Should You Have a Psychiatric Living Will?

Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry Dr. Thomas Szasz’s brainchild, the Living Will, is a document which provides for people of sound mind to reject the imposition of psychiatric treatment should their rights be compromised at any time in their future.

While not legally tested in every country, in 1999 it served to protect the rights of one woman. Soon after a bitter fight with her mother, the young woman suffering from pneumonia, received a knock on her door. An attorney and police officer then forcibly removed her to a nearby psychiatric hospital. Once admitted, she phoned CCHR for help, explaining that she had signed the Living Will a year earlier. CCHR faxed the signed copy of the Will to the hospital authorities and the attorney. The woman was immediately released.

Letter of Protection from Psychiatric Incarceration and/or Treatment

Should you be in a position where you may be subject to unwanted psychiatric hospitalization and/or mental or medical treatment, you may want to have copies of this signed and notarized declaration available. People who are of sound mind can sign this declaration (sometimes also called an Advance Directive) stating that they do not wish to be incarcerated and/or treated in any psychiatric facility or undergo any enforced psychiatric treatment.

What Circumstances Might Trigger the Need for a Living Will?

Speculation has been occurring about forced vaccination in response to the possibility of a flu epidemic. It may not be farfetched to imagine psychiatric involuntary commitment as a means of enforcement or quarantine.

While CCHR is not involved in the forced vaccination issue, we see it as an opportunity to remind you about the Living Will as a valid response to the general possibility of involuntary commitment or other enforced psychiatric treatment. Every 1¼ minutes, someone in the U.S. becomes the next victim of involuntary incarceration (also called Civil Commitment) in a psychiatric hospital.

Laws vary by state, but generally Emergency Detention is used most often to deprive people of liberty in order to subject them to treatment. Under most state laws it has to be determined that persons are a danger to themselves or others or are “gravely disabled.” Under some laws, however, if you are found walking down the street intoxicated, or if you get into a violent altercation with your neighbor, either would be sufficient cause to be picked up and carted off to a psychiatric hold. Emergency Detention is the fastest and easiest method of commitment; it circumvents the judicial process and deprives the person of nearly all rights. Find out more about Involuntary Commitment from here.

Download the Living Will from here.


The U.S. Senate Finance Committee has voted down a measure which would require making the full Health Care Reform bill available for review before the panel votes on it. The committee has a “conceptual” version of the health-care bill rather than a full legislative text of the bill. “It would seem crazy to most people that we vote on something when we didn’t see the legislative language,” Senator Jim Bunning said, “Well, they’d be right. It is crazy.”

See WSJ article here

Also see America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009.

If you find it hard to believe that the U.S. Senate could vote on a bill as important as the Health Care Reform bill without A) Reading the actual text of the entire bill and B) Allowing the PUBLIC to read the entire bill, then you are not alone.

There are measures in the Health Care Reform bill that include major funding for psychiatric “screening” programs and psychiatric funding that must be eliminated.

Click here to go to — read the provisions of the bill and contact your U.S. Senators.

FDA Wants to Declare Electroshock Machines Safe

The FDA Wants to Declare Electroshock Machines Safe Without a Safety Investigation


The following newsletter from the Law Project for Psychiatric Rights solicits your attention and follow through. More information about shock treatment is available from the CCHR publication The Brutal Reality: Harmful Psychiatric ‘Treatments’ – report and recommendations on the destructive practices of electroshock and psychosurgery — download it by clicking here.

If individuals wish to report an adverse event associated with the use of an ECT device, please use the MedWatch Online Voluntary Reporting Form available at The FDA will review information submitted through the MedWatch program prior to making any changes to the classification of ECT devices.

The Food and Drug Administration is in charge of regulating medical devices just as it does drugs, including the machines used to give electroshock. But it is not doing its job. It has allowed these machines to be used on millions of patients over the past generation without requiring any evidence whatsoever that shock treatment is safe or effective!

This is so even though shock machines are Class III–high risk–devices, which by law are supposed to be investigated by clinical trials as thoroughly as new drugs and devices just coming onto the market.

But because of intense lobbying by the American Psychiatric Association–which claims the devices are safe but opposes an investigation–the FDA has disregarded its own law.

(For the full story of how shock survivors have fought for a scientific safety investigation of Electroshock for the past 25 years, see Linda Andre’s terrific new book, Doctors of Deception: What They Don’t Want You to Know About Shock Treatment.)

In April 2009–20 years after it first ruled the devices high-risk and named brain damage and memory loss as risks of the treatment–the FDA belatedly announced it would call on the manufacturers of the devices to provide evidence of safety and efficacy. The deadline for submissions has passed, but the manufacturers have not conducted any clinical trials, claiming they cannot afford them. They simply point to the opinions of shock doctors (including those who have financial interests in companies making electroshock machines) as evidence that shock is safe.

The FDA is now supposed to require electroshock machines to undergo the rigorous PreMarket Approval process (PMA) that is required of new devices, including clinical safety trials. These machines, technically known as “devices,” are referred to as Electro Convulsive Therapy (ECT), but this is a euphemistic term for running electricity through people’s brains.

The FDA could have called for this investigation any time in the past 30 years but has previously failed to do so. There is great risk the FDA will down-classify ECT machines to the low-risk Class II, without scientific evidence of its safety.

