Doctor Disciplined for innapropriate Xanax prescriptions

According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the Missouri State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts placed Dr. Nai Shu of St. Louis on probation for three years starting last February. According to the board, Shu prescribed inappropriate amounts of the anti-anxiety drug Xanax to six patients in 2006 and 2007, apparently without giving them medical exams.

Here is the official entry in the Board’s April, 2009 newsletter:

“Nai H. Shu, M.D., St. Louis, MO
Cause of Discipline: 334.100.2(4)(h), RSMo
The Board found cause to discipline license due to Licensee prescribing Xanax without proper documentation in medical records and in excess of the PDR recommendations. Board Action: License is placed on three (3) years Probation. Effective Date: 2/5/09”

It should be noted that prescriptions for these kinds of psychiatric drugs are routinely given with no medical examinations, since there are no medical tests that show the presence of any mental illness.

One of psychiatry’s most successful means of defrauding those who pay for psychiatric treatment is through the use of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). The unscientific and spurious nature of the DSM invites fraud. Depicted as a “diagnostic tool”, the DSM is not only used to diagnose mental and emotional disturbances and prescribe “treatment,” but also to resolve child custody battles, discrimination cases based on alleged psychiatric disability, augment court testimony, modify education, and much more. DSM has become so widely relied upon within society that it has taken on the aura of scientific fact. Millions now use and believe in its diagnostic abilities, never once suspecting that the whole premise and the system itself are fraudulent. Click here for more information about the fraud perpetrated by psychiatry and its DSM.

Xanax (generic name “alprazolam”) is in a class of benzodiazepines that are more addictive than most illegal drugs, including cocaine or heroin. Addiction can occur after 14 days of regular use. The withdrawal symptoms are often more prolonged and difficult than withdrawal from heroin. Side effects can include aggressive behavior, agitation, amnesia, anxiety, depression, seizures, hallucinations, hostility, hysteria, irritability, lethargy, psychosis, rage, and suicide. Click here for more information about the side effects of psychiatric drugs.

Psychiatrists, psychologists, psychotherapists, psychiatric institutions, and other medical doctors prescribing psychiatric drugs and treatments must be made fully accountable for their funding, practices and treatments, and their results, or lack thereof.

Letter to the Editor of the Miami Herald




(*I have discovered & described real diseases)


EL CAJON, CA 92019

Tele:(619) 440-8236 Fax: (619) 442-1932

To: 4/22/09

Re: Broward child’s suicide raises questions about medication.

A Broward foster child who killed himself last week had been prescribed powerful psychiatric drugs, some of which the FDA does not approve for children.

April 21, 2009

To the Editor:

One looks at the picture of this precious 7 year old boy and tries to imagine how such an innocent could have imagined how to hang and kill himself with a cable–attached shower head.

Might a compulsion–twisted thoughts–have been born of the chemical assault with multiple brain-altering poisons–the only abnormalities-diseases he ever had.

In medicine a disease is an objective, demonstrable abnormality–gross (a lump felt by manual exam), microscopic (cancer cells from a biopsy or ‘Pap’ smear) or chemical (high blood sugar in diabetes, high phenylalanine in phenylketonuria–PKU).

But psychiatry is nowhere bound by the rules of science. All physicians know that psychiatry is wholly owned and operated by the pharmaceutical industry and that their obligation is to call all troubled, troublesome, entirely normal, emotional and behavioral problems “diseases” so as to justify “treating” them with the drugs their controlling partner manufactures.

Thus, the “chemical imbalances” of the brain that psychiatrists magically diagnose without examinations or tests become the sole justification for psychiatric prescription drugs–“chemical balancers” for “chemical imbalances” of the brain–the biggest, most dangerous health care fraud in history.

Recently a pediatrician bent on healing Gabriel, a normal child, had discontinued all psychotropic drugs revealing a normal boy who not only did well, but excelled, earning A’s and B’s at a Christian academy.  But that wasn’t the psychiatry-pharmaceutical cartel plan which is to make life-long patients of normals with psychiatric “diagnoses” and drugs.  In this case they didn’t figure on “life-long” being so short.

What we have here is not the legitimate practice of medicine but a perversion of the language of medicine and criminal assault and battery. In 2003, Dr. William Carey testified to Congress that 17% of US schoolchildren were on one or more psychiatric drugs. Today, with government a full partner, they seek to impose Teen-Screen whereby 50-60 percent will be diagnosed and drugged. Today, in Florida and every state in the US, shamefully, 60-70 percent of all foster children are labeled, drugged and billed for by the psycho-pharmaceutical cartel, for no reason other than that they are defenseless.

Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD

Columbine Anniversary Brings Columbine & Red Lake Together

Press Release
Date: APRIL 20, 2009
Place: Clement Park, Littleton, CO
Ann Blake-Tracy, PhD, Executive Director,
International Coalition for Drug Awareness
Phone: 1-801-209-1800
Joint statement from the family of a Columbine victim & the family of the Red Lake, MN school shooter – total dead 25, total wounded 31
Testimony of Columbine shooting victim Mark Allen Taylor, before the FDA
Statement by Michael Moore about the cause of Columbine after making the movie, “Bowling for Columbine”
New Medical Article Linking Antidepressants to Murder/Suicide in the Spring Issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons
Donna Taylor: Mother of Mark Taylor, the first boy shot at Columbine High School on April 20, 1999 as Eric and Dylan, on their way into the school, shot at those gathered to discuss scriptures outside. Eric Harris shot Mark 6 – 13 times with 9mil bullets. Mark survived earning himself the title of “The Columbine Miracle Boy.”
Tammy Lussier: Daughter of Officer Daryl (Dash) Lussier of the Red Lake Police Department and aunt to Jeff Weise who shot and killed Tammy’s father, his own grandfather, and eight others before taking his own life with his grandfather’s police firearm.
Our Message: Here we are together at the 10th Anniversary of the tragedy at Columbine High School.  So, why would a family member of a school shooting victim and a family member of a school shooter come together? We want the world to know that antidepressants cause violence with the most popular antidepressant on the market today listing “homicidal ideation” as a potential side effect.
The one thing many shot at Columbine have learned to do is to forgive Eric Harris and Dylan Kleebold for doing what they did to them. We have just celebrated the glorious Easter season filled with the reassurance that through the mission of Jesus Christ we can overcome death and live again. As we remember Columbine we feel it is crucial to recall that as Christ hung on the cross He plead with His Father in Heaven for those who were in the process of taking His life from Him “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.” In forgiving Eric and Dylan we believe that we are forgiving them for the same reason Christ asked for those taking his own life to be forgiven – they did not know what they were doing April 20, 1999 when they took 15 lives and injured 24 more.
Although USA Today attempted to rewrite history this past week and erroneously reported that the Columbine shooters were not on antidepressants we are here to remind the world that Eric Harris was on the antidepressant Luvox. Whether Eric was sharing his meds with Dylan, which is far too common with kids, or was on his own prescription we will never know as his records were sealed. In the Red Lake school shooting Jeff Weise was taking the antidepressant Prozac. Our statement today is that minus antidepressants we feel sure that the shootings at Columbine High School and Red Lake, MN High School would never have happened and neither would the majority of the other school shootings and workplace violence shootings (see for a long list).
Antidepressants push the user into a dream state leaving one to act out nightmares. Columbine was a nightmare acted out by Eric Harris and Dylan Kleebold, just as Red Lake was a nightmare acted out by Jeff Weise which took another 10 lives and injured 7 more. We do not believe they were conscious and coherent enough to fully understand what they were doing because of the adverse effects of antidepressants.
Over the past two years Donna has watched her son Mark go from a normal boy to someone she does no longer recognizes because he was given two short bouts of similar drugs given to Eric Harris. Now Mark is living and experiencing firsthand similar adverse reactions to what Eric was when he shot Mark. How ironic and tragic! (See Mark’s powerful statement below given before the FDA about these drugs that have now robbed him of who he is or was.)
If we want the shootings of Columbine and Red Lake to end we MUST learn the truth about the dangers of antidepressant medications.

Mark Taylor’s testimony before the FDA 9/13/2004

I am Mark Allen Taylor and I am a victim of the SSRI antidepressant era. I took six to thirteen bullets in the heart area in the Columbine High School shooting when Eric Harris on Luvox opened fire that now infamous day.

They almost had to amputate my leg and my arm. My heart missed by only one millimeter. I had three surgeries. Five years later I am still recuperating.

I went through all this to realize that SSRI antidepressants are dangerous for those who take them and for all those who associate with those who take them.

I hope that my testimony today shows you that you need to take action immediately before more innocent people like me, and you, do not get hurt or die horrible deaths as a result.

As Americans we should have the right to feel safe and if you were doing your job we would be safe. Why are we worrying about terrorists in other countries when the pharmaceutical companies have proven to be our biggest terrorists by releasing these drugs on an unsuspecting public?

How are we suppose to feel safe at school, at home, on the street, at church or anywhere else if we cannot trust the FDA to do what we are paying you to do? Where were you when I and all of my classmates got shot at Columbine?

You say that antidepressants are effective. So why did they not help Eric Harris before he shot me?

According to Eric they “helped” him to feel homicidal and suicidal after only six weeks on Zoloft. And then he said that dropping off Luvox cold turkey would help him “fuel the rage” he needed to shoot everyone. But he continued on Luvox and shot us all anyway.

So, why did these so called antidepressants not make him better? I will tell you why. It is because they do not work.

We should consider antidepressants to be accomplices to murder. _____________________________

To listen to Michael Moore’s statement about the cause of the Columbine tragedy after making the movie “Bowling for Columbine” – go to


“Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibior [SSRI] Drugs:  More Risks Than Benefits?”

Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons: Volume 14: number 1: Spring 2009, there is an article by Joel M. Kauffman, Ph.D., [Professor of chemistry emeritus at the University of the Sciences, Philadelphia, Pa.]
In regard to the International Coalition for Drug Awareness, the study reads on page 10: “The International Coalition for Drug Awareness in cooperation with the Prozac Survivors Support Group has produced a website on which about 1,600 [now 3,000] violent incidents associated with SSRI use are described (www.ssristories.come/index.php).”
In regard to SSRI Stories documenting the link between thousands of cases of multiple murder/suicides and antidepressants, Dr. Kaufmann made the following statement on page 10: “Since no clinical trial involving multiple homicides is ever likely to be run, no firmer evidence is likely to be found. Healy noted that much of the evidence for suicide and murder came from the efforts of journalists and lawyers”.

