Archive for the ‘Big Muddy River Newsletter’ Category

ISIS Fighters Widely Reported to be Fueled by ADHD Drug

Thursday, November 26th, 2015

ISIS Fighters Widely Reported to be Fueled by ADHD Drug

CCHR has been exposing the link between psychiatric drugs and violence for decades. Today, CCHR joined ranks with the likes of CNN, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, The Independent, and hundreds of news outlets in  reporting that “The War on Drugs” has taken on a literal twist, with ISIS fighters being fueled by a stimulant drug known as Captagon – a pharmaceutical cousin of the ADHD drug, Adderall.

As The Boston Globe reports, Captagon is a “toxic fuel” that creates “super-human” fighters. The drug “quickly produces a euphoric intensity in users, allowing fighters to stay up for days, killing with a numb, reckless abandon.”

And a November 21st article, “Breaking Bad: The Stimulant Drugs That Link ISIS and the Nazis,” posted in Haaretz, the world’s leading English-language website for news and analysis of the Middle East, points out, “ISIS is far from the first murderous group to drug its fighters before battle…. The Persian Hashashin did it way back in the 11th century, as did Japanese kamikaze pilots, African militias, Chechen fighters and Nazi soldiers.”

Click here to read the full article.

New Study Confirms Antidepressants Cause Violence

Tuesday, November 3rd, 2015

New Study Confirms Antidepressants Cause Violence

Mainstream press such as the LA Times and Reuters are now reporting that antidepressant drugs can cause violent behavior, based on a new study published in a respected medical journal, PLOS Medicine, which found that young adults between the ages of 15-24 were 43 percent more likely to be convicted of a homicide, assault, robbery, arson, kidnapping, sexual offense or other violent crime when taking an SSRI antidepressant than when they weren’t taking the psychiatric drug.

This latest study, linking violence and antidepressants, only serves to support decades of CCHR’s research and efforts to elicit action by those in a position to make a difference. To date, 35 school shootings and/or school-related acts of violence have been committed by those taking or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs and, between 2004 and 2012, there have been nearly 15,000 reports to the FDA’s MedWatch system on psychiatric drugs causing violent side effects.

Read the full article here.

Not An Antidepressant

Thursday, October 22nd, 2015

Not An Antidepressant

I’m reminded of a song by 10CC — “I’m not in love; So don’t forget it; It’s just a silly phase I’m going through…”

I saw an ad on TV recently for Lyrica (generic pregabalin), a drug commonly prescribed for seizures and nerve pain. What struck me as most interesting was the small print that said, “Lyrica is not an antidepressant.”

Why would they need to explicitly call out that Lyrica is not an antidepressant? Could it be because antidepressants and other psychotropic drugs are finally being widely recognized for their addictive nature and disastrous side effects? (For which CCHR has no small part in making public.)

They did not, however, go on to say that Lyrica is in fact a psychotropic drug, albeit not an antidepressant. It is also prescribed off label in the U.S. as an anti-anxiety drug; it was promoted for other uses which had not been approved by medical regulators up until 2009. For this practice, with three other drugs, Pfizer was fined a record amount of $2.3 billion by the Department of Justice.

It has many of the same adverse reactions as other psychotropic drugs, such as dizziness, drowsiness, weight gain, euphoria, confusion, irritability, depression, agitation, hallucinations, withdrawal symptoms, and (drum roll) suicidal thoughts or behavior.

It messes with the release of neurotransmitters in the brain. They don’t really know how it works; when pressed, they may say that, “the mechanism of action of pregabalin has not been fully elucidated.”

CCHR believes that everyone has the right to full informed consent. FIND OUT! FIGHT BACK!

Who is the Predator Here?

Friday, October 9th, 2015

Who is the Predator Here?

We approach this topic with some trepidation, as there can be considerable fixed opinions regarding the topic of sex.

We feel, however, that the news is relevant — and we’d like your permission to continue reading. We aren’t concerned so much with offending anyone; we’re sure we do that anyway by exposing the fraud and abuse inherent in the mental health care system. So if you have an emotional reaction to this information, we dare you to read on.

If you may be feeling upset, angry, or otherwise overwhelmed by any of the material we present in our newsletters, know this: The intention in presenting these materials is not at all to make anyone feel overwhelmed or upset. Our intention is to expose what has been hidden from the general public by various forces, to shine the light of truth on the psychiatric industry, and to restore human rights and dignity to the field of mental health.