As a Class II device, electroshock machines would never have to go through the PMA process. The amount of damage that electroshock has been allowed to inflict is an outrage. We now finally have a chance to at least register our opposition because the FDA has opened up a new docket for public comment on electroshock machines. It is important for as many people as possible to write in with their opposition. Comments will be accepted up through January 8, 2010.

If you have personal knowledge or expertise about electroshock, writing about that can be good. Or you can pull information from various sources. Linda Andre’s book, Doctors of Deception is a gold mine of information. Leonard Roy Frank issued the Electroshock Quotationary in June 2006, which is a good source of material, and there is also a brand new web page of historical materials from Leonard at Also, PsychRights has quite a large collection of materials at from which comments can be drawn.

Read the instructions for docket #FDA-2009-N0392 and submit electronic comments and information to

If you are not in a position to write something up, then please mail in the coupon below.

To: Food and Drug Administration
Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305)
5630 Fishers Lane, Room 1061
Rockville, MD 20852
Re: Electroconvulsive Therapy Device (882.5940),
Docket #FDA-2009-N0392
The undersigned opposes the reclassification of the ECT device to Class II by the FDA in the absence of adequate scientific evidence of its safety, and asks the agency to call for PreMarket Approval Applications for the device.

Name: _________________________________________

Address: _______________________________________
Signature: ______________________________________
Date: __________________________________________

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

Schizophrenia and Celiac Disease

Wheat-gluten sensitivity and mental symptoms

Gluten is a protein found in wheat, rye, barley (and possibly oats) that gives dough its sticky quality. An inability to digest these grains is called celiac disease. Estimates for those having celiac disease are generally thought to be 1% of the population, or about 1 in 100. It may be more, since not everyone displays significant symptoms.

Studies have shown celiac disease to be inordinately high in groups of people diagnosed with schizophrenia. Removing gluten from the diets of those diagnosed with schizophrenia often results in a significant improvement of behavior.

A study of schizophrenics by Dr. William Philpott showed allergic responses as follows: Wheat (64%), Mature corn (51%), Pasteurized whole cow milk (50%), Tobacco (75%), and Hydrocarbons (30%). Ninety-two percent of the patients showed allergic responses with an average of ten items per person causing reactions.

Symptoms of celiac disease can include mood swings, depression, anxiety, irritability, compulsive behavior, learning difficulties, delusions, hallucinations, incoherence, disorganization, stupor, hyperactivity, and other mental disorders, which can be misdiagnosed as schizophrenia or other mental illness.

An antibody blood test will show if the system is responding negatively to gluten. Positive diagnosis of celiac disease occurs only with an endoscopic biopsy (analyzing a tissue sample from the small intestine) which is the only way to distinguish it from food allergies or other issues. One should consult a non-psychiatric medical doctor for the antibody screening test and full diagnosis.

[Some information taken from Twenty-Nine Medical Causes of “Schizophrenia” which is excerpted from Nutrition and Mental Illness by the late Carl C. Pfeiffer, Ph.D., M.D.]


Psychiatrists remain committed to calling “schizophrenia” a mental
disease despite, after a century of research, the complete absence of objective proof that it exists as a physical brain abnormality.

Also, psychiatry clings tenaciously to antipsychotics as the treatment for “schizophrenia,” despite their proven risks and studies which show that when patients stop taking these drugs, they improve.

Psychiatrists not only admit that they have no idea what causes the symptoms characterized as schizophrenia, but also they have no scientifically validated proof whatsoever that it even exists as a discrete physical illness.

The word “schizophrenia” comes from the Greek skhizein ‘to split’ + phren ‘mind’. A useful definition of “schizophrenia” could be: an idea that one is two persons, which is remediable by a discovery of the life continuums being dramatized by the individual. A life continuum is the phenomenon of an individual’s tendency to carry on the fears, goals, habits and manifestations of others who have failed, departed or are dead. [definition from L. Ron Hubbard, 1952]

There are solutions to mental disturbances that avoid the serious risks and flaws inherent in psychiatry. Download and read the CCHR reports Schizophrenia – Psychiatry’s For Profit ‘Disease’ and What is the Alternative to Psychiatric Drugs.

DISCLAIMER: This information is for educational purposes only and is not intended to replace the advice of physicians or health care practitioners. It is also not intended to diagnose or prescribe treatment for any illness or disorder. Anyone already undergoing physician-prescribed therapy should seek the advice of their doctor before changing dosage or stopping treatment.

Antipsychotics Linked to Increased Risk for Hyperglycemia in Seniors with Diabetes

“Elderly individuals with diabetes who are prescribed antipsychotic medication for the first time are at increased risk for hyperglycemia…A study published in the July 27 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine shows the risk for a serious hyperglycemic episode among some older patients with diabetes who recently started an antipsychotic was 50% higher than for their counterparts who had not taken this class of drug for at least 6 months.”

[Note: Hyperglycemia is an unusually high concentration of sugar in the blood. Chronic hyperglycemia at levels more than slightly above normal can produce a very wide variety of serious complications over a period of years, including kidney damage, neurological damage, cardiovascular damage, loss of vision, etc. Acute hyperglycemia involving glucose levels that are extremely high is a medical emergency.]

This MedScape article ( goes on to quote a psychiatrist, Dr. John W. Newcomer, MD, from the Center for Clinical Studies at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, who said, “Antipsychotic medications can contribute to risk for diabetes and can contribute to risk for destabilization of existing diabetes; there’s no doubt about that…Clinicians are so desperate that they routinely reach for them [antipsychotic drugs], and actually they might not work as often or as well as people think.”

