Rexulti Fails to Get Results

REXULTI (generic brexpiprazole) is a prescription psychiatric drug from Otsuka Pharmaceutical Company and Lundbeck pharmaceutical company. Although it failed Phase II clinical trials for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), it was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2015 as an atypical antipsychotic and prescribed for the fake “disease” schizophrenia.

Then in 2018 the FDA approved it to treat symptoms of depression when antidepressants alone do not relieve symptoms.

The cost for Rexulti oral tablet 0.25 mg is around $1,166 for a supply of 30 tablets. It has similarities to Abilify, and apparently it was developed to replace Abilify when that drug’s patent expired in 2014.

Brexpiprazole affects the levels of the neurotransmitters dopamine and serotonin in the brain. It is thought to reduce dopamine output when dopamine concentrations are high and increase dopamine output when dopamine concentrations are low. It also activates serotonin receptors to increase serotonin levels in a manner thought to reduce hallucinogenic effects, which is a problem with all drugs that mess with serotonin in the brain.

The metabolism of the drug — that is, the mechanism which eventually eliminates it from the body — is mediated by Cytochrome P450 enzymes; people who are known poor metabolizers, i.e. those with a genetic lack of these enzymes, should be instructed to take half the usual dose, although this is rarely done, since the patient must first be tested for this genetic condition. It is estimated that 10% of Caucasians and 7% of African Americans are Cytochrome P450 deficient. The consequences for someone with this deficiency who takes this drug are an increased risk for the accumulation of the non-metabolized drug in the body and the resultant increase in adverse side effects such as depression, violence and suicide.

Drugs like Rexulti can raise the risk of death in the elderly, and it is not approved for the treatment of patients with dementia-related psychosis. This drug may also increase suicidal thoughts or actions in some children, teenagers, or young adults within the first few months of treatment. It is not approved for the treatment of people younger than 18 years of age.

Rexulti may cause other serious side effects, including: compulsive, uncontrollable behaviors such as gambling, shopping, binge eating and sex (the same as with Abilify); stroke in elderly people; Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome; high fever; stiff muscles; confusion; sweating; changes in pulse, heart rate, or blood pressure; high blood sugar (hyperglycemia); weight gain; seizures; difficulty swallowing; uncontrolled body movements known as tardive dyskinesia. Tardive dyskinesia may not go away, even after one stops taking the drug, and tardive dyskinesia may also start some time after one stops taking the drug.

The real problem is that psychiatrists fraudulently diagnose life’s problems as an “illness”, and stigmatize unwanted behavior 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. Find Out! Fight Back!

More About Dopamine

Since we discussed Serotonin in a previous newsletter, we should also discuss Dopamine.

Dopamine is a neurotransmitter that plays several important roles in the brain and body. A neurotransmitter is a chemical released by neurons (nerve cells) to send signals to other nerve cells. Its chemical formula is C8H11NO2. It belongs to a family of chemicals with high psychoactive properties.

Dopamine was first synthesized in 1910, first identified in the human brain in 1957, and its function as a neurotransmitter was first recognized in 1958. The name comes from a contraction of chemicals in its synthesis.

The anticipation of rewards increases the level of dopamine in the brain, and many addictive drugs increase dopamine release or block its reuptake into neurons following release.

Dopamine has other effects around the body:

  • helps widen blood vessels
  • helps increase urine output
  • helps regulate insulin production
  • helps to protect the gastrointestinal tract
  • helps control motor function
  • helps regulate aggression

Because it seems to be involved in the anticipation of rewards, it is seen as a chemical of pleasure or happiness. Most antipsychotic drugs are dopamine antagonists which reduce dopamine activity. Decreased levels of dopamine have also been associated with painful symptoms. Like serotonin, dopamine levels must be strictly regulated since both an excess and a deficiency can be problematic.

Side effects of dopamine include lowered kidney function and irregular heartbeats, addiction, and an overdose can be fatal. Cocaine, methamphetamine, Adderall, Ritalin, Concerta, MDMA (ecstasy) and other psychostimulants generally increase dopamine levels in the brain by a variety of mechanisms.

