin-enhancing drugs would respond as well to talk therapy. And talk

isn't the only option. Aerobic exercise, such as jogging or dance, also combats less severe cases of depression. Studies in rats suggest that exercise boosts serotonin and neurogenesis as well. Of course the use of any drug, especially one that tinkers with the brain's machinery, involves risk, the full extent of which can't be known until a large number of people have used it for many years. This familiar caution may take on a new urgency when we realize that research about serotonin enhancers still offers more questions than answers.

Discover Vol. 22 No. 7 July 2001

Dr. Mercola's Comments: The irony here is that probably over 95% of the antidepressant drugs are not needed. Does that mean one should use herbal alternatives like St. John's wort? Absolutely not, as any type of pill is only a "band aid" solution for the problem. Food choices are clearly an important part of the treatment. However, one will nearly always need to address emotional wounding if one is to reverse this illness at its foundational root. I have long ago stopped prescribing Prozac and will only use antidepressants on a mere handful of patients a year. Zoloft recently surpassed Prozac as the leading antidepressant and does seem to be a superior drug alternative. However, I find that the muscle testing and Applied Psychoneurobiolgy work far better at addressing some of the foundational issues that contribute to depression. With over $8 million in sales for the top 5 antidepressants in 2000, isn't it about time we figured out how these drugs work? To illustrate how much their use is increasing, in 1996 the total was about $3.5 million. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/09/20/the-tragic-consequences-ofdrugging-our-children.aspx The Tragic Consequences of Drugging Our Children The number of prescriptions for psychotropic drugs for children has more than doubled between 1995 and 2000. This revealing documentary by Gary Null details the devastating consequences of this excessive medicating of our children with mind-altering drugs. The film focuses on children who have been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), even though evidence to verify such a diagnosis is lacking.

Instead, kids are often labeled with ADHD simply for acting like kids: fidgeting, speaking out of turn, not wanting to sit still, and being hyper. The diagnosis of ADHD is often made based on anecdotal evidence and standardized assessments from parents and teachers, without giving consideration to other potential factors like home life, diet, and environmental toxins. The end result for kids diagnosed with ADHD, as the video shows, is almost always medications. If youve ever wondered why kids were rarely committing suicide or violent acts in schools when YOU were growing up, this essential video may shed some insight. Dr. Mercola's Comments: I urge you to devote some time to watching The Drugging of Our Children. This is a film that everyone with children should see. You may have noticed the back-to-school themed advertisements for ADHD drugs that came out just in time for parents and teachers to begin questioning which students will need these medications. This is a carefully timed marketing scheme aimed at selling more of these potent drugs, such as Ritalin, to your children -- and the marketing works. Many adolescent psychiatrists report that there is a sharp increase in prescriptions for ADHD drugs when kids start the school year. Some drug companies are even marketing candy-flavored versions of these drugs. Its no wonder that drugs for ADHD bring in about $1 billion in sales every year. It is ironic that children are urged not to take drugs when it comes to the illegal variety, but are readily supplied with mind-altering medications as long as they are FDA-approved. However, health professionals prescribe these drugs without warning parents about the severe and potentially fatal side effects (psychotic symptoms, headaches, insomnia, hallucinations, cardiac arrhythmia). Many of the drugs used to treat ADHD are not only potentially hazardous, but they are unnecessary if your child is treated appropriately. How to Treat ADHD Naturally There are plenty of safe, effective alternatives for treating this condition, and some

particularly effective methods include:

Using plenty of animal-based omega-3 fats like krill oil. Spending more time in nature. Balancing your intake of omega-3 and omega-6 fats (from vegetables oils). Avoiding processed foods, especially those containing artificial colors, flavors, and preservatives, which may trigger ADHD symptoms. Replacing soft drinks, fruit juices, and pasteurized milk in your diet with pure water. Reducing or eliminating grains and sugars from your diet.

For parents out there, I realize that many decide to put their children on a psychotropic drug because they believe it will help them. There can also be extreme pressure to do so, with some public schools even accusing parents of child abuse when they resist giving their kids drugs such as Ritalin. What you need to know, and spread the word about, is that:

These drugs are potent (Ritalin is more potent than cocaine) and produce long-term changes in your childs brain They cause serious side effects ADHD is almost always related to dietary and environmental factors, and can be cured by making the appropriate changes (outlined above)

Another helpful tool is my three-part interview with renowned children's health expert Dr. Lendon Smith on Non-Drug Treatment of ADD/ADHD. Dr. Smith passed away several years ago, but was really one of the pioneer physicians in this area.