Diabetes and hyperglycemia are only two of a much longer list of possible side effects from antipsychotic drugs. For more information about this, download and read the CCHR report, The Side Effects of Common Psychiatric Drugs.

The body is an extremely complex biochemical machine, with chemical reactions and flows that occur in harmony and rhythmically one with another. They happen in specific sequences, in certain quantities, and at exact rates of speed. When a foreign substance such as a psychotropic drug is introduced into the body these flows and inner workings are disrupted. The drugs may speed up, slow down, dam up, overwhelm or deny critical metabolic substances.

This is why psychiatric drugs produce side effects. This is, in fact, why they produce any effect at all. They do not heal anything. The human body, however, is unmatched in its ability to withstand and respond to such disruptions. The various systems fight back, trying to process the foreign chemical, and work diligently to counterbalance its effects on the body.

But the body can only take so much. Quickly or slowly, the systems break down. Like a car run on rocket fuel, you may be able to get it to run a thousand miles an hour, but the tires, the engine and the internal parts were never meant for this; the machine flies apart.

If you are worried about something—a problem in life such as relationships with your friends, parents or teachers, or how your child’s school grades are going—taking any drug, illegal or psychiatric, isn’t going to solve the problem. If a drug is used to feel better when you are depressed, sad or anxious, the relief is only for a short while. If the problem is not fixed or helped you will often feel worse than before. As a drug wears off, whatever pain, discomfort or upset that was there before taking the drug can become stronger. It can make you want to keep taking the drug.

WARNING: No one should stop taking any psychiatric drug without the advice and assistance of a competent, non-psychiatric, medical doctor.

Tennessee Passed Bill to Restrict Mental Health Screening in Schools

On May 5, 2009, the Governor of Tennessee signed into law Senate Bill 850 designed to restrict mental health screening in schools. This law went into effect July 1, 2009; it places restrictions on universal mental health testing, or psychiatric or socioemotional screening of juveniles, and requires certain consent by a juvenile’s parent, guardian, legal custodian, or caregiver before such testing can occur. The full text of this law can be found here:

There are two key provisions of this new law:

1) Mental health screening [e.g. brief questionnaires designed to identify mental health problems without regard to whether there was any prior indication of a problem] is basically only permitted for a child under 16 years old if a parent or guardian has provided written, active, informed and voluntarily signed consent which may be withdrawn at any time. [There are other instances where screening may be permitted, such as a court order.]

2) A local education agency may not use the parent’s refusal to consent to administration of a psychotropic drug to a student or to a mental health screening of a student as grounds for prohibiting the child from attending class or participating in school-related activities, or as the basis of reporting the parent for child abuse or neglect. Moreover, it is unlawful to use or threaten school sanctions to coerce parental consent.

One of the screening programs used on students is TeenScreenâ„¢, the brainchild of psychiatrist Dr. David Shaffer, who admits that there is an 84 percent chance that children could be wrongly identified as suicidal or depressed.

Award winning journalist and former Congressional staff, Kelly Patricia O’Meara, in her powerful 2006 book, Psyched Out: How Psychiatry Sells Mental Illness and Pushes Pills That Kill, responded to this: “Since when does an 84 percent failure rate equate to a reliable scientific test? In other words, based on Shaffer’s study of his own test, 84 students out of 100 will be incorrectly identified as suffering from a specific mental illness. One has to wonder if parents of America are informed of this astonishing statistic as part of information to consider when having to decide whether or not to allow the mental health screening test.”

Parents consenting to mental health screening may be unaware that psychiatry is not based on physical science; i.e. psychiatrists admit they do not know the cause of or cure for any mental disorder and have no x-ray, blood or any physical test to diagnose or determine one.  All screening is based on subjective opinion, using personal and invasive questions that could lead to any child being prescribed harmful mind-altering drugs.

For more information, download and read the CCHR report

Teen Screen: Life Saving Intervention, Or Orwellian Nightmare?.

Life Center for a New Tomorrow

Mounting evidence shows that psychiatric drugs have side effects often worse than what they are supposed to treat. Many experts have testifed against the danger of psychiatric drugs. More and more people are becoming aware that the psychiatric industry is more a fraud than a real science.

The apparent workability of some drugs comes from the fact that it seems better to have someone sit quietly in a corner after they have been pumped full of drugs rather than seeing the same person banging his head against a wall or screaming all day long. But which state is better? One of a zombie who has no will power or is unable to act anymore, or one who is still trying to get his demons out by screaming or banging his head against the wall? One is still fighting, the other has given up.

The ultimate goal is to get rid of the fraudulent science that is psychiatry, to dispense with harmful psychotropic drugs and to replace them with an alternative that is humane, that takes into consideration the well being of the person – an alternative that would try to lift the person up above their condition instead of burying them with drugs.

It is with that goal in mind that the Life Center for a New Tomorrow was created. Located in the beautiful hills of Tennessee, it provides a peaceful, restful, non-threatening environment for people mentally challenged. People with mental conditions should not be pushed around, tied down, forced to take powerful drugs that make them feel horrible. The solution is: the worse off the condition, the lighter the approach.

We have, at the Life Center, supervisors that are trained in providing a good environment for our guests. We don’t call the people coming here patients, we call them guests. People should be treated with decency, with dignity and respect. Unfortunately, in modern psychiatric institutions such is more often not the case.