Dopamine and serotonin are both neurotransmitters; an imbalance of either one can have disastrous effects on health, mental health, digestion, sleep cycle, and so on. The serotonergic system has strong anatomical and functional interactions with the dopaminergic system. While they both affect a lot of the same parts of the body, they do so in distinct ways which are still not fully understood. In the brain in general, dopamine is an excitatory neurotransmitter and serotonin is an inhibitory neurotransmitter. The imbalance of these two chemicals can cause a number of disorders; thus, drugs which mess with either of these play Russian roulette with your brain.

Because both serotonin and dopamine are involved in regulating aggression in different ways, one can see that imbalances can lead to suicidal thoughts and behaviors, which is a common side effect of drugs which mess with these neurotransmitters.

Researchers still only conjecture about any relationship between mental symptoms and dopamine, and they are coming to understand that the results do not support the hype.

Psychiatrists have known since the beginning of psychopharmacology that their drugs do not cure any disease. Further, there is no credible evidence that mental health is genetic or linked to dopamine transport; these are just public relations theories to support the marketing and sale of drugs. The manufacturers of every such drug state in the fine print that they don’t really understand how it works. Psychiatric drugs are fraudulently marketed as safe and effective for the sole purpose of earning billions for the psycho-pharmaceutical industry.

These drugs mask the real cause of problems in life and debilitate the individual, so denying him or her the opportunity for real recovery and hope for the future. This is the real reason why psychiatry is a violation of human rights. Psychiatric treatment is not just a failure — it is routinely destructive to the individual and one’s mental health.

You May Be Seeing Things That Aren’t Really There

But You Can See The Wool Being Pulled Over Your Eyes

Hallucinations and delusions are possible complications of Parkinson’s disease (PD). They are often referred to as PD psychosis. It’s estimated to occur in up to 50 percent of people with PD.

Hallucinations during PD can be frightening and debilitating. There are many factors that can contribute to hallucinations in people with PD, but the majority of cases occur as side effects of PD drugs.

Psychotic symptoms are related to high levels of a neurotransmitter known as dopamine, which is often one of the adverse reactions of psychiatric drugs.

There are many drugs that may contribute to hallucinations or delusions in people with PD, including sedatives and anti-seizure drugs.

Another danger is that a person experiencing PD psychosis may be misdiagnosed with schizophrenia and prescribed antipsychotics which may cause serious side effects and can even make hallucinations and delusions worse.

In 2016 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the antipsychotic drug pimavanserin (Nuplazid) specifically for use in PD psychosis because it does not alter levels of dopamine in the brain as much as other antipsychotics.

However, Acadia Pharmaceutical’s antipsychotic drug pimavanserin is now facing public scrutiny and fiscal uncertainty after a report from CNN in April 2018 detailed the deaths of more than 700 patients prescribed this drug since June 2016. You may be seeing advertisements for pimavanserin (Nuplazid) now in an attempt to reverse its negative publicity.

The exact mechanism of action of pimavanserin is unknown; however, it messes with the level of serotonin in the brain like other antipsychotics do. Special dosing requirements are necessary when other drugs being given along with pimavanserin have strong CYP450 interactions.

Nuplazid carries the black box warning “Elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis treated with antipsychotic drugs are at an increased risk of death.” It also has a known adverse reaction of hallucinations with 5% of those taking it, which is exactly what it is supposed to prevent. Since no one knows how it is really supposed to work, it is just a guess based on what is observed during clinical trials, with the hope that its side effects won’t be too drastic, and that enough of it can be sold before the outcry against its adverse side effects becomes loud enough to ban it.

It’s just another harmful psychiatric drug whose purpose is to make money at the expense of vulnerable people, and make more patients for life due to its damaging side effects. Click here for more information about these harmful psychiatric drugs.

Autism

We wish we could give you all the true data about autism, but we don’t know it all. Instead, we can give you many related facts and a few opinions; perhaps these can help you evaluate the subject. The reason we discuss it at all is because the psychiatric industry has claimed this disorder for its own purposes, and continues to wrestle with the line between unusual and abnormal behavior. For obvious reasons, we mis-trust anything that psychiatry has to say about the condition, especially about treating it with psychotropic drugs.

