A Major News Network has Finally Explored the Link Between Mass Shootings and SSRIs
Five weeks ago, shortly after the last mass shooting occurred, I published a two-part series demonstrating the link between taking certain psychiatric medicines and developing violent psychotic behavior, which includes committing mass shootings. Although this idea is commonly viewed as a “conspiracy theory” this label is inappropriate because there is a large amount of evidence showing this does happen, and both the pharmaceutical companies and the FDA know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the link exists.
Because many people I know have been severely harmed by these medications and what happens to them is often very cruel, this is somewhat of a personal issue for me. I was thus overjoyed to discover that the article series went viral (it had approximately 50,000 views). However, even with that receptivity to this concept, I never imagined the topic would be discussed on mainstream television.
As far as I know, Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham are the only news hosts on any network who have ever been willing to air content that is critical of the pharmaceutical industry, and thus content critical of the Covid vaccinations. This systematic censorship exists because, during non-election years, the pharmaceutical industry (according to Robert F Kennedy) is the largest funder of the mainstream media. Because of this, news networks can never air content that upsets their primary sponsors, and as a result, virtually all pharmaceuticals scandals, each of which could easily become a national news story (due to how many individuals are affected by them) instead never television receive coverage.
Tucker Carlson's presentation on this topic is shown below:
Each statement Tucker made on this subject is factually correct and has evidence supporting it. There are a few key reasons why I believe the story is so important to be known:
•First, a large portion of our population is on these medications, and in most cases, these drugs do more harm than good. Prior to the Covid vaccines, I believed that SSRIs (the most common type of anti-depressant) and antipsychotics did more damage than any other class of medications on the market. Some of the side effects are obvious, but many are very subtle and have significantly changed the personality of our country.
•Secondly, school shootings have been transformed into a political wedge issue. Because of this, there is no real interest in stopping these mass shootings from occurring (best made clear by the fact that at the recent Uvalde shooting the police prevented anyone from stopping the massacre and allowed the shooter to continue unobstructed for over an hour). Instead, each time a big drama is created in the media with political leaders becoming as emotional as possible, and then subsequently laws are passed which do nothing besides enabling profiteering (for example, the FBI, which failed to act on tips they received about the shooter were rewarded for this failure and received a lot of money from the bill). I have lived through 23 years of these ritualistic sacrifices, and it is high time for things to change.
•Third, when individuals have severe injuries from pharmaceutical medications, the most common response they received from the medical field is that the symptoms they are experiencing are psychosomatic and the correct way to address the problem is to see a psychiatrist and be prescribed psychiatric medications. This is incredibly common, it has happened to many people I know, and it has happened to many of my readers after receiving the Covid vaccinations. For this reason, one of the first things I wrote here was a five-part series explaining why medical gaslighting occurs and why doctors cannot see obvious pharmaceutical injuries. Unless the truth about SSRIs is understood, many more people with vaccine injuries will also be subject to this cruel fate and the large number of side effects that result from unnecessary SSRI prescriptions.
•Finally, the systematic corruption within the FDA that kept the SSRIs on the market and suppressed all evidence of harm from them for decades is the best example I know of to describe and model the FDA's egregious conduct with the Covid vaccines. For this reason, the exact history of what happened was critical for understanding how to address the present malfeasance within the agency.
I will now briefly summarize each article for those of you who do not have time to read them (although I strongly encourage you to do so). In reading the summaries, you will likely notice many parallels to what has happened with the Covid vaccine roll out.
•In every case where it has been possible to determine if a mass shooter was or was not on one of these dangerous psychiatric medications, the shooter was. In many cases, SSRI-induced psychosis preceded the violent shooting and was completely ignored by all of the medical professionals overseeing the case because they share a delusional belief that SSRIs cannot cause harm.
•These violent and psychotic episodes often occur when the dose of an SSRI is changed (either increased, decreased, or discontinued). This dose-response relationship provides further proof that SSRIs are causing violence and illustrates why it is critical to not suddenly discontinue the drugs on your own.
•One of the most common side effects of SSRIs (and other psychiatric medications) is a condition known as akathisia, where your body begins to writhe around uncontrollably and you feel as though bugs are crawling underneath your skin. This condition often triggers suicidal or homicidal behavior in previously peaceful adults who had never shown signs of psychosis or violent tendencies.
•There are a lot of very sad cases of SSRI homicides where someone who was kind and peaceful suddenly murdered a loved one in a brutal and horrific manner that shocked their community. This occurrence is common enough that a reader shared they knew both a culprit and their victim.