In many cases, underlying a mental condition one will find a physical malfunction. For instance, if the hormone system in the body were imbalanced, it might cause mental difficulties. People can have mood swings if their hormones are not properly balanced. There are many physical conditions that could cause a mental condition. We try to help the guests find those conditions with the help of natural doctors who are there to seek the real cause of a problem instead of masking it with a pill.

The Life Center for a New Tomorrow is a new venture but as people find out about it, it has become obvious that such a facility is in high demand. We intend to grow and to open other such facilities. Anyone interested in opening such a center or contributing to the expansion of this one is appreciated. Anyone who has a family member or a friend in need of such a facility should contact us. Please see our web site at

Marc Vallieres
(615) 563-4292

The Mothers Act Disease Mongering Campaign (Part 1)

(Part 1) Thursday, July 16, 2009 by: Evelyn Pringle, health freedom writer

(NaturalNews) The Mothers Act represents the ultimate example of disease mongering at its worst because the eight-year attempt to pass this federal legislation has evolved into profiteering never before exhibited so conspicuously.

Disease mongering “is the selling of sickness that widens the boundaries of illness and grows the markets for those who sell and deliver treatments,” according to Ray Moyniahan and David Henry in the April 11, 2006 paper in PLoS Med, titled, “The Fight against Disease Mongering.”

“It is exemplified most explicitly by many pharmaceutical industry — funded disease-awareness campaigns — more often designed to sell drugs than to illuminate or to inform or educate about the prevention of illness or the maintenance of health,” the authors explain.

“Drug companies are by no means the only players in this drama,” they point out. “Through the work of investigative journalists, we have learned how informal alliances of pharmaceutical corporations, public relations companies, doctors’ groups, and patient advocates promote these ideas to the public and policymakers — often using mass media to push a certain view of a particular health problem.”

The Mothers Act campaign has operated under the guise of helping women suffering from postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis to develop a new industry, complete with specialties like, “reproductive psychiatry,” or “reproductive mental health,” with a plan to “screen” and “treat” women of childbearing years for a long list of “perinatal” mental disorders, to financially benefit psychiatric drug makers, as well as the treatment providers and “experts” in the new self-created field.

“Drug companies have been trying for years to get a better deal with pregnant women by saying they were under a lot more stress than people realize,” according to UK pharmacology expert, Dr David Healy, author the new book, “Mania: A Short History of Bipolar Disorder.”

This is now the easiest marketing for the drug makers, he says. In fact, “almost too easy because lots of people are cooperative.”

The Mothers Act has already passed in the House and Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), is the main sponsor of the bill in the Senate. In 2006, his home state of New Jersey became the first state in the nation to enact a law forcing all new mothers to submit to mandatory screening.

Lobbyists paid big bucks to push drugs in Washington

A June 24, 2009 report by the public interest advocacy group, “Common Cause,” lists Menedez as one of the top 20 recipients of healthcare industry campaign contributions in the Senate between 2000 and 2008. Since the year 2000, Menendez has received a total of $2,252,169, including $723,550 from Big Pharma.

On June 8, 2009, a headline on New, read: “E-mail: Drug lobbyist targeted Menendez to help with importation bill,” and reported that the subject line of the email said: “URGENT”

The strategy to pursue Menendez became known when the email from the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the industry trade group, ended up with Senator John McCain, a drug importation advocate. “And McCain read it on the Senate floor — twice,” the article notes.

The email called for New Jersey drug companies to ask Menendez to be their champion on an amendment that would effectively kill any attempt to allow cheaper drugs to be imported from other countries, according to the report.

“We need to locate a Democratic lead cosponsor for the second degree amendment,” the e-mail said. “Can … [Johnson & Johnson], Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and the other New Jersey companies coordinate and contact Senator Menendez’s office and ask him to take the lead?”

“Menendez’s office said that while he supports the drug companies’ position, he did not act as their champion,” according to New

Officially known as the “Melanie Blocker-Stokes Post Partum Depression Research and Care Act,” the bill is “named after Melanie Stokes, a woman who suffered emotional difficulties after giving birth and was subsequently prescribed a cocktail of intensely controversial psychiatric drugs including anti-psychotic, anti-anxiety, and anti-depressant drugs before being subjected to electroshock treatment,” according to a letter made available on the AbleChild, website for persons to sign and send to Senators, via the internet, encouraging them to vote against the Act.

“Melanie Stokes was in the mental health system, was prescribed drugs, was hospitalized, was subjected to the still barbaric practice of electroshock and only after receiving mental health “treatment” did she commit suicide,” it further explains.

“That is what the mental health industry did for a new mother named Melanie,” the letter points out.

The Mothers Act “quite simply is a feeder line for the psycho-pharmaceutical industry and will result in more mothers and infants being put at risk for being prescribed antidepressant and other dangerous psychiatric drugs,” the AbleChild letter warns.

Suicide Prevention Hoax

The disease mongering campaigns for the new generation of psychiatric drugs over the last 20 years were accomplished under the ruse of suicide prevention. However, in 1987, the year Prozac was approved, and kicked off the bogus epidemic of mental illness in this country, the number of suicides was 30,796, and in the latest year reported on the website of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, the number of suicides was 33,292 in 2006.