The word “autism” was coined in 1912 by Swiss psychiatrist Paul Bleuler (1857-1939) from the Greek autos- “self” + –ismos a suffix of action or of state. The notion was originally of “morbid self-absorption.”

The number of people diagnosed with autism has increased dramatically since the 1980s, partly due to changes in diagnostic criteria and practice; the question of whether actual prevalence has increased is unresolved, since diagnosis is based on behavior, not cause or mechanism.

Autism, sometimes called “autism spectrum disorder,” “pervasive developmental disorder,” or “Asperger syndrome,” apparently does not have a single definitive definition that can be used across the board to provide a basis for correcting the condition; it generally refers to a range of symptoms characterized by impairment of the ability to form normal social relationships, by impairment of the ability to communicate with others, and by stereotyped behavior patterns.

A study was once done to figure out how common Asperger’s was, and the results were clear — it was vanishingly rare. Then Allen Frances put it in the DSM, and the number of kids diagnosed with the disorder exploded.

Of course, while Dr. Hans Asperger is credited with shaping our ideas of autism and Asperger syndrome, one may not want to give him that much credit, since he is now linked with the Nazi’s child euthanasia program, recommending dozens of children to be sent for euthanasia.

There are many competing theories about autism’s etiology [its causes or origins]. We have seen articles relating autism to toxins (mercury, pesticides, etc.), nutrition, incomplete breakdown of casein or gluten, vaccination, genetic predisposition, neurological brain disorders, an alteration in how nerve cells and their synapses connect and organize, birth defects, the stress of circumcision, antidepressants, ad nauseum.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), psychiatry’s billing bible, may perpetuate the perception, whether true or false, that autism is related to mental retardation where it discusses atypical autism arising most often in profoundly retarded individuals.

Where to go from here?

Well, we’re not going to spend any more time discussing etiology and treatment, since you can Google those thousands of articles as well as we can. The real point we want to make is that psychiatry currently owns autism, listing “Autism spectrum disorder” in the DSM-5.

In future revisions of the DSM psychiatrists may make it easier to diagnose, increasing the number of children into the mental health system; or they may make it harder to diagnose, excluding children whose families are currently receiving, or hope to receive, some kind of monetary disability support. In any case, the hue and cry is already demanding more psychiatric funding for whatever they are currently calling autism.

At least a million children and adults have an autism diagnosis or a related disorder, such as “Unspecified neurodevelopmental disorder” (and there are ten categories of “developmental disorder” in the DSM-5.)

There are as many recommended therapies for autism as there are theories about the condition; these therapies may include diet, nutrition, behavioral modification, and many other non-invasive alternative health treatments. Of course, the treatment of choice for psychiatrists is the usual list of harmful and addictive antidepressants, antipsychotics, and anti-anxiety drugs, whose devastating side effects are well-documented.

Autism is big business — meaning big profits. One check on the Missouri government web site (www.mo.gov) revealed the word “autism” appearing 1,880 times, and “autistic” appearing 607 times.

The Missouri Department of Mental Health budget in 2012 included over $10 million for various autism services. In 2018 the autism budget is still roughly $10 million, but the budget for the Division of Developmental Disabilities is going to be over one billion dollars.

Granted, there is social justification for providing help to children and families coping with traumatic health situations. Given, however, psychiatry’s history of fraud, abuse, and use of damaging drugs, due diligence suggests examining this field very closely for exaggeration and mis-use.

The Drug Controversy

It is estimated that more than half of autistic school age children are on one or more psychotropic drugs. In at least one study, it was shown that prenatal use of antidepressants increase the risk of autism spectrum disorder in newborn children.

Children with autism are more likely to be prescribed addictive and harmful antipsychotic drugs than their typical peers, according to a large study. They are also prescribed antipsychotics such as risperidone at younger ages, and for longer periods of time. Doctors often prescribe antipsychotics to manage behavioral problems in children with autism rather than as any kind of actual treatment for the condition, since the drugs act to suppress the central nervous system. Other studies also indicate that many children with autism who take antipsychotic medications are not first offered safer and more effective options. A 2017 study suggested that about 20 percent of children with autism in the U.S. are prescribed antipsychotics.