To read the full article and see the data go to the journal site:


Take Action – Missouri State Legislature

Dear CCHR Supporters, Volunteers and Incipient Volunteers,

We need your help on a matter of vital grass roots involvement in human rights!

If you live in Missouri and/or have relatives or friends in Missouri, please pass this along to others in Missouri. It is important that YOU TAKE ACTION in your state’s legislative process regardless of where you live, but we particularly need your involvement if you are a voter in Missouri.

Please mail or email Letters To The Editor to Missouri newspapers, and call, mail or email Missouri legislators, expressing your opinions about the following bills. (SB = Senate Bill; HB = House Bill, SS = Senate Substitute)

Writing, calling and visiting your legislators is not only your primary way of influencing their votes, it is also your civic duty. That “government by and for the people” thing is the real deal, and you are “the people.” But each of you has to DO it! Let us know when you’ve done it!

Bill # Topic Sponsors
HB 387 and
SS SB 94
Requires the development of a quality rating system for early childhood and before- and after-school programs that are licensed by the Department of Health and Senior Services. These bills call for the Department of Mental Health to have a hand in setting the standards for quality child care, to ensure proper “emotional development.” This gives them an open door to come in with their screenings and drugs, on children as young as age 2 or 3 or even younger!
Rep. Robert Cooper, Sen. Jolie Justus

HB 536
Licenses psychologists to prescribe psychotropic drugs. Allows them to order lab testing. This bill is a BAD idea because it is another overt attempt to expand the use of psychotropic drugs by expanding who can prescribe them.
Rep. Bob Dixon

Additional information regarding HB 387 and SS SB 94:
Missouri Department of Health already has licensing and inspection procedures in place through statue and by rule. This legislation will:
§ Add another layer of bureaucracy
§ Grow bigger government to become the “play parent “ state
§ Drive up cost – for parents and the State of Missouri
§ Use taxpayer dollars on a private “for profit” industry
§ Be a foot in the door for expansion of subsidized day care and control over an industry that should remain driven by free market principles

This action perpetuates the myth that we can make institutions the same as mom with more tax dollars and rating systems. Once this system is in place is the next step removing the exemptions for religious day care facilities? How can another layer of bureaucracy contain cost?

We urge you to CALL YOUR LEGISLATORS and ASK FOR A NO VOTE on HB 387, SS SB 94 and HB 536.

Bill # Topic Sponsors
SB 534
Requires coroners or medical examiners to perform testing for the presence of psychotropic substances in the blood of individuals who commit suicide and report the findings to the Department of Health and Senior Services.
Senator Scott T. Rupp (Republican, District 2)

This bill is a GOOD idea because:

We know that psychotropic drugs can cause violence and suicide. Collecting this information is another way of showing the Missouri government who the responsible parties are for the increasing senseless violence and suicide in society.


It’s time to TAKE ACTION! Our legislators have been introduced to the horrors which psychiatry has created by the Psychiatry: an Industry of Death touring exhibit. Now they need to hear from you, their constituents. Spread the word – let them hear from all over the state that the citizens aren’t going to put up with this fraud and abuse any more.

Let us know when you send your letters out and to whom you sent them.

The letter can be very short and simple. Here is an example (you should write the letter in your own words):

Dear Sir (or Editor, or Ma’am, or Senator, or Representative, or Honorable Legislator, etc.),



Thank you for your help!

Check out other bills of interest to CCHR St. Louis on our web site at
Missouri General Assembly website:
Check to find out who are your own Missouri legislators. Go to their web page to find out how to contact them.

Some Missouri Newspaper Email addresses:

Mothers Act Fuels Multibillion Dollar Industry

It is quite ironic that Prozac, which is 94 percent fluoride and given to hyperactive children, requires a prescription from a licensed physician while the same substance can be placed in our drinking water by dealers who have no medical training, no license to dispense medications, and no idea to whom they are administering this corrosive, toxic, and impairing substance.” – The Rise of the Fourth Reich, by Jim Marrs (HarperCollins, 2008, p. 193) [Editorial Comment: this book is highly recommended]

Mothers Act Fuels Multibillion Dollar Industry
Tuesday, 7 April 2009
by Evelyn Pringle

Motherhood has fallen prey to the psycho-pharmaceutical complex. If new legislation known as the Mother’s Act becomes law [H.R.20], the drugging of infants through pregnant and nursing mothers will no doubt increase.

Congress has rightfully refused to pass this bill for eight years. The official title is currently the “Melanie Blocker Stokes Mom’s Opportunity to Access Health, Education, Research, and Support for Postpartum Depression Act of 2009.”

The legislation was introduced in the House during the 110th Congress on January 4, 2007, by Illinois Democrat Bobby Rush and later reintroduced into both bodies of the new Congress in January 2009, after the bill died in the Senate last year.

Democratic Senator Robert Menendez from New Jersey, home to a large number of drug companies, and Richard Durbin (D-IL) are the main sponsors of the bill in the Senate.

In a March 30, 2009 speech on the House floor, Congressman Rush identified the target of this piece of legislation when he claimed that, “60 to 80 percent of new mothers experience symptoms of postpartum depression while the more serious condition, postpartum psychosis, affects up to 20 percent of women who have recently given birth.”

After the House voted to pass the legislation on that day, the Congressman stated: “H. R. 20 will finally put significant money and attention into research, screening, treatment and education for mothers suffering from this disease.”

