Lately, I have been overly-aggravated over the lack of important news in the narrative that exclusively affects us. The political overkill on the major network is daunting if not embarrassing. I am always curious over why for at least a year and now another year and three months, we will not be escaping the hand shaking, and baby kissing, ad nauseum.
I am beginning to realize that while the mainstream narrative does its best to create the world and shape your views, there is no escape from all of the crazy things that happen in the world. When you rub your eyes after you awaken, the world is full of some pretty peculiar things that when brought up can either generate a sigh of relief or some of the most obnoxious behaviors I have ever witnessed.
People have biases that are very peculiar. Change is often an unwelcome concept into our lives. As humans, we are creatures of habit and have a tendency to gravitate to the norm, to our daily routines and to our regular habits. Anything out of the ordinary that throws us out of our routine can often times be difficult to deal with.
“Normal” seems to be a one word oxymoron and the idea of not fitting into the “normal” world creates anxiety, paranoia and depression.
There is a song that exemplifies this mental conditioning by the band Megadeth; it is called “Die Dead Enough.” In the lyrics there is a chorus that explains the so-called “new normal” in the United States:
Oh, I can’t punch hard enough
I can’t kick high enough
I can’t shoot straight enough
I can’t hold on enough
Oh, I can’t stay down enough
I can’t take pain enough
I can’t bleed fast enough
I can’t die dead enough.
In the final stanzas of the song it says:
I don’t know what I’m running from
And I don’t know where I’m running to
There’s something deep and strange inside of me, I see
I don’t know what I’m running from
And I don’t know where I’m running to
Something’s compelling me to run into the dark
And now I am more driven than before
And now I live just to settle score
And now I feel the nearness of your breath
Now I introduce you to your death…
The song is on the CD “The System Has Failed” and apparently as the song illustrates, the system is responsible for the maddening confusion of most people and how others secretly suffer to the point of not dying dead enough or killing someone.
We live in a culture of bread and circuses; we are highly entertained, but are less informed about important subjects. We drink beer, and over-eat toxic foods. Our waters are chemically treated, and are bodies are on maintenance medications to numb us from our frightening reality.
Many people in their life time will never wake up to the lies and so called necessary fiction provided by the oligarchy that controls the United States from behind the scenes.
Our cognitive liberty is being hijacked to the point of despair and when we reach the breaking point we are told that there is a pill for that or an experimental drug that is forced on to someone who is asking for counseling to get through the everyday foibles and disappointments that face us every day.
In his Brave New World Revisited, Aldous Huxley described a society in which “the first aim of the rulers is at all costs to keep their subjects from making trouble.” He described a likely future: “The completely organized society, the abolition of free will by methodical conditioning, the servitude made acceptable by regular doses of chemically induced happiness.”
It can be argued that the over-medicating of the population by doctors with psychoactive drugs, SSRI’s, opiates and the decriminalizing of the use of marijuana is contributing to the chemically induced state of our nation and that reality is now being clouded by these methods.
While marijuana is a relatively harmless way of dealing with these setbacks in our lives, there are other drugs like SSRI’s that are developed and are beginning to show they can be deadly by rewiring the human brain and creating what I call “Axon Zombies.”
According to author and researcher Richard DeGrandpre, the true story of the SSRI’s begins in the 1950s, when the use of antidepressants was confined almost exclusively to cases of clinical depression. Although there was some suggestion at the time that the new antidepressant Tofranil might actually make some patients feel “better than well,” it was also true, as David Healy writes in his book “The Antidepressant Era,” that “no one was interested in Tofranil in 1958.”
Neither was anyone interested in feeling better than well, especially if it required pumping powerful chemicals into one’s brain. Although difficult to imagine today, depression was understood to be a rare condition in the 1950s and before, and there was a commonsense distinction made between depression and unhappiness.
Furthermore, the David Healy book also says that:
“Depression as it is now understood both by clinicians and laypeople is an extremely recent phenomenon, and one that is largely confined to the Western world.”
The rate of depression in the 1950s was estimated at about 50 people per million – an estimate that would grow to 100,000 per million by the end of the century.
This is a 2,000 fold increase in what is ostensibly a hereditary disease. What happened during these years is not that a disease was discovered, or its cure. What happened is that, because of ongoing changes in the drug marketplace, the pharmaceutical industry began to take an interest in depression.
The answer was a new brand of SSRI’s like Prozac, Zoloft and Paxil. This was a breakthrough which was called a revolution in psychiatric science.
This of course had little in the way of evidence to support it.
Consider two articles from popular magazines. The first is a Newsweek article called “Beyond Prozac.” It claimed in 1994 that “Research that once mapped the frontiers of disease — identifying the brain chemistry involved in depression, paranoia and schizophrenia — is today closing in on the chemistry of a normal personality.”