An article in the Los Angeles Times on April 23, 2012 headlined, “Report says studies overstate drugs’ ability to treat autism symptoms.” It went on to say that “Antidepressants are not specifically approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating autism, but they have become the go-to drugs for trying to control some of its key symptoms. By some estimates, the drugs have been prescribed for as many as one-third of children with the diagnosis. … A series of standard statistical tests designed to check the consistency and reliability of the published data [about the effectiveness of psychiatric drugs prescribed for autism] strongly suggested publication bias. The effect appeared to be so great that the researchers could no longer deem the anti-depressants effective.” [Publication bias occurs when studies that show a drug or treatment is effective are more likely to be published than studies with negative findings.]

Find out more about what you can do to expose psychiatric fraud and abuse, and support CCHR St. Louis so that it can continue to expose psychiatric fraud and abuse. Go to http://www.cchrstl.org/takeaction.shtml.

Patients For Life

A leading cause of death in patients diagnosed with a serious mental condition (such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and depression) has been preventable medical conditions such as cardiovascular disease (CVD) and diabetes, metabolic disorders which are typical side effects of being treated with second generation (atypical) antipsychotics.

The majority of those who screen positive for these types of metabolic disorders do not receive treatment for these medical conditions. Even worse, the majority of patients being treated with these antipsychotics are not even screened, with simple blood tests, for these side effects.

A tremendous amount of effort, lasting over at least the last 15 years, has been expended in trying to change the U.S. medical system to implement simple blood test screening protocols for patients being prescribed antipsychotics. Many reasons have been given for this reluctance to change, but the most obvious reasons were not among them — the fact that no one knows how these drugs work, that they are addictive, harmful, and are causing side effects that produce continuing income from these patients for life, a life albeit shortened by the metabolic disorders caused by the drugs.

The general attitude of the mental health care industry is that mental disorders are comorbid with metabolic disorders. This means that there is a simultaneous presence of these two chronic conditions in a patient, with little thought given to the fact that metabolic disorders can be the side effect of the drugs being given for the mental disorder. Since the drugs are addictive, harmful, and have nasty side effects, the obvious solution is to stop prescribing the drugs and use one or more of the many non-drug alternatives. This, however, would deprive the industry of one of its top money-makers.

Patients already presenting with CVD or diabetes, or who have known risk factors for these, should not even be considered as candidates for antipsychotics, and should also be screened for any other undiagnosed and untreated medical conditions which may be causing mental symptoms.

A case could be made for malpractice if blood test screening for metabolic disorders is not being performed for patients vulnerable to these diseases, especially since the medications that psychiatrists prescribe increase vulnerability to metabolic syndrome. [Metabolic syndrome is a cluster of metabolic disorders, usually including increased blood pressure, high blood sugar, excess body fat around the waist, and abnormal cholesterol or triglyceride levels — that occur together, increasing the risk of heart disease, stroke and diabetes.]

Psychiatrists should be responsible for monitoring any potential side effects associated with the drugs that they prescribe; therefore, it is negligent if monitoring is not being done.

We are seeing a huge increase in the rate of antipsychotic prescriptions among younger pediatric patients, yet the younger one is, the lower one’s chances of being monitored.

Based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), statistics are touted about near “epidemic” rates of mental illness in order to demand more government funds and sell more harmful drugs, making people “patients for life” as the drug adverse events then require more drugs to handle these harmful side effects.

Contact your local, state and federal authorities and legislators and demand that funding for psychiatric promises be revoked until the mental health industry can prove its effectiveness with actual cures.

Mental Health “Care” Coming to Your Community

News articles extolling “Community Mental Health” continue to be published across the United States and abroad. We thought you should know more about this.

These articles generally discuss funding, either the lack or availability of public funding, for various mental health care programs — such as Community Mental Health Centers (CMHC), police Crisis Intervention Teams, Suicide Programs, Veterans Programs, Mental Health Courts, Emergency Management or Crisis Counseling, Violence Prevention, School Safety, or other public/private ventures in the mental health care industry. They also generally complain about the lack of a sufficient number of psychiatrists or psychologists in relation to the target population. Let us help put the record straight about this.