The suicide related adverse event reports submitted to the FDA’s MedWatch system are summarized on the “Adverse Psychiatric Drug Reaction” website. For a two-year period between January 2004 and December 2006, the top 20 list of most commonly reported adverse events for Prozac, included 187 suicides and 68 attempts. Zoloft had 154 suicides and 162 suicide attempts. Paxil’s top 20 list included 841 suicides, Celexa had 232 suicide reports, and Lexapro had 189 suicides, and 87 suicide attempts, reported to MedWatch. Only between one and ten percent of adverse events ever get reported to the FDA’s system.

In May 2009, journalist, Philip Dawdy, reported on the popular Furious Seasons website, that Wyeth’s new Effexor me-too drug, Pristiq, approved in early 2008, had already generated 1,272 adverse event reports in MedWatch by the end of 2008.

“It’s discouraging that 17 of those reports involve completed suicides through the end of 2008,” Dawdy said. “There are also 48 reports of suicidal ideation.”

Symptoms Equal Side Effects

Purely for profit, patients are told to stay on antidepressants indefinitely to prevent a relapse of depression or anxiety disorders. It’s doubtful that patients realize that their sex lives could be ruined by taking the drugs or that the use of common pain relievers, vitamins and alcohol is dangerous or that their driving ability might be altered, for years on end.

The website lists depression symptoms as: depressed mood most of the day, nearly every day; lack of interest or pleasure in your usual activities and a lack of motivation; changes in appetite; sleep problems; anxiety or restlessness; feelings of guilt, worthlessness, and insecurity; difficulty concentrating and thinking clearly; fatigue or lack of energy; and thoughts of suicide.

Compare those “symptoms” to the severity and number of adverse events listed and described on the “Safety Information” page for Prozac, which includes the following statement:

“Patients on antidepressants and their families or caregivers should watch for worsening depression symptoms, unusual changes in behavior and thoughts of suicide, as well as for anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, difficulty sleeping, irritability, hostility, aggressiveness, impulsivity, restlessness, or extreme hyperactivity.”

Under the heading, “What are possible side effects of PROZAC?” the website states:

“Some people experience side effects like nausea, difficulty sleeping, drowsiness, anxiety, nervousness, weakness, loss of appetite, tremors, dry mouth, sweating, decreased sex drive, impotence, or yawning.”

“PROZAC can cause changes in sexual desire or satisfaction,” it warns.

Sexual dysfunction, including lack of libido, orgasmic dysfunction and delayed ejaculation, are common side effects of using SSRIs, according to the May 2005 report, “The Marketing of Depression: The Prescribing of SSRI Antidepressants to Women,” by Dr Janet Currie.

“Since SSRIs are prescribed more often for women, women are more frequently affected by SSRI-induced sexual dysfunction,” she explains.

“Because SSRIs can also lead to a worsening of depression, paradoxical effects, emotional blunting or detachment, reduced emotional activity, memory loss and confusion, these effects, in conjunction with sexual dysfunction, can negatively affect intimate relationships,” she warns.

“There are concerns that not all sexual dysfunction may fully resolve after termination of treatment,” Currie also reports.

“Be sure to tell your doctor if you are taking PROZAC and are taking or plan to take non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or aspirin since combined use of these drug products have been associated with an increased risk of bleeding,” the Prozac website advises.

“Also, tell your doctor if you are taking or plan to take any vitamins, herbal supplements or alcohol,” the warning says.

An October 2007 study by researchers led by Dr Sonal Singh, published online in Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics, reported that SSRIs may double the risk of bleeding in the upper digestive gastrointestinal tract including the esophagus, stomach or upper intestine.

The researchers also noted that when SSRIs are taken with aspirin or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), such as prescription Celebrex or over-the-counter Aleve, the risk of bleeding was 6 times higher than in persons not on the drugs.

“Do not drive a car or operate dangerous machinery until you know what effects PROZAC may have on you,” the Prozac website instructs.

A December 2006 study in the, “Journal of Clinical Psychiatry,” reported that about seven out of every ten people who take antidepressants have impaired driving ability and that 16% of the people on the drugs have severe motor impairments.

A new May 2009 study, in the “American Journal of Psychiatry,” reports that long term use of antidepressants raises the risk of diabetes, especially in moderate to high doses. SSRIs increased the risk by 106% and tricyclic antidepressants increased the risk by 77%.

The precaution section on the labeling for Prozac states: “Hyponatremia may occur as a result of treatment.”

“Signs and symptoms of hyponatremia include headache, difficulty concentrating, memory impairment, confusion, weakness, and unsteadiness, which may lead to falls,” it explains.

“More severe and/or acute cases have been associated with hallucination, syncope, seizure, coma, respiratory arrest, and death,” the label warns.

Antidepressants lose patent profitability

Since the new generation of antidepressants lost their patent profitability, the treatment for all the “mood” and “anxiety” disorders women will be diagnosed with as a result of the Mothers Act disease mongering campaign, now includes not only antidepressants, but drugs used as “mood stabilizers,” such as the antipsychotics Zyprexa, Seroquel, Risperdal, Invega, Geodon and Abilify, and antiseizure medications including Lamictal, Depakote, Topamax, Trileptal, Neurontin, Gabitril and Lyrica, along with benzodiazepines like Xanax, Ativan, Valium and Klonopin, and sleeping pills such as Ambien or Lunesta.

In 2008, psychiatric drug makers had overall US sales of $14.6 billion from antipsychotics, $9.6 billion off antidepressants, $11.3 billion from antiseizure drugs, and $4.8 billion in sales of ADHD drugs, for a grand total of $40.3 billion.