Our intention is for you to be enraged by the pervasive abuse of human rights by the psychiatric mental health care industry and incite you to action. If you know of people who have been harmed by a psychiatrist or by a psychiatric facility, encourage them to file a complaint.

Sex offenders who have completed their prison sentences are often detained (usually for life) in prison-like psychiatric facilities based on the completely mistaken assumption that their having committed sexual crimes somehow means they are also mentally ill. These however, are criminal actions and are covered by criminal justice, not psychiatric diagnoses.

A recent article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch discusses this topic. [“Judge calls sex predator law misapplied“, 9/12/2015]

A U.S. District Judge ruled that Missouri’s sexually violent predator law, although constitutional, is seriously misapplied.

“The judge wrote that there is a ‘pervasive sense of hopelessness’ at the Department of Mental Health’s Sex Offender Rehabilitation and Treatment Services, or SORTS program, because patients aren’t being properly released.”

“SORTS is indefinitely committing about 200 people to treatment in the belief that they might re-offend.”

“The overwhelming evidence at trial — much of which came from Defendants’ own experts — did establish that the SORTS civil commitment program suffers from systemic failures regarding risk assessment and release that have resulted in the continued confinement of individuals who no longer meet the criteria for commitment, in violation of the Due Process Clause. … The Constitution does not allow (Missouri officials) to impose lifetime detention on individuals who have completed their prison sentences and who no longer pose a danger to the public, no matter how heinous their past conduct.”

They call this process “civil commitment” – an attempt to make it sound less harsh than “involuntary commitment.”

Displaying a surprising ignorance of (and careless indifference to) proper diagnostic practice, psychologists and psychiatrists routinely and rotely misdiagnose mental disorder in sexual offenders who are in fact clearly no more than simple criminals.

Statutory checks on the abuse of civil commitment laws are scarce, readily sidestepped and widely ignored. Yet the minds and memories of those subjected to this capriciousness have frequently been destroyed after involuntary imprisonment in psychiatric facilities across the nation.

When any psychiatrist has full legal power to cause your involuntary physical detention by force (kidnapping), subject you to physical pain and mental stress (torture), leave you permanently mentally damaged (cruel and unusual punishment), with or without proving to your peers that you are a danger to yourself or others, then, by definition, a totalitarian state exists.

Because of their ubiquity and far–reaching powers, involuntary commitment laws lay a truly concrete foundation for totalitarianism. And they are not, it must be stressed, a threat of what might be, but a present danger — representing America’s gaping breach in the otherwise admirable wall of individual Constitutional rights.

With health care eating up vast amounts of our national budget, the first spending cut to make is the cost of “treating” people who prefer not to be mentally treated. Involuntary commitment laws hike federal, state, county, city and private health care costs under the strange circumstance of a patient–recipient who cannot say no, and in this case of a person who has already paid their time in prison.

CCHR recommends that citizens execute a Living Will, or Letter of Protection from Psychiatric Incarceration and/or Treatment, which directs that psychiatric incarceration, hospitalization, treatment or procedures not be imposed on you.

Click here for more information about involuntary commitment.

Psychiatric Abuse of Veterans

Saturday, October 3rd, 2015

Psychiatric Abuse of Veterans

The Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) has for many years lobbied for veterans rights, informed consent, and treatment alternatives to psychiatric medication of America’s military personnel. In keeping with its mandate to restore human rights and dignity to the field of mental health, CCHR has advocated reforms in the military’s mental health practices so personnel and veterans are informed and protected from abuse.

“It’s quite easy to lie to the American public because they don’t do their homework,” former NATO Command Sgt. Major Robert Dean once said in a documentary about government secrecy. His pithy sentiment explains how the U.S. Government can continue to assert that the welfare of military personnel and veterans is a top priority, while statistics tell another story.

Military suicides may well be traced to the soaring rate of psychiatric drugs prescribed to servicemen and women since 2003.

One of the front lines in this battle is treatment for so-called Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Roughly 80 percent of vets labeled with PTSD, the reports show, are being given psychotropic drugs, despite numerous studies indicating they are ineffective and addictive.

“We have never drugged our troops to this extent, and the current increase in suicides is not a coincidence,” says Bart Billings, retired colonel and former military psychologist. The numbers indicate that top brass appear more concerned with getting soldiers back into service as quickly as possible through drugs that merely treat their symptoms temporarily, rather than addressing root causes of mental distress.

Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, CCHR has investigated how psychiatrists are using the so-called War on Terror to broaden their niche within the military to push mind-altering drugs on not only the fighting forces, but on veterans and the public at large. Within days of the attacks, psychiatrists were predicting that as many as 30 percent of people affected by the attacks would develop PTSD. In October 2001 alone, Pfizer pumped $5.6 million into advertising Zoloft as a treatment for PTSD.

“From our perspective, it was human rights abuse,” CCHR President Jan Eastgate said in a recent interview. “The last thing people need to be [in the wake of such tragedy] is numbed out with mind-altering psychiatric drugs.”

In an effort to raise awareness about these issues, CCHR’s 2013 documentary, The Hidden Enemy: Inside Psychiatry’s Covert Agenda, was shown to congressional staff in the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee room on Capitol Hill in May 2014. It has been shown to veteran groups in D.C. and to National Guardsmen in California, aired on six U.S. TV stations and mailed to thousands of military personnel.

CCHR submitted a white paper on military drugging to the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee. “A Review of How Prescribed Psychiatric Medications Could be Driving Members of the Armed Forces and Vets to Acts of Violence & Suicide” became part of the Congressional Record and was posted on the U.S. Veterans’ Affairs Committee website.

CCHR also collected 15,000 signatures encouraging Congress to investigate connections between psychotropic drugs, active-duty and veteran suicides, and violence. In May last year, hundreds protested in New York against the American Psychiatric Association for turning a blind eye to psychotropic drugs and hundreds of sudden deaths of soldiers and vets.

Click here for more information about this.

Psychiatry and the Creation of Senseless Violence

Saturday, September 26th, 2015
Ben Swann, a news anchor at WGCL-TV ( in Atlanta, broadcast this great piece on his Reality Check show August 27, 2015:
Is There A Link Between Mass Shootings and Anti-Depressants?
In light of the Virginia TV shootings, Ben Swann takes a look at the link between 26 mass shooters and anti-depressant/mood altering drugs.

It is not as if psychiatrists don’t know. The scientific research documenting the connection between violence, suicide and psychiatric drugs is overwhelming. Withdrawal effects from these drugs can also be severe, and it takes intense medical supervision to ensure the person safely detoxes.
The Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) has a data base of hundreds of cases of violence that span the last 15 years.
On the surface, the idea of tranquilizers or antidepressants creating hostility and violence may not make sense. After all, they are supposed to make people calm and quiet. But the reality is that they can and do create such adverse effects.
CCHR urges that government officials and law enforcement bodies, armed with this information:
1) Hold legislative hearings to fully investigate the correlation between psychiatric drugs, violence, and suicide;
2) Call for mandatory toxicology reports that specify a testing for psychiatric drugs in anyone who has committed a homicide or serious violent crime;
3) Ensure that where psychiatric mind-altering drugs are implicated in such a crime, the psychiatrist prescribing the drugs be held accountable.
CCHR International has taken its commitment to inform and protect the public on mental health issues to a new level with the launch of its psychiatric drug side effects database.

The Cure Conundrum

Saturday, September 19th, 2015

The Cure Conundrum

We often say that psychiatry produces no cures, and for good reason. There is a lot of history behind the concept of “cure;” we’d like to touch on a small piece of that.

The psychiatric industry itself admits it has no capacity to cure.

“We do not know the causes [of any mental illness]. We don’t have the methods of ‘curing’ these illnesses yet.” [Dr. Rex Cowdry, psychiatrist and director of National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), 1995]

“The time when psychiatrists considered that they could cure the mentally ill is gone. In the future the mentally ill have to learn to live with their illness.” [Norman Satorius, president of the World Psychiatric Association in 1994]

“What’s a cure?…it’s just that it’s a term that we don’t use in the medical [psychiatric] profession.” [Dr. Joseph Johnson, California psychiatrist during court deposition, 2003]

We generally take cure to mean the elimination of some unwanted condition with some effective treatment. The primary purpose of any mental health treatment must be the therapeutic care and treatment of individuals who are suffering emotional disturbance. The only effective measure of this treatment must be “patients recovering and being sent, sane, back into society as productive individuals.” This, we would call a cure.