However, he only mentions screening and treatment for postpartum depression. The true goal of the promoters of this Act is to transform women of child bearing age into life-long consumers of psychiatric treatment by screening women for a whole list of “mood” and “anxiety” disorders and not simply postpartum depression.

Enough cannot be said about the ability of anyone with a white coat and a medical title to convince vulnerable pregnant women and new mothers that the thoughts and feelings they experience on any given day might be abnormal.

The constant watching and barrage of questions such as are you depressed, are you anxious, are you moody, are you fearful of motherhood, are you sleeping well, are there changes in your eating habits, will predictably have the net effect of convincing many women that normal thoughts and emotions are a sign of mental disorders.

In the March 13, 2008 NewsWithViews article, “Branding Pregnancy as a Mental Illness,” Byron Richards writes:

“The Mothers Act has the net affect of reclassifying the natural process of pregnancy and birth as a mental disorder that requires the use of unproven and extremely dangerous psychotropic medications (which can also easily harm the child). The bill was obviously written by the Big Pharma lobby and its passage into law would be considered laughable except that it is actually happening.”

While mania, psychosis, agitation, hostility, anxiety, confusion, depression and suicidality are often cited as “symptoms” of mental illness, many of the same exact “symptoms” are listed as side effects on the warning labels for antidepressants, antipsychotics and anticonvulsants.

All of these drugs are now being prescribed to treat the “mood” and “anxiety” disorders that women will be screened for if the Act becomes law. In the case of pregnant women, no psychiatric drug has been FDA approved as safe for use.

The newly recruited customers will be stigmatized for life with labels of the most serious forms of mental illness simply because they are unlucky enough to become pregnant in the United States, where serious disorders lead to major profits from the prescribing of multiple classes of psychotropic drugs.

On September 1, 2008, Medical News Today ran a headline for a study that stated: “Americans Show Little Tolerance For Mental Illness Despite Growing Belief In Genetic Cause.” The study by University of Pennsylvania sociology professor Jason Schnittker showed that while more Americans believe that mental illness has genetic causes, the country is no more tolerant of the mentally ill than it was 10 years ago.

The study explored tolerance in terms of: unwillingness to live next door to a mentally ill person, having a group home for the mentally ill in the neighborhood, spending an evening socializing with a mentally ill person, working closely with such a person on the job, making friends with someone with a mental illness or having a mentally ill person marry into the family.

Multi-billion dollar industry

In an article for AlterNet on June 18, 2008, Dr Bruce Levine, author of the book, “Surviving America’s Depression Epidemic,” explains how the psycho-pharmaceutical cartel works. “Mental health treatment in the United States is now a multibillion-dollar industry,” he reports, “and all the rules of industrial complexes apply.”

“Not only does Big Pharma have influential psychiatrists… in their pocket, virtually every mental health institution from which doctors, the press, and the general public receive their mental health information is financially interconnected with Big Pharma.”

“The American Psychiatric Association, psychiatry’s professional organization, is hugely dependent on drug company grants, and this is also true for the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill and other so-called consumer organizations.”

“Harvard and other prestigious university psychiatry departments take millions of dollars from drug companies, and the National Institute of Mental Health funds researchers who are financially connected with drug companies.”

More Democrats than Republicans are supporting the Mother’s Act. The increased campaign funding to Democrats may well explain this turn of events. For the last eight election cycles the pharmaceutical industry has contributed far more to Republicans than Democrats. In the 2006 cycle the percentage was 28% to Democrats and 70% to Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit group that tracks political funding.

But the Democrats were close to matching the Republicans for the 2008 cycle with $5,099,942 to Democrats compared to $5,680,871 to Republicans, which is probably why the Democrats would allow such an obvious drug marketing scheme to be implemented.

“The Mothers Act, while appearing like an Act of benevolence, is a dangerous and unnecessary measure that will result in the further over-prescription of drugs that are already grotesquely over-prescribed,” says Kate Gillespie, one of the lead attorneys handling SSRI birth defect lawsuits and Paxil suicide cases at the Los Angeles based Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman law firm.

“The Act is a slippery slope,” she warns, “toward the forced drugging of women of childbearing years with drugs of questionable efficacy and serious safety issues effecting mothers and their innocent children – drugs that can cause horrific side effects, including, suicidal behavior, violence and devastating birth defects.”

“Of course, mothers who truly cannot cope should be helped,” Ms Gillespie says, “but do we really need legislation requiring mothers to be screened and drugged?”

“Take out politics and Big Pharma and the push for this legislation just doesn’t make sense,” she states.

“For politicians, a much safer issue than pushing drugs for pregnant mothers is promoting the expansion of medical treatment for postpartum depression,” according to Dr Levine.

He says the Mother’s Act “omits relevant truths” about Melanie Blocker-Stokes, the woman the bill is named after, and the following information about her suicide should be made known:

“Blocker-Stokes… did in fact receive extensive psychiatric treatment. She was hospitalized three times in seven weeks, given four combinations of anti-psychotic, anti-anxiety, and antidepressant medications, and underwent electroconvulsive therapy (electroshock). But despite her psychiatric treatment — or because of it — Melanie Blocker-Stokes jumped to her death from the twelfth floor of a Chicago hotel.”

“There is no evidence that antidepressant use by depressed mothers lowers their likelihood of suicide,” Dr Levine says, “and there is a great deal of evidence that antidepressant use can make some people manic, agitated, and violent.”