“In 2008, 85 million prescriptions were filled for the top 20 benzodiazepines, an increase of 10 million over 2004, according to IMS Health, a health-care information company,” the Wall Street Journal reported on June 30, 2009.

“Worldwide revenue for Xanax rose to $350 million last year, up nearly 50 percent from 2003, according to pharmaceutical company Pfizer’s financial reports,” the Journal reported. Xanax sold for $203 for 100 middle dose tablets, and Ativan cost $230 per hundred at on July 13, 2009.

Benzodiazepines are often prescribed to manage anxiety, panic and sleep disorders, the Journal noted. “Health professionals and consumers are increasingly recognizing that taking the drugs for more than a few weeks can lead to physical dependence, often ending with a grueling withdrawal,” the article said.

Psychiatric drugs are now doled out in multiple drug cocktails to treat “co-occurring” mental illnesses such as “anxiety disorders” and “treatment resistant” depression, or the latest rage, “Adult ADHD.”

In an April 2008 report, the market research firm, Datamonitor, announced: “ADHD – Immature adult market continues to offer greatest commercial potential.”

“Estimated to be twice the size of the pediatric ADHD population,” the reports states, “the highly prevalent, yet largely untapped, adult ADHD population continues to represent an attractive niche to target.”

“The rising awareness of ADHD brought about by marketing campaigns for Adderall XR and Strattera has paved the way for the entry of additional adult ADHD drugs,” it notes.

“The US dominates the ADHD market with a 94% market share,” Datamonitor points out, demonstrating that the rest of the world has apparently not lost the ability to concentrate without the use of “legal speed.”

Last year, Adderall and Vyvanse maker, Shire, issued a press release on May 12, 2008, to announce a “Nationwide Adult ADHD Mobile Awareness Tour,” and launched a “13-city mobile screening initiative” for adults with ADHD.

“The screening initiative, known as the “RoADHD Trip,” is housed, transported and anchored by the RoADHD Trip Tractor Trailer which expands into a tented area housing eight self-screening stations,” Shire explained in the press release.

Shire claims that ADHD “affects approximately 4.4 percent of the U.S. adult population aged 18-44 according to the National Comorbidity Survey Replication, a nationally representative household survey.”

Dr David Stein, author of, “Unraveling the ADD/ADHD Fiasco,” warns that stimulant drugs are “near the top of the heap of potentially addictive drugs.”

There is no way of pinpointing which people are at risk of becoming addicted, he says, and “psychiatry has an extremely poor track record for treating addiction problems.”

Profitable Victims Spur Disease Mongering

When drugs are peddled through mental illness disease mongering campaigns, stories in the media seldom mention medication prices, much less the number of drugs commonly prescribed together to treat the various disorders; leaving the public unaware of the enormous profit motive behind the mass drugging of the victims.

A women diagnosed with ADHD and treatment resistant depression might end up taking Strattera, Cymbalta and Zyprexa, all sold by Eli Lilly. The recent prices of these drugs at a middle dose on were $427 for 100 capsules of Strattera, $391 for 90 capsules of Cymbalta, and Zyprexa was $1,195 per ninety pills. A year of these three drugs would bring in roughly $24,156, per patient, for Lilly and the pharmacy alone, not counting the prescribing doctors’ fees and the cost of any therapy sessions deemed necessary.

Bristol-Myers Squibb’s Abilify is now approved as an “Adjunctive Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder,” at a price of $1,230 for ninety capsules at The “Information for Patients,” section on the labeling states in part:

“Patients, their families, and their caregivers should be encouraged to be alert to the emergence of anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility, aggressiveness, impulsivity, akathisia (psychomotor restlessness), hypomania, mania, other unusual changes in behavior, worsening of depression, and suicidal ideation, especially early during antidepressant treatment and when the dose is adjusted up or down.”

“A syndrome of potentially irreversible, involuntary, dyskinetic movements may develop in patients treated with antipsychotic drugs,” the Abilify labeling warns.

On April 29, 2009, Philip Dawdy’s headline on Furious Seasons, read: “10 Percent Of Depressed Patients Now Take Antipsychotics,” based on statements made during a conference call by executives of Bristol-Myers Squibb.

“Forget about Prozac Nation, this is Atypical Nation,” he said. “Antipsychotics are now the top revenue producing class of drugs, topping even statins.

Zyprexa and Prozac are combined in Lilly’s Symbyax, recently approved for “treatment resistant” depression and the Abilify warnings are also on the labeling of this drug. The price of Symbyax was $1,564 for ninety 12-25mg capsules on in May 2009, meaning each patient could bring in $18,768 per year for Lilly and the pharmacy alone.

A 2007 study titled, “Serious Adverse Drug Events Reported to the Food and Drug Administration,” between 1998-2005, by Thomas Moore, Michael Cohen, and Curt Furberg, in the Archives of Internal Medicine, found the number of fatal adverse event reports to the FDA had increased nearly 300%, from 1998 to 2005. The top 15 drugs with the most fatalities included the antipsychotics, Clozaril with 3,277 deaths, Risperdal with 1,093, and Zyprexa with 1,005. Paxil also made the top 15 list with 850 death reports.

In 2008, the FDA warned that anticonvulsants double the risk of suicidal behavior or ideation, with epilepsy treatment having the highest risk, ruling out psychiatric disorders, such as depression, as the underlying culprit. The prices for anticonvulsants at a middle dose ran as high as $1,029 for 180 tablets of GlaxoSmithKline’s Lamictal, and $1,286 for 180 tablets of Johnson & Johnson’s Topamax, in May 2009.