History of CMHC

In 1955, a five-year inquiry by the U.S. Joint Commission on Mental Illness and Health recommended replacing psychiatric institutions with Community Mental Health Centers (CMHCs). According to Henry A. Foley, Ph.D., and Steven S. Sharfstein, M.D., authors of Madness in Government, “Psychiatrists gave the impression to elected officials that cures were the rule, not the exception,” a claim that the psychiatric industry could not and still cannot substantiate.

The advent of Community Mental Health psychiatric programs in the 1960s would not have been possible without the development and use of neuroleptic drugs, also known as antipsychotics, for mentally disturbed individuals. Neuroleptic is from Greek, meaning “nerve seizing”, reflective of how the drugs act like a chemical lobotomy.

These community facilities and programs were promoted as the solution to all institutional problems. The premise, based almost entirely on the development and use of neuroleptic drugs, was that patients could now be successfully released back into society as long as they were taking these drugs. Ongoing service would be provided through government-funded units called Community Mental Health Centers (CMHC). These centers would tend to the patients from within the community, dispensing the neuroleptics that would keep them under control. Governments would save money and individuals would improve faster. The plan was called “deinstitutionalization.”

The first generation of neuroleptics, now commonly referred to as “typical antipsychotics” or “typicals,” appeared during the 1960s. They were heavily promoted as “miracle” drugs that made it “possible for most of the mentally ill to be successfully and quickly treated in their own communities and returned to a useful place in society.”

These claims were false, as neuroleptics are now known to have devastating side effects. In an article in the American Journal of Bioethics in 2003, Vera Sharav stated, “The reality was that the therapies damaged the brain’s frontal lobes, which is the distinguishing feature of the human brain. The neuroleptic drugs used since the 1950s ‘worked’ by hindering normal brain function: they dimmed psychosis, but produced pathology often worse than the condition for which they have been prescribed — much like physical lobotomy which psychotropic drugs replaced.”

Author Peter Schrag wrote in Mind Control, by the mid-seventies enough neuroleptic drugs and antidepressants “were being prescribed outside hospitals to keep some three to four million people medicated fulltime – roughly ten times the number who, according to the [psychiatrists’] own arguments, are so crazy that they would have to be locked up in hospitals if there were no drugs.”

After a decade of the Community Mental Health program, consumer advocate Ralph Nader called it a “highly touted but failing social innovation.” It “already bears the familiar pattern of past mental health promises that were initiated amid great moral fervor, raised false hopes of imminent solutions and wound up only recapitulating the problems they were to solve.”

As for the funding of CMHCs and psychiatric outpatient clinics, the fact is that psychiatry’s budget in the United States soared from $143 million in 1969 to over $9 billion in 1997 – a more than 6,000% increase in funding, while increasing by only 10 times the number of people receiving services. The estimated costs today are over $11 billion.

If collecting these billions in inflated fees for non-workable treatments wasn’t bad enough, in 1990 a congressional committee issued a report estimating that Community Mental Health Centers (CMHCs) had diverted between $40 million and $100 million to improper uses, and that a quarter of all CMHCs had so thoroughly failed to meet their obligations as to be legally subject to immediate recovery of federal funds.

Psychiatrists have consistently blamed the failure of deinstitutionalization on a lack of community mental health funding. In reality, they create the drug-induced crisis themselves and then, shamelessly, demand yet more money.

The CMHCs became legalized drug dealerships that not only supplied drugs to former mental hospital patients, but also supplied psychiatric prescriptions to individuals not suffering from “serious mental problems.” Deinstitutionalization failed and society has been struggling with the resultant homelessness and other disastrous results ever since.

Accompanying the psychiatric push for expanded community mental health programs is their demand for greater powers to involuntarily commit individuals. Psychiatrists disingenuously argue that involuntary commitment is an act of kindness, that it is cruel to leave the disturbed in a tormented state. However, such claims are based on the dual premises that 1) psychiatrists have helpful and workable treatments to begin with, and 2) psychiatrists have some expertise in diagnosing and predicting dangerousness. Both suppositions are patently false.

In spite of receiving huge increases in funding in the United States, psychiatry and psychology not only failed but managed to make things drastically worse; rates of drug abuse, suicide, illiteracy and crime continue to rise.