Money-making promoters behind the Act

Katherine Stone runs an internet website called “Postpartum Progress” and posts a daily blog. She also serves on the board of Postpartum Support International as the public relations outreach chairwoman. Her Bio says she “is a nationally-recognized, award-winning advocate for women with perinatal mood and anxiety disorders.”

“In 2001,” Katherine reports on her website, that “she suffered postpartum obsessive compulsive disorder after the birth of her first child. The feeling of isolation and shame she suffered inspired her to create Postpartum Progress, which has become the most widely-read blog in the United States on postpartum depression, postpartum OCD, antepartum depression, postpartum PTSD and postpartum psychosis.”

On another page titled, “The Art of Psychiatric Medication,” Katherine tells women to hang in there if a medication does not work because for her diagnosis of OCD, she states:

“I’ve taken many medications, including Effexor, Celexa, Seroquel, Risperdal, Wellbutrin, Luvox, Cymbalta, etc. Throughout all of them, I was on the road to recovery. Some just worked better than others at treating my symptoms.”

She ends the commentary by telling women: “You will find the right medication for you, and you will get better.”

The prescribing of seven drugs, including two antipsychotics and five antidepressants, to treat OCD is a typical example of the profit-driven drugging that women snagged by the Mother’s Act will face, but it’s a far cry from the description Katherine wrote about regarding the comparatively minor treatment she received, when she stated in the June 7, 2004 issue of Newsweek, “in my case, that meant taking an antidepressant and going for weekly therapy sessions.”

Aside from all the serious health risks now known to be associated with these drugs, most women could not afford the 7-drug “cure” that Katherine ingested. According to in December 2008, from first to last, at a middle dose for a 30-day supply, the drugs would cost: Effexor $197.86, Celexa $279.92, Seroquel $388.38, Risperdal $652.07, Wellbutrin XI $202.08, Luvox CR $135.99, and Cymbalta $366.62. The cost of “etc” is impossible to calculate without knowing how many more drugs she took.

In a March 11, 2009 Postpartum Progress blog, Katherine plugs herself for speaking jobs, along with a study that concluded “the Internet is a viable and feasible tool to screen for PPD.”

“I’ll be adding this study to the speech I give on how women with perinatal mood and anxiety disorders use the Internet,” she reports, and then adds:

“If you’re interested in having me speak at your event, let me know!”

On March 10, 2009, Katherine’s headline read: “It’s Petition Signing Time! Get Out Your Virtual Pen & Support Women with PPD”, and reported “that Susan Stone over at Perinatal Pro is alerting everyone to the new petition created by the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance to support the Melanie Blocker Stokes MOTHERS Act. She states that last year’s petition generated more than 24,000 signatures. The petition has been reintroduced this year to try and get this legislation passed once again.”

The blog carried a live link to a page where “you can scroll down, enter your zip code and generate letters of support in a matter of seconds for the Melanie Blocker Stokes MOTHERS Act that will be sent to your local Congresspeople and Senators.”

Katherine further told readers: “I know you’re thinking ‘but I already did that last year.’ Well that was then and this is now. Do it again.”

The 2007 Annual Report for the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance shows this Big Pharma front group received between $150,000 and $499,000 from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Wyeth. Abbott Labs, Cyberonics, Eli Lilly, Forest Labs, GlaxoSmithKline, Organon, and Otsuka American Pharmaceuticals each gave between $10,000 and $149,999.

The 2006 Annual Report shows that AstraZeneca gave the group more than $500,000. Abbott Labs, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Wyeth gave between $150,000 and $499,000, and Forest Labs, Glaxo, Janssen, Pfizer, and Shire Pharmaceuticals each gave between $10,000 and $149,000. The Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance in Baltimore also received $5,000 from Eli Lilly in the first quarter of 2008, according to Lilly’s grant report.

In the section of the 2007 Annual report “at a Glance: How We Met Our Mission,” among the things accomplished by the group, it states:

“Promoted Melanie Blocker-Stokes Postpartum Depression Research & Care Act at invitation of Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.)

“Promoted MOTHER’s Act at invitation of Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)”

After writing letters to Congress through the link established by the industry funded Alliance, those visiting Postpartum Progress will hopefully click on the link to Amazon and buy the book “Perinatal and Postpartum Mood Disorders: Perspectives and Treatment Guide for the Health Care Practitioner” by none other than the Perinatal Pro “expert,” Susan (Dowd) Stone, and Alexis Menkin, at a special price of $43.20, for a savings of $10.80.

Katherine also provides a link to the PerinatalPro website, where women can find treatment for all the “mood” and “anxiety” disorders diagnosed with internet screenings at “Blue Skye Consulting,” where Susan is listed as the Managing Director and Owner.

She also served as president of Postpartum Support International from 2006 – 2008, as vice-president and Conference Chair in 2005 – 2006, and will chair the group’s President’s Advisory Council through 2010. This group brags of being the leading proponent of the Mother’s Act. On March 2, 2009, Susan’s PerinatalPro Blog announced: “The Melanie Blocker Stokes MOTHERS Act moves forward!” and stated:

“Thank you to Congressman Bobby L. Rush, U.S. Senator Robert Menendez and Senator Richard Durbin for your unceasing efforts on behalf of America’s mothers!”

She should have thanked these members of Congress for boosting her career status and yearly income from her treatment center, speaking fees and book sales.