•Most of the clinical trials for the SSRIs showed these antidepressants caused akathisia suicides. The drug manufacturers did everything they could to conceal this link and were permitted by the drug regulators to construct a variety of absurd clinical trial protocols to conceal these events.
•Population level studies also show that SSRI usage correlates with increases in homicide and suicide rates.
•These drugs harm individuals of all ages and are relatively unique in their ability to harm individuals besides those actually taking the drug.
•There are a variety of evidence-based public policies that could be followed to address many of the major societal problems we have. The alternative to evidence-based policy, partisan political discourse has largely failed to come up with a solution for most of the major societal problems we face as each side just wants to promote inflammatory rhetoric that allows each side to evade responsibility for their shortcomings on a variety of important social issues. Unlike the failed (primarily political) policies we have heard trumpeted over the decades, there are very simple evidence-based policies that can be used to prevent mass shootings.
•While many people react badly to SSRIs, some people have positive responses to them. This is very easy to screen for and to identify the most appropriate candidates for SSRI therapy, but this is never done, which to some extent surprises me since depression is one of the primary things psychiatrists see patients for so one would expect they had developed a slightly more comprehensive approach to assessing and treating the condition.
•The pharmaceutical executive who is largely responsible for getting Prozac onto the market, John Virapen, later decided to become a whistleblower of the industry. In his memoir, he shared that Prozac was such a bad drug every single psychiatrist and drug regulator it was brought before refused to even consider approving the drug, and Virapen was only able to solve this problem through bribing key figures within the regulatory process.
•Systematic fraud occurred throughout the clinical trials for the SSRIs. The fraud was blatant and easy to detect. For example, they used an old industry trick to re-classify a severe event as something benign, such as suicide attempts being documented as "depression," and choose not to perform the required reporting of significant side effects that occurred to members of the public after the drug had been approved. Despite this clear fraud, all of it was ignored by the drug regulators.
•In many cases, the systematic research fraud that occurred only became known through court cases that forced the pharmaceutical companies to disclose private internal research documents the manufacturers and the FDA refused to make available to the public.
• George HW Bush and George W Bush were both in bed with Prozac's manufacturer, Eli Lilly. They both staffed their administration with executives from Lilly and pushed Prozac through the approval process despite the fact the existing evidence could not justify approving it.
•The FDA spent decades trying to cover up the adverse events and harms from the drugs despite a deluge of severe adverse events being reported and widespread demand from the public for an investigation. This stonewalling included preventing officials within the FDA from publicly disclosing findings that demonstrated grave safety concerns with the SSRIs, resisting congressional and Senate investigations on this topic, and publishing a fraudulent meta-analysis that erroneously suggested safety (by one estimate they underestimated the harms of the drugs 15-fold).
I sincerely thank Tucker Carlson for having the courage to bring attention to this issue, and if there is anything I can do in the future to assist his producers or those for any other news anchor willing to expose pharmaceutical corruption, I would be grateful for the opportunity to do so.
Following the publishing of this article, I discovered Tucker devoted a separate segment to this issue (which touched upon general pharmaceutical corruption)
When this topic is raised, I am often asked if Fluvoxamine (an SSRI) is safe to use in the treatment of COVID-19. I believe it is for the following reasons:
•I have not yet come across a case of a severe adverse reaction occurring from it being used to treat COVID-19.
•A large benefit is seen from using Fluvoxamine for COVID-19. When evaluating a drug, one must always consider the risk reward ratio. For a nebulous condition like depression, the actual benefit that arises that arises from taking a pharmaceutical is often very small and as a result easily outweighed by the potential negative side effects of a medication. Conversely with an acute and dangerous condition such as COVID-19, there is a much larger benefit that is likely to outweigh any potential adverse effects.
•The effects of SSRIs are very different over a long term course of treatment verses a short term treatment course for COVID-19.
•There is an adverse event reporting system for pharmaceutical drugs as well (FAERS). When I looked on FAERS, there were very few adverse events that were attributed to Fluvoxamine, and in most cases these were most likely due to a different drug the patient was taking at the same time. This could potentially be an artifact resulting from less people taking fluvoxamine than some of the other SSRIs, but the difference was large enough to make me suspect this SSRI is safer. That said, I have found fluorinated pharmaceuticals (such as fluvoxamine and Prozac) tend to be more harmful and as a rule avoid them.
• I suspect that the neurological information present during COVID-19 makes you less likely to develop complications from an SSRI, but I have no way to prove this and this hypothesis could very well be incorrect.
Thank you for reading The Forgotten Side of Medicine! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.