The real message is this: in spite of an investment of billions of dollars for psychiatric promises, the world has received nothing but presumptuous demands from psychiatric vested interests for more money.

Contact your local, state and federal authorities and legislators and demand that funding for psychiatric promises be revoked until the mental health industry can prove its effectiveness with actual cures.

Vraylar to the Vrescue

We are now seeing TV ads for Vraylar (generic cariprazine) for “manic or mixed episodes of bipolar I disorder.” An atypical antipsychotic, it alters levels of dopamine and serotonin in the brain. Vraylar was first approved by the FDA to treat schizophrenia in 2015. It can be compared to the antipsychotic risperidone, which is now available as a generic and thus not as expensive as the newer drug Vraylar. They say cariprazine is “less risky” than risperidone, but we think it was approved because it is more expensive.

Hungarian drugmaker Gedeon Richter, the developer of the drug, licensed it to the Dublin pharmaceutical company Allergan and receives royalties on its sales. It cost about $400 million to develop, and its projected income at the time was $300 million per year. Allergan’s Vraylar revenue for 2017 was $287.8 million. A month’s supply for one person costs approximately $1,050 (depending on dosage.)

The exact way Vraylar is supposed to work is totally unknown. It is another example of the debunked medical model of psychiatry which fraudulently supposes that messing with the levels of neurotransmitters in the brain can help. The prevailing psychiatric theory is that mental disorders result from a chemical imbalance in the brain; however, there is no biological or other evidence to prove this.

Basically, psychiatrists gave it in clinical trials to a bunch of people with mental disturbances and performed extensive statistical analyses to “prove” that symptoms of mental distress were less severe while taking the drug than while taking a placebo; while at the same time recording, but discounting, all the adverse reactions.

The most common side effects during clinical tests were uncontrolled movements of the face and body (tardive dyskinesia), muscle stiffness, indigestion, vomiting, sleepiness, and restlessness (akathisia). Other possible side effects are stroke, neuroleptic malignant syndrome, falls, seizures, agitation, anxiety — basically most of the adverse reactions we’ve come to associate with similar psychotropic drugs. This particular formulation stays in the body for weeks even after you stop taking it, so that side effects may occur long after you start or stop taking it.

During clinical trials, 12% of the patients who received Vraylar for a diagnosis of bipolar I discontinued treatment due to an adverse reaction. They say that the drug is not habit-forming, but it has withdrawal symptoms. The trials did not run long enough to actually test for physical addiction, although withdrawal symptoms were reported in newborns whose mothers were exposed to it during the third trimester of pregnancy. Also, the drug carries a black box warning that elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis are at an increased risk of death, just like any other atypical antipsychotic.

“Bipolar I disorder” used to be called “manic-depressive”. All it means is that a person roller-coasters — sometimes being up and other times being down. Bipolar disorder is characterized by unusual shifts in a person’s mood, energy and ability to function. Its symptoms are severe mood swings from one extreme of overly high or irritable (mania) to sad and hopeless (depression), then back again. In the 1800s, bipolar was known as manic depression, a term invented by German psychiatrist Emil Kraepelin. In 1953, another German psychiatrist, Karl Kleist coined the term “bipolar.” There is no objective clinical medical test for the condition.

Psychiatric treatment for schizophrenia and bipolar is complicated by high rates of relapse, indicating that the treatments do not really work. The failures to adequately treat bipolar apparently caused the psychiatric industry to split up the diagnosis into bipolar I and bipolar II, where bipolar II means that the individual has not experienced a full manic episode, just an elevated state of irritable mood that is less severe than a full manic episode. It’s splitting a hair that is completely irrelevant to anything except which drug to prescribe.

An estrogen imbalance, hypoglycemia (abnormal decrease in blood sugar), allergies, caffeine sensitivity, thyroid problems, vitamin B deficiencies, stress, and excessive copper in the body can all cause the symptoms fraudulently labeled as  “bipolar disorder.”

“Schizophrenia,” “bipolar,” and all other psychiatric labels have only one purpose: to make psychiatry millions in insurance reimbursement, government funds and profits from drug sales. If you are told that a psychiatric condition is due to a brain-biochemical imbalance, ask to see the test results.