Unconscionable Disease Mongers Target the Nursery

“The rights of the unborn to a safe and healthy birth are being taken away by this legislation,” says Mothers Act opponent Larry Bone.

“One third of pregnant women in the US already take psychiatric drugs at some point during their pregnancies and most are never warned of the known risks for themselves, their unborn and nursing babies, depriving them of their right to informed consent,” according to Dr Fred Baughman, author of the “ADHD Fraud,” and former director of the March of Dimes, Birth Defects Clinic of Western Michigan.

“Should the Act pass,” he warns, “it will guarantee that more mothers-to-be, their unborn still-developing babies, and more nursing mothers and their nursing infants, will join the ranks of the psychiatrically drugged.”

A young Texas mother, Amy Philo, is the leader of “Unite for Life,” a coalition of 53 groups fighting against the Mothers Act, which includes the Alliance for Human Research Protection, AbleChild, Citizens Commission on Human Rights, International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology; International Coalition For Drug Awareness; Law Project for Psychiatric Rights, Mindfreedom International, and the National Association for Rights Protection and Advocacy.

The coalition points out that there is no language in the bill that will ensure mothers are granted the most fundamental right of “informed consent,” meaning they will be told about all the risks of the proposed treatments and all the alternatives.

“If this bill was really for moms with PPD,” Amy says, “it would ensure express written informed consent and ensure that all medical testing and non-drug options are explored.”

“When the sponsors in the Senate refuse to add informed consent language and an examination of existing data on risks of existing treatments, then you know something is wrong,” she says. “Seriously wrong.”

The lack of an informed consent provision also concerns other experts in the field. “In every case in which a doctor writes a prescription, the person receiving the drug must be fully and understandably provided a statement of the risks associated with treatment,” says Harrisburg, Pennsylvania psychiatrist, Dr Stefan Kruszewski, who serves as an expert in litigation on the harms of psychiatric drugs.

“This is never more serious than when two lives are potentially at risk, such as the pregnant or nursing mother and her infant,” he advises.

“The risks for a pregnant mom on antidepressants may include withdrawal, akathisia or rapid mood swings,” he warns. “For the fetus, the overwhelming worry is a withdrawal syndrome and congenital malformations, resulting in complications for both mother and child.”

Drugged Victims

In 2004, Amy was prescribed Zoloft, to “prevent” PPD, because she became extremely anxious and concerned after she witnessed her newborn son’s life-threatening choking incident, based on a recommendation of a home visiting nurse.

Without any explanation of alternative treatments, or warnings about side effects, the doctor told Amy that Zoloft would make her and her nursing infant happy, in a consultation lasting about two minutes.

Zoloft caused Amy to become homicidal and suicidal and she ended up locked in a mental ward away from her baby for two days. Rather than recognize the side effects of Zoloft, the “professionals” upped the dose and also tried to feed Amy Zyprexa, Celexa, Ambien, and Klonopin, which she refused to take because she was nursing.

Amy’s obsessive homicidal and suicidal thoughts persisted for five months, until she weaned herself off Zoloft against medical advice, and they disappeared and never returned. Her recently obtained medical records show she was labeled with obsessive-compulsive disorder and major depression. These stigmatizing labels will stay in her records forever with no explanation that Zoloft was the cause of any alleged mental disorder.

The family’s insurance was billed about $8,000 for the 2-day stay in the mental ward, and Amy and her husband were stuck with an $800 co-payment. Ninety 100mg tablets of Zoloft cost $318, at on July 13, 2009. Of the drugs Amy refused to take, Celexa sold for $355 for 100 20mg tablets, Klonopin was $209 for 100 2mg tablets, and Ambien cost $173 for 30 10mg pills. As mentioned above, Zyprexa recently sold for $1,195 per ninety tablets.

Andrea Yates is another example of a women drugged into madness. On June 20, 2001, the Texas housewife and former nurse, filled a bathtub with water 3 inches from the top and methodically drowned her five children one by one. After she was done she called 911. When the policemen arrived she led them to the bodies.

“Contrary to the mantra that it is untreated mental illness that causes these tragic events, more often than not, we see these events occurring in individuals who are receiving mental health “treatment,” almost always in the form of psychotropic drugs,” warns attorney, Karen Barth Menzies, who has worked on cases involving drug-induced homicide and suicide, as well as SSRI birth defect litigation.

“From everything I have read about the Yates case,” she says, “it is a tragic consequence of an incompetent, failing and corrupt mental health system.”

“Ms Yates was on a chemical soup of various medications and, therefore, it is difficult to point the finger at any one drug,” she explains.

“But it seems clear that the drugs she was taking did nothing but exacerbate her condition,” she adds.

“I think the drug manufacturers who grossly oversell the benefits of their drugs and the doctors who pile on drug after drug, bear responsibility for the death of these children and deserve to be criminally charged as well,” Menzies states.

“What we have observed, particularly in criminal cases,” she says, “is that people taking these drugs will commit crimes they normally would never have committed due to a combination of side effects.”

“For over a decade, antidepressant manufacturers have monitored the criminal courts for suspects who became violent while taking an antidepressant — and they secretly help prosecutors fight against an SSRI-antidepressant defense,” Menzies reports.

“The last thing drug companies want is for juries (and the public) to learn the truth – that these drugs can cause people to become violent and homicidal,” she advises.