On PerinatalPro, Susan posts a running list of supporters for the Mother’s Act. On March 27, 2009, the list included many drug company funded groups. For instance, the American Psychiatric Association is listed as a supporter. In 2006, the pharmaceutical industry provided close to 30% of the Association’s $62.5 million in financing, according to the July 12, 2008 New York Times.

In the first quarter of 2007, Eli Lilly gave the Association grants worth more than $412,000, according to Lilly’s grant report. The group also received $623,190 from Lilly in the first quarter of 2008.

In her PerinatalPro blogs, Susan has nothing but praise for Katherine’s website and directs visitors back to Postpartum Progress with a live link. On March 16, 2009, Katherine posted a “Quick Survey on Postpartum Anxiety,” and wrote:

“The fabulous Karen Kleiman has asked me to ask you to participate in a short, five-question online survey on anxiety. She says ANYONE can answer it, regardless of the age of their baby(s) and regardless of diagnosis or lack thereof. ANY mother should answer the questions. It’s super quick — I know because I took it myself.”

Kleiman must be fabulous because she has three books for sale on Postpartum Progress with links to purchase them on Amazon. In fact, there are a total of fourteen books for sale on Katherine’s site from which she most likely gets a kick-back with every sale.

Kleiman’s survey is an excellent example of the methods used to con women into suspecting they are mentally ill via the “expert” blogs. The preface states: “The questions on this survey can be answered by a new mother of an infant or an empty-nester with good recall of the early days with her baby. Please answer as honestly as you can.”

The question, capital letters and all, reads: “When you were carrying your baby down a flight of stairs, did you EVER, at ANY time, have ANY thought, image or concern that you could accidentally drop your baby?” The survey further tells women:

If you answered YES to the first question, please describe the type of worry you had: Scary thoughts about dropping the baby, Scary images about dropping the baby, Both thoughts and images, Other.

How much distress did this cause you? A Great deal of distress, Some distress but I quickly got over it, Some distress that seemed to linger, Not much stress

Did this thought or image occur once or did it recur? Only once, It recurred frequently, It recurred persistently, It occurred off and on, Did you ever tell anyone about the fear of dropping the baby? (Please describe why you chose to tell someone or why you chose not to)

As a mother with good recall, the “honest” answer is yes, with two babies born 4 years apart, every single night as I stumbled out of bed half asleep for a nightly feeding, my normal fear instinct kicked in and warned me to be careful not to trip and fall down the stairs or drop the baby.

Women who take the survey are told nothing about what the results mean; but clearly the seed is planted that something is wrong if you “EVER, at ANY time, have ANY thought, image or concern that you could accidentally drop your baby”.

Katherine’s website also provides links to the “Top Women’s PPMD Treatment Programs & Specialists.” The first link on the list takes women to the “Emory Women’s Mental Health Program” that primarily focuses on “the evaluation and treatment of emotional disorders during pregnancy and the postpartum period,” according to Emory University’s website. Lilly’s 2008 first quarter grant report shows Emory’s Department of Psychiatry received $25,000.

The “experts” at Emory include some top pharmaceutical industry shills. For example, a link to “Articles” brings up roughly 90 studies and papers that include the co-author Dr Charles Nemeroff. Nemeroff is on an ever-growing list of academic researchers in the field of psychiatry under investigation by the US Senate Finance Committee for not disclosing millions of dollars of income from the makers of psychotropic drugs.

Emory’s investigation found he was paid more than $960,000 by Paxil maker, GlaxoSmithKline, from 2000 through 2006, but listed less than $35,000 on his Emory disclosure forms. All totaled, Nemeroff had earnings of $2.8 million from speaking and consulting arrangements with drug companies between 2000 and 2007, but only disclosed a fraction of that amount, according to the Senate Finance Committee reports.

On July 23, 2008, Medscape Psychiatry & Mental Health posted an article by Nemeroff titled: “Weighing Risk and Benefit for Treatment of Depression in Pregnancy and Post Partum”. On March 17, 2009, the Medscape website stated: “This article is temporarily unavailable.”

Maybe that’s because the “top expert,” Dr Nemeroff, recently stepped down as chairman of Emory’s psychiatry department.


(Article sponsored by the Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman law firm

(Evelyn Pringle is a columnist for Scoop Independent News and an investigative journalist focused on exposing corruption in government and corporate America)


What you can do

Please FAX the Senate HELP (Health, Education, Labor and Pensions) Committee to express your opposition to H.R. 20. Go to

Alaska Admits It Is Incapable of Protecting Children and Youth in Its Care from Harmful Psychiatric Drugging

March 31, 2009

Anchorage: Today, responding to the State of Alaska’s admission in PsychRights v. Alaska that it was incapable of protecting the children and youth in its care from improper and harmful psychiatric drugging, the Law Project for Psychiatric Rights (PsychRights®) told the court it must step in.

PsychRights v. Alaska was filed last Fall to halt the State of Alaska’s practice of administering and paying for psychiatric drugs being given children and youth without safeguards being in place to make sure proper decision making occurs. In trying to get PsychRights v. Alaska “thrown out of court” the State admitted it was incapable of protecting the children and youth in its care as follows:

A reading of the Complaint makes obvious that the true subject of plaintiff’s grievances is not the Department, but prescribers of psychotropic pharmaceuticals, the pharmaceutical companies which produce and market them, and the overall culture of pediatric psychiatry. The implication that the Department possesses meaningful authority and control over these matters-or is in any realistic position to administer the relief requested even if the court were to order it-is a fiction.