The global bipolar drug market is growing, possibly due to increasing stress in life. For information about how stress can cause someone to roller-coaster, see our blog here. Click here for more information about bipolar, and here for more information about schizophrenia.

Bronx Cop Killer Alexander Bonds Was Taking Psych Drugs

According to the New York Daily News, Alexander Bonds who killed Officer Miosotis Familia as she sat inside a parked police vehicle on July 5, was likely taking psychiatric drugs known to cause violence and suicide. Bonds was shot to death by police after the killing of NYPD veteran Familia as she worked a midnight tour in the Bronx.

Here are the quotes:

“…Alexander Bonds spent eight hours at a Bronx hospital after appearing for a impromptu psychiatric exam just four days before he executed an NYPD officer.”
“…an NYPD search of the ex-con’s squalid South Bronx apartment turned up prescription anti-psychotic and anti-depressant drugs…”
“The anti-psychotic was Risperidone, typically used to treat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, while the anti-depressants were identified as Bupropion and Escitalopram…”
“In an interview after the execution, the girlfriend told police that Bonds visited a psychiatrist last month…”
“Police investigators also found Benadryl and a muscle relaxant in Bonds’ second floor apartment…”

All of the listed psychiatric drugs have the potential adverse side effects of violent and suicidal behavior.
Risperidone is an antipsychotic, also called a neuroleptic (“nerve seizing”).
Bupropion is an antidepressant (norepinephrine-dopamine reuptake inhibitor.)
Escitalopram is an antidepressant (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor.)
Benadryl is an antihistamine that interacts moderately with risperidone and buproprion and excitalopram, meaning that there is an increased risk of adverse side effects when taken together.

The FDA has issued several warnings on these psychotropic drugs, cautioning that persons prescribed the drugs must be monitored for increased suicidal ideation and worsening depression.

The bottom line is — Check for psychiatric treatment and psychiatric drugs (prior or current use, or withdrawal from) in all cases of senseless violence.

Watch the CCHR video “Psychiatry’s Prescription for Violence” documenting the connection between violence, suicide and psychiatric drugs at http://www.cchr.org/videos/psychiatrys-prescription-for-violence.html.

Are You Schizophrenic?

The May, 2017 Scientific American magazine has a lengthy article on schizophrenia, bemoaning the lack of scientific progress trying to find out what it is and how to treat it. The article says, “Gene studies were supposed to reveal the disorder’s roots. That didn’t happen.”

Most people consider that psychiatry’s main function is to treat patients with severe, even life–threatening mental conditions. The most pronounced is that condition first called dementia praecox by German psychiatrist Emil Kraepelin in the late 1800’s, and labeled “schizophrenia” by Swiss psychiatrist Eugen Bleuler in 1908.

Robert Whitaker, author of Mad in America, says the patients that Kraepelin diagnosed with dementia praecox were actually suffering from a virus, encephalitis lethargica (brain inflammation causing lethargy) which was unknown to doctors at the time.

Psychiatry never revisited Kraepelin’s material to see that schizophrenia was simply an undiagnosed and untreated physical problem. “Schizophrenia was a concept too vital to the profession’s claim of medical legitimacy. The physical symptoms of the disease were quietly dropped. What remained, as the foremost distinguishing features, were the mental symptoms: hallucinations, delusions, and bizarre thoughts,” says Whitaker. 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.

Today, 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.

Professor Thomas Szasz stated that “schizophrenia is defined so vaguely that, in actuality, it is a term often applied to almost any kind of behavior of which the speaker disapproves.” Lily Tomlin once said, “Why is it that when we talk to God we’re said to be praying, but when God talks to us we’re schizophrenic?”

The DSM-5 lists nine entries for various forms of this so-called disorder:
— “Schizophrenia”
— “Schizophreniform disorder”
— “Other specified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder”
— “Unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder”
— “Schizoaffective disorder”
— “Schizoaffective disorder, Bipolar type”
— “Schizoaffective disorder, Depressive type”
— “Schizoid personality disorder”
— “Schizotypal personality disorder”

There is abundant evidence that real physical illness, with real pathology, can seriously affect an individual’s mental state and behavior. Psychiatry completely ignores this weight of scientific evidence, preferring to assign all blame to supposed “chemical imbalances in the brain” or genetic factors that have never been proven to exist, and limits all practice to brutal treatments that have done nothing but permanently damage the brain and the individual.