Interestingly enough, elements in this society have systematically tried to downplay or eliminate the concept of cure, especially in the area of mental health. Consider the following quote:

“In the early 1900s, years of exaggerated claims finally caught up with the rest of the patent medicine industry. Inspired by muckrakers like Samuel Hopkins Adams, the official medical community embraced his expose called The Great American Fraud and began their battle against the nostrum-peddling industry. The public demanded appropriate labeling for patent medicines. But the newspaper lobby, supported by the advertising dollars from an $80 million patent medicine industry, kept national legislation tied up for months. Finally, the Pure Food and Drug Act was adopted in June of 1906 with regulations forcing the sellers who made patent medicine to disclose contents and give quantities of ingredients such as alcohol, morphine, opium, cocaine and heroin. Six years later, the government passed an amendment forbidding the use of the word ‘cure’ on a bottle.” [page 141, Pure Sea Glass, Richard H. LaMotte, Sea Glass Publishing, 2004]

[A nostrum is a medicine, especially one that is not considered effective, prepared by an unqualified person; from Latin meaning our, used in the sense ‘(something) of our own making’.]

While it is illegal for such FDA-regulated products to make cure claims, there are in fact many non-drug and non-psychiatric alternatives which may prove effective in handling traumatic conditions. The trick is in finding out what is really wrong and fixing that. Or at the very least, using a broad-spectrum, many-pronged approach aimed to handle a wide variety of possible conditions. In any case, the point is to use a treatment that does not itself cause further harm, such as is the case with psychiatric drugs and other “treatments” promoted by the psychiatric mental health industry.

Click here for more information about alternatives to fraudulent and abusive psychiatric treatments.

The Glue of Society

Saturday, September 12th, 2015

The Glue of Society

Religion is the glue that binds a culture together. Yet it has become customary to mock religion in America today.

We’re not talking here about devotion to a particular religious practice. We are talking about a decline in moral values that used to be shored up by our religious faith, religious leaders, and religious communities.

Diversity of belief is a sign of a healthy democracy. Yet we observe not just diversity, but hostility and antagonism.

A society that unjustly restricts the religious practices of one group will likely be found to undermine justice for all other groups.

There is a relationship between religion, religious freedom, and violence that needs further exploration. We find, yet again, that the junk sciences of psychiatry and psychology are involved in the decline of this culture.

A May 2014 study by researchers at Georgetown University and Brigham Young University found that, “Standards and practices of honesty and integrity rest, ultimately, on…ideas of right and wrong, which for most of us are grounded in principles of religion and the teachings of religious leaders.”

As a result of psychiatrists’ subversive plan for religion, the concepts of good and bad behavior, right and wrong conduct and personal responsibility have taken such a beating that people today have few or no guidelines for checking, judging or directing their behavior.

A co-founder of the World Federation for Mental Health, Canadian psychiatrist G. Brock Chisholm, reinforced this master plan in 1945 by targeting religious values and calling for psychiatrists to free “the race … from its crippling burden of good and evil.” Viciously usurping age-old religious principles, psychiatrists have sanitized criminal conduct and defined sin and evil as “mental disorders,” “treatable” with harmful and addictive psychotropic drugs.

Following are several Chisholm quotes:

“To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism and religious dogmas…”

“If the race is to be freed from its crippling burden of good and evil it must be psychiatrists who take the original responsibility.”

“The re-interpretation and eventually eradication of the concept of right and wrong which has been the basis of child training, the substitution of intelligent and rational thinking for faith…are the belated objectives of practically all effective psychotherapy. The fact is, that most psychiatrists and psychologists and other respectable people have escaped from these moral chains and are able to observe and think freely.”

Let’s face it, we’ve been fed a pack of lies and we are now seriously trying to eradicate, with terrorism on one side and the “war on terror” on the other side, each other.

Society is coming unglued.

Click here for more information about this.

MedWatch Consumer Protection

Tuesday, September 8th, 2015

MedWatch Consumer Protection

Landmark Legislation: Consumer Protection MedWatch Phone Number Placed on Generic Prescription Drug Containers in Connecticut

For immediate release:
Contact Sheila Matthews, Cofounder AbleChild (203) 253-0329
Westport, Connecticut

AbleChild is pleased to announce the passage of Connecticut SB 28, a bill that makes it mandatory for all generic prescription drug containers to carry the 1-800 MedWatch telephone number. This is a first-in-the-nation legislative action to provide this important consumer information and a landmark win for consumers in Connecticut. In February of 2015, AbleChild proposed an amendment to SB 28, taking the unique opportunity to propose this very specific protection on behalf of the consumers.