“Of course, the drug companies do not give the prosecutors the whole story,” she says. “To protect the reputation of their money-making drug, the companies hide the internal evidence of people in clinical trials who become violent and homicidal on their drug, but then fully-recovered once they were off.”

“These adverse reactions normally include an agitated state as well as a condition called “depersonalization” where the individual becomes disconnected from the reality of their actions, where everything seems unreal, as if they are watching a movie,” Menzies explains.

“Often times,” she notes, “there is a state of disinhibition, where normal inhibitions are no longer present, such as when people become intoxicated or are on street drugs.”

“Unfortunately,” she says, “the cost to bring a drug-induced violence (involuntary intoxication) defense is extraordinary, especially because the state is backed by drug company resources to fight this defense.”

“Not exactly a level playing field,” she says, “And the drug companies, as we’ve seen, will spare nothing when it comes to protecting the profits they make on these drugs!”

An April 20, 2009 press release by Senator Menendez claimed the Mothers Act legislation would increase federal efforts to combat postpartum depression by:

“Creating a grant program to public or nonprofit private entities to deliver or enhance outpatient, inpatient and home-based health and support services, including case management and comprehensive treatment services for individuals with or at risk for postpartum conditions.

“Activities may also include providing education about postpartum conditions to new mothers and their families, including symptoms, methods of coping with the illness, and treatment resources, in order to promote earlier diagnosis and treatment.”

As will be shown in the next parts of this series, the “public or nonprofit private entities” are already in place and the profiteers are waiting with their hands out for the tax dollars to start rolling into their bank accounts.

Pfizer agrees to a record fraud fine

Wednesday, 2 September 2009

US drugmaker Pfizer has agreed to pay $2.3 Billion in the largest healthcare fraud settlement in the history of the Department of Justice

Pfizer illegally promoted four drugs and caused false claims to be submitted to government healthcare programs for uses that were not medically accepted. Missouri will receive $22 million as part of the settlement.

The civil settlement also relates to allegations that Pfizer paid bribes to healthcare providers to induce them to prescribe Bextra, an anti-inflammatory drug, Geodon, an antipsychotic drug, Zyvox, an antibiotic and Lyrica, an epilepsy treatment.

Geodon is a newer atypical antipsychotic, generic name ziprasidone hydrochloride, in the major tranquilizer category. Suicidal thoughts and violence are among the possible side effects of such antipsychotics. USA Today on May 2, 2006 reported a study that showed at least 45 children died between 2000 and 2004 from the side effects of this kind of antipsychotic drug. Despite an adults-only FDA approval for these drugs, up to 2.5 million children were prescribed them. As the FDA’s Adverse Drug Reactions reporting database only collects 1% to 10% of drug-induced side effects and reported deaths, the true child death rate could be between 450 and several thousand.

It could be dangerous to immediately cease taking psychiatric drugs because of potential significant withdrawal side effects. No one should stop taking any psychiatric drug without the advice and assistance of a competent medical doctor.

Download and read the CCHR report The Side Effects of Common Psychiatric Drugs available here.

Recognize that the real problem is that psychiatrists fraudulently diagnose life’s problems as an “illness”, and stigmatize unwanted behavior or study problems as  “diseases.” Psychiatry’s stigmatizing labels, programs and treatments are harmful junk science; their diagnoses of “mental disorders” are a hoax – unscientific, fraudulent and harmful. All psychiatric treatments, not just psychiatric drugs, are dangerous, and can cause crime.

It is vital that you and your associates watch the video documentary Making A Killing – The Untold Story of Psychotropic Drugging. Containing more than 175 interviews with lawyers, mental health experts, the families of psychiatric abuse victims and the survivors themselves, this riveting documentary rips the mask off psychotropic drugging and exposes a brutal but well-entrenched money-making machine. The facts are hard to believe, but fatal to ignore. Watch the video online or request a free copy from CCHR International.

The Reasonable Thing To Do

When faced with insanity, irrationality and irresponsibility – as for example when faced with the senseless and unpredictable violence and suicide associated with fraudulent and harmful psychiatric diagnoses, treatments and drugs — there are essentially two paths one could take.

On one hand, one could be reasonable and explain it all away, which is the path to slavery [being the effect of something bad]. We call this specious [having the ring of truth or plausibility but actually false] reasoning.

On the other hand, one could be reasonable and demand an effective solution, which is the path to freedom [being the cause of something good]. We call this rational [sensible thinking and judgment] reasoning.

If you do not think psychiatric fraud and abuse have affected you, think again! Consider the high cost of health care, for example, and how this might be affected by massive fraud in the mental health care system. Perhaps you know someone who has been fraudulently diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder and prescribed harmful drugs.

Perhaps you think it is normal for children to go on shooting rampages in their schools? Perhaps you think it is normal for people with problems in life to be involuntarily committed, shocked and drugged, instead of being cared for and returned to health and sanity.

So what is the reasonable thing to do?

Arm yourself with the truth. Get the facts.

Watch the video documentaries. Read the booklets.

Fight back. Demand an effective solution.

Write, email, call, visit: your various local, state and federal representatives and officials; school boards; police; sheriffs; judiciary. Tell them to stop funding and promoting psychiatric solutions that do not work.

What are effective solutions?

There are effective alternatives to fraudulent and harmful psychiatric diagnoses, treatments and drugs. Get the facts. Fight back. Tell us what you have done and what occurred.