“The point is the State has the responsibility to properly care for the children and youth in its care regardless of the ‘culture of pediatric psychiatry,'” according to Mr. Gottstein. Today’s court filing tells the court, “It is shameful the State is abdicating its responsibility when it should be working to correct the problem.”

In the absence of the State being willing to address the problem without court intervention, the lawsuit seeks to solve it by obtaining a court order prohibiting the psychiatric drugging of children and youth by the State unless and until

(i)     evidence-based psychosocial interventions have been exhausted,

(ii)    rationally anticipated benefits of psychotropic drug treatment outweigh the risks,

(iii)  the person or entity authorizing administration of the drug(s) is fully informed of the risks and potential benefits, and

(iv)   close monitoring of, and appropriate means of responding to, treatment emergent effects are in place.

Practically every day brings revelations that pediatric psychopharmacology is the result of illegal drug company actions to improperly influence psychiatrists to prescribe extremely harmful drugs to children and youth, in spite of there being no real evidence of their efficacy. “Rather than meeting its mandate to properly care for and protect these children and youth from harm, the actions of the State are reprehensible,” Mr. Gottstein declared, adding “The State is also trying to hide its complicity by stopping the discovery process.”

The defendants in the lawsuit are the State of Alaska, its Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), and responsible officials, Sarah Palin, Governor, William Hogan, Commissioner of DHSS, Tammy Sandoval, Director of the Office of Children’s Services (OCS), Steve McComb, Director of the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), Melissa Stone, Director of the Division of Behavioral Health (DBH), Ron Adler, CEO of the Alaska Psychiatric Institute (API), and William Streur, Deputy Commissioner and Director of Medicaid. All of the substantive filings in the lawsuit are available on the Internet at

The Law Project for Psychiatric Rights is a public interest law firm devoted to the defense of people facing the horrors of unwarranted forced psychiatric drugging and electroshock. PsychRights is further dedicated to exposing the truth about psychiatric interventions and the courts being misled into ordering people subjected to these brain and body damaging drugs against their will. Extensive information about these dangers, and about the tragic damage caused by electroshock, is available on the PsychRights web site:

#  #  #

James B. (Jim) Gottstein, Esq.
Law Project for Psychiatric Rights
406 G Street, Suite 206
Anchorage, Alaska 99501 USA
Phone: (907) 274-7686)  Fax: (907) 274-9493 

Psychiatric drugs for kids

Legislation requires doctors to get state permission before prescribing psychiatric drugs for kids on Medicaid

April 1, 2009
The Dallas Morning News

AUSTIN – The number of poor Texas children on powerful psychiatric drugs could drop dramatically under a bill lawmakers are considering to halt unwarranted prescriptions.

Rep. Sylvester Turner’s bill would prohibit doctors from prescribing anti-psychotic drugs to children younger than 11 who are covered by Medicaid unless they get special permission from the state. …

According to state data, roughly 13 percent of the 2.1 million children on Medicaid received a psychotropic drug in fiscal 2007. Nearly 190,000 of those kids were younger than 11. …

Last year, Florida health officials began requiring state approval for Medicaid recipients younger than 6. Since then, the number of antipsychotic prescriptions written for preschoolers in the state dropped by nearly 75 percent, and 200 doctors stopped prescribing to them all together.


and write a Letter to the Editor at

Marketing a Phony “Miracle” Drug

Rolling Stone


Marketing a Phony “Miracle” Drug

By Ben Wallace-Wells

Jan 28, 2009

Zyprexa was created to treat schizophrenia, but it wound up being used on depressed moms and misbehaving kids. How one of the nation’s biggest pharmaceutical companies turned a flawed, dangerous pill into a multi-billion-dollar bonanza — and who paid the price.

In June 1992, not long after the place closed down, a Harvard-trained psychologist named Sergio Pirrotta walked out of Danvers State Hospital for the last time. The psychiatric facility, at this late date, was a baggy old thing, rectangled into a field just north of Boston; whole wings were barely occupied, and vandals had already begun to rip out the mantelpieces and furniture. The hospital had been slowly, incrementally shutting down for a decade, and the patients that remained were the hardest cases, mostly schizophrenics and those with disorders too dense and weird to classify. But now, as Pirrotta took a walk around the campus, even those patients were gone: released into the larger world to fend for themselves or bused to hospitals where the staffs had little psychiatric training.

Pirrotta had come to Danvers in the mid-1970s to rehabilitate children whom the courts had declared insane. Back then the place was overpopulated, the halls packed with madmen who would wander around smoking cigarettes, leering and lunging at the kids. In those days, the drugs used to treat mental illness were crude and ugly things. Thorazine was the best, and it made you into a ghouled and lifeless ogre — your face seized up involuntarily, you kept shuffling around, you were an emotional drone. But gradually the medications got a little bit better, the pharmacology more precise. First there was haloperidol, similar to Thorazine but with less-vivid side effects. Then clozapine, which had at first seemed a wonder drug, before it turned out to trigger a potentially fatal immune deficiency in two cases out of a hundred.