MedWatch is a drug safety reporting system made available to consumers to allow direct reporting of Adverse Drug Events to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Information provided to MedWatch, by consumers, provides a unique tool to the FDA by giving the federal agency the ability to identify adverse reactions and monitor prescription drugs. The information collected about adverse reactions is used to determine if FDA action is needed on a specific drug.

According to the FDA, it receives information on less than 1% of the actual adverse drug reactions (ADRs) from the consumers. Prescription drugs are currently responsible for killing more people annually than illegal drugs, and according to Tom Friden, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “It’s a big problem and getting worse.” Furthermore, according to the Medical Journal of Medicine, prescription drugs are responsible for 291 deaths every day.

Representative David Baram of Bloomfield, co-chairman of the General Law Committee, stated that, “The passage of legislation requiring the MedWatch information to be provided with prescription medications is a positive consumer bill. I applaud Sheila Matthews for bringing this to our attention and helping us to pass this great consumer protection legislation.  Now consumers will have information on how they can report adverse prescription reactions so the manufacturers can review medication issues, and the FDA can re-evaluation safety concerns. This is a major consumer protection that will help promote the safe use and manufacturing of medicines that many of us rely on to live productive lives.”

Senator Joe Markley, who also supported AbleChild’s efforts from the beginning said, “I’m delighted at the progress AbleChild has made in getting out the word on MedWatch, which will enhance the conversation on prescription drugs. Reactions to these drugs differ dramatically, and it’s important that people who have a bad experience have a place to report what happened. I hope we can do more to let people know about MedWatch, and to make them aware of the problems sometimes associated with certain prescription drugs.”

AbleChild’s amendment received bipartisan support and was unanimously passed on June 1, 2015. AbleChild would like to acknowledge and thank the cosponsors of this important consumer protection legislation, including Senator Joseph J. Crisco, 17th District, Representative Jonathan Steinberg, 136th District, Senator Joe Markley, 16th District, and the General Law Committee Chairman, Representative David A. Baram of the 15th District.

AbleChild also would like to extend our sincere gratitude to the entire General Law Committee staff for their assistance in navigating the often, complicated legislative process.

FDA MedWatch Adverse Event Reports:

Many Psychology Findings Not as Strong as Claimed

Friday, September 4th, 2015

Many Psychology Findings Not as Strong as Claimed

An article in the New York Times (27 August 2015) shocks us to the core!

“…a painstaking yearslong effort to reproduce 100 studies published in three leading psychology journals has found that more than half of the findings did not hold up when retested.”

We are simply shocked! Not!

We’ve said all along that psychology, along with psychiatry, is a pseudo-science; junk science, if you will.

This finding invalidates much of the core knowledge by which psychologists think they understand the dynamics of personality, relationships, learning and memory.

One of the essential problems with psychology is its reliance upon psychiatric or biological behavioral models—a far cry from its foundations. Psychology once followed early philosophy and initially meant the study of the soul—psyche (soul) and ology (study of). The general thought was that the mind and body were separate entities. Thus, each man and woman was regarded as a composite of soul, mind and matter.

In 1829, Webster’s International Dictionary of the English Language defined “psychology” as “a discourse or treatise on the human soul; the doctrine of the nature and properties of the soul.”

However, all this changed in the late 1800’s when German psychologist Wilhelm Wundt established the first “experimental psychology” laboratory in Leipzig University, officially rejecting the existence of the soul and declaring – without a shred of evidence – that man was merely a product of his genes.

By 1961, Merriam Webster’s 3rd International Dictionary defined “psychology” as “the science of mind or mental phenomena or activities; the study of biological organism (as man) and the physical and social environment.”

In placing man as the direct and unknowing effect of an authoritarian and soulless philosophy, those psychologists supporting this view are promoting the idea that one’s mental health depends upon an adjustment to the world rather than its conquest.

This presumes that man cannot, therefore, effect positive change on the world around him but must submit to its random will. Implicit also is the belief that he cannot even be responsible for his own mental healing, as his behaviors are entirely the product of the functions or malfunctions of the brain. In other words, that like dogs, men are basically stimulus response mechanisms.

Where psychiatric and psychological doctrine and thought influence and permeate our culture, those who succumb to this fraudulent philosophy have no hope of finding happiness outside of a medicine cabinet.

Click here for more information about this real crisis in mental health care.