Since psychiatrists do not really know what schizophrenia is, and cannot predict nor cure the symptoms associated with these diagnoses, they instead have pushed to “pre-treat” people with antipsychotic drugs who might exhibit such symptoms sometime in the future; meanwhile spending untold millions of dollars and years of effort searching for genetic targets to create new drugs — instead of conducting valid clinical tests for known medical issues and treating those. If we include well-known medical issues, infections, hormonal issues, nutritional issues, fevers, environmental pains, and drug reactions, there must be over a hundred ways to go crazy and be diagnosed as schizophrenic — all of these treatable by standard medical protocols.

Click here for more information on schizophrenia and to download booklets on various medical causes for these symptoms.

Risky Business of Sleep Drugs

Risky Business of Sleep Drugs

After reading about the dangers of sleeping pills in the February 2016 edition of Consumer Reports magazine, we thought you might like to know something about that.

Some psychotropic drugs are prescribed as sleeping pills. Trazodone, an antidepressant, is often prescribed off label as a sleeping pill. Benzodiazepines such as Valium are also prescribed as sleeping pills. Other examples are Ambien (an anti-psychotic), Lunesta (an anti-anxiety drug), and Sonata (another anti-anxiety drug).

These have all the potential side effects we have come to associate with psychiatric drugs — including violence, suicide, addiction, and so on.

The latest sleeping pill fad, touted as “the new insomnia drug”, is Belsomra (generic “suvorexant”). It is classified as a “sedative-hypnotic” which means it is a central nervous system depressant; it alters brain chemistry by targeting a neurotransmitter called orexin.

Belsomra is manufactured by Merck, Sharpe & Dohme Corporation, and was approved by the FDA for insomnia in August of 2014.

Guess what? This drug carries the same warnings as other psychotropic drugs; it may cause memory loss, anxiety, confusion, agitation, hallucinations, depression, addiction, and thoughts of suicide — all this along with its own special side effects: inability to move or talk, sleep-walking, sleep-driving, and drowsiness lasting through the next day.

Here is what Consumer Reports has to say about Belsomra: “…people who took a 15- or 20-milligram dose of Belsomra every night for three months fell asleep just 6 minutes faster on average than those who took a placebo. And those on Belsomra slept on average only 16 minutes longer than people given a placebo. Such small improvements didn’t translate to people feeling more awake the next day, either. Instead, more people who took Belsomra reported that they felt drowsy the next day than those who took a placebo.”

“Because of the limited benefits and substantial risks of sleeping pills, Consumer Reports’ medical experts advise that sleep drugs should be used with great caution.”

“Merck spent $36 million on TV ads for its new drug Belsomra from Aug. 1 to Nov. 24, 2015, making it the second most advertised Rx drug in that time frame, according to iSpot.tv. The ads note that Belsomra is the first drug to target orexin, a chemical that plays a role in keeping people awake. But Belsomra doesn’t work much, or any, better than other sleep drugs. And because it’s new, little is known about its long-term safety.”

One take-away here is that even if a prescription drug is not advertised or prescribed for psychiatric reasons, if it messes with the brain’s neurotransmitters and has all the same side-effects as a psychiatric drug — well, you must get the picture by now.

The Consumer Reports article goes on to discuss non-drug sleep alternatives at some length; it is a good and helpful read.

When your doctor prescribes a drug, it is good practice to ask questions so you can give your full informed consent. These are some example questions you can ask:

1. What is the evidence for the diagnosis?
2. How does the treatment affect the body?
3. How does the treatment affect the mind?
4. What unwanted effects may occur?
5. Is it approved by the FDA for this condition?
6. What is known and not known about how safe it is and how well it works?
7. What are the alternatives, including the option of no treatment?
8. Does the doctor or the clinic have a financial interest in pushing the diagnosis or treatment?