The patients at Danvers, their symptoms softened by the new medications, began to venture forth, almost miraculously, into the world beyond the hospital. Pirrotta took a group that included schizophrenics to a children’s camp in New Hampshire, off-season, where they spent a week cleaning and grooming the grounds. “For most of them, it was the first time they’d been out of an institution in their adult lives,” he recalls. But the state’s budget crunchers had wanted to close places like Danvers for years — pills, after all, were far cheaper than hospitals — and the new drugs made the move clinically defensible. To the staff at Danvers, it seemed as if the state had abandoned its responsibilities to the mentally ill. “It felt like we’d been sold a bill of goods,” Pirrotta says. “It felt like a betrayal.”By 1992, when Danvers closed, something even more vivid and hopeful was looming: A whole new class of drugs, called atypical antipsychotics, were being tested in clinical trials. The atypicals held the promise of a more perfect tranquilizer, one that would calm the storms of schizophrenia while eliminating the side effects that made the older drugs so despised. Psychiatrists reserved their greatest excitement for a molecule being developed by Eli Lilly, a pharmaceutical company based in Indianapolis. The new chemical mirrored the powers of clozapine but without its fatal flaw. It was called olanzapine, and the scientists working on it believed it might be the One.Dr. William Wirshing, a UCLA psychiatrist who had a grant from Lilly to conduct clinical trials on olanzapine, was one of those enthused by the early results. He believed the hype was warranted, and Lilly was flying him around the country to brief other psychiatrists on his work and to seed excitement for the coming medication. Then one morning in 1995, as Wirshing was driving to LAX to catch a pre-dawn flight, a story came on the radio about olanzapine. Wirshing listened in astonishment as a top Lilly executive announced the company’s plans for the new drug, which it was preparing to market under the name Zyprexa.

“He says it’s got the potential to be a billion-dollar-a-year drug,” Wirshing recalls. “I almost pulled off the road and crashed into the side rail.” At the time, the entire market for atypical antipsychotics was only $170 million. “How the hell do you make $1 billion?” Wirshing thought. “I mean, who are we gonna give it to? It’s not like we’re making any more schizophrenic brains.”

There is a well-known feature of medical science called the placebo effect, which suggests that, in a clinical trial, patients who are told they are being medicated but are in fact given only a sugar pill will see their symptoms improve, merely out of the misplaced conviction that they are being healed. During the late 1990s, and then with increasing speed during the current decade, Wirshing and other psychiatrists watched as the market for atypical antipsychotics swelled well beyond its marked territory, far exceeding the country’s supply of schizophrenic brains — past $2 billion a year, $5 billion, $10 billion, all the way to $16 billion. What had begun as niche drugs are now the third-largest class of medication in the world, their sales greater than those of the antidepressants. The mechanisms used to leverage this growth were in some ways the most modern and perfect the pharmaceutical industry had developed, but they were also, according to state and federal prosecutors, illegal. Lilly has already agreed to pay $2.6 billion to settle charges that it built the market for Zyprexa first by concealing its side effects, and then by marketing it “off-label,” for diseases for which it had not been approved.

“It was a very clever sort of con,” says Dr. Peter Tyrer, a leading psychiatric researcher at Imperial College in London who wrote in the latest issue of the respected medical journal The Lancet about a new study that debunks the effectiveness of the atypicals. “Almost the whole scientific community was conned into thinking — as a consequence of good marketing — that this was a different and better set of drugs. The evidence, as it’s all added up, has shown this to be untrue.”

Eli Lilly insists that it has not marketed Zyprexa off-label and that it has accurately represented the drug’s side effects. But some medical researchers who have studied the atypical antipsychotics say that, in the final tally, the drugs, which have already been linked to some deaths, may eventually be responsible for tens of thousands of cases of diabetes and other potentially fatal diseases. And despite their early promise for treating schizophrenia, the drugs have not even performed any better than the crude and imprecise earlier medications that preceded them. “We have been paying $16 billion a year instead of $2 billion a year for drugs that seem to be no better and might be worse,” says Douglas Leslie, a researcher at the Medical University of South Carolina who contributed to an extensive federal study of the drugs. The story of how Zyprexa and other atypicals became a multibillion-dollar market suggests that the medical community — doctors, researchers, the institutions that back them — may be themselves prone to a placebo effect: the willed conviction that a new drug, presented as a breakthrough, must in fact be one, that a product sold as healing must in fact do good.


Protect Your Constitutional Rights

There have been over 20 pieces of federal pro-mental health legislation already introduced in 2009, with eight of them on mental health screening alone. These screening bills involve pregnant women and new mothers, children 0 to 5 years old and veterans of the military. And if that is not frightening enough, despite the complete lack of scientific evidence to substantiate any of the screening questionnaires used, completing them could result in a further 15 to 30 million Americans being prescribed dangerous psychiatric drugs.

We have an opportunity right now to warn policy makers about the economic and human risk that funding mental health screening brings. We need to educate these policy makers through a strong public awareness campaign—producing a new website specifically on screening with all the facts, and by doing one-on-one visits with them at the federal level during the next few weeks.

Dr. Jeffrey Schaler, Professor of Psychology and lecturer at American University, stated, “The New Freedom Commission Initiative on Mental Health likely poses one of the greatest threats to freedom in our contemporary society, such that we haven’t seen in 60 years. When the government gets involved in screening people for ‘mental illness,’ we run the risk of depriving any numbers of people of freedom.”

Your donation can and does make a real difference. Please watch this video and then Donate today.

Please make a donation today as a commitment against mental health screening—a clear and present danger to human rights, the Constitution and people’s freedoms.