Yet three years later, in Time magazine, another article states that these aspects of the brain are not at all understood: for depression, bulimia, obesity and the rest of the serotonin-related disorders, however, no one knows for sure what part of the brain is involved or exactly why the drugs work.
The entire history of serotonin and of drugs that affect it has been largely a process of trial and error marked by chance discoveries, surprise connections and unanticipated therapeutic effects.
The tools used to manipulate serotonin in the brain are more like pharmacological machetes than they are like scalpels. The 1997 Time article, “The Mood Molecule,” nevertheless goes on to affirm the notion that SSRI offer something positively unique: In the 1960s, a second class of antidepressants emerged. They had major side effects, though, including profound drowsiness and heart palpitations.
The reason, scientists generally agreed, was that they affected brain chemistry too broadly. The research seemed to point to serotonin as the most important mood-enhancing chemical, though not the only one, and so neuro-chemists set about looking for a drug that would boost the influence of serotonin alone. In 1974, after a decade of work, Eli Lilly came up with Prozac, first of the so-called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs, and it was finally approved by the FDA in 1987.
After a slow and agonizing divorce from my first wife, I was suffering from depression and panic attacks. I was a producer of a major morning radio show at the time and needed to maintain my attitude and not bring my problems to work. So, I contacted a doctor and since the fad of Prozac was everywhere – I was prescribed Prozac and Klonopin (Cloneazapam) which is seizure mediation.
After a six month run this medication combo, I managed to remarry, quit the morning show to do my own morning show at a radio station across the street. After a month, I negotiated with another radio station for more money –worked there for three months on another morning show.
I was fired for using blue humor on the air, and was then applauded for my “brash and bold” style— I was then hired at another radio station with my first 6 figure salary, filed for divorce from my second wife, moved into a new home, the radio station went bankrupt and did not fulfill my year contract—I eventually wound up drinking a lot and spending my weekends smoking, eating pizza and watching Ren and Stimpy. Every day, I was waiting for the money to run out. When it did I was nearly ready to kill myself.
All this happened within 6 months.
There I was, hypomanic and homeless. I finally was weaned off of Prozac, became a broadcasting and journalism teacher, part-time, and was welcomed back to the original morning show that I worked for.
I was lucky.
There were many medical expose’s that indicated that SSRI’s may cause serious side effects that contribute to Akathisia, which is agitation, restlessness and distress. Other more frightening actions influenced by SSRI use were self-mutilation, suicide, and murder.
Also, it affected sex drive negatively. I remember a joke told on the Tonight Show that lack of libido was reason enough to want to kill yourself.
However, as time marched on and SSRI’s were being pimped by big pharmaceutical companies, the suicide and murder problems were no joke and there was plausible deniability provided by drug companies about the drugs.
A study done at Columbia University and Johns Hopkins says that doctors routinely prescribe not one but two or three SSRI’s and other psychopharmological drugs in combination with few if any serious studies to back up the multiple usage.
It’s pretty obvious that the reason for these multiple prescriptions is that if one drug doesn’t work, then perhaps two or three will. Doctors are in essence performing uncontrolled experiments on their patients, hoping that in some scattershot way they might hit on a solution. But of course, drugs have dangerous interactions and most physicians are shooting in the dark with all the dangers that attend such bad marksmanship.
A new report now was produced with the headline that reads: Paxil for Teen Depression Prescribed on Misrepresented Results: New Analysis paints yet another grim picture about the use of Paxil.
The drug never should have been prescribed in teens to treat depression, as it was through the first decade of the 2000s, according to a new study.
According to a re-analysis of the original data from a 2001 study of paroxetine (Paxil) for teens with major depression, the drug was not effective and led to serious side effects, which is not how the results were presented 14 years ago.
“There have been warnings about Paxil for a long time,” including a 2007 Food and Drug Administration advisory on the risk of increased suicidality when antidepressants like paroxetine or imipramine are used to treat people age 18 to 24, according to Dr. Jon Jureidini of the University of Adelaide in Australia.
The authors of the 2001 study did not report suicide as a side effect, although the evidence was there, said Jureidini, a coauthor of the re-analysis.
“A broad community of people around the world have raised concerns,” he told Reuters Health by phone.
The original trial, known as ‘Study 329,’ ran from 1994 to 1998 and included 275 teens with major depression. For eight weeks, about a third of them received 20 to 40 milligrams (mg) of paroxetine, another third received up to 300 mg of imipramine (Tofranil), and a third received placebo pills.
The researchers, supported by paroxetine’s maker GlaxoSmithKline, measured the participants’ total Hamilton Depression Scale score before and after treatment, as well as several other mental health assessment scales.
The original published results described paroxetine as effective and safe.
In the new analysis, Jureidini and colleagues found that neither paroxetine nor imipramine were better than placebo for any measure of depression. Furthermore, the drugs did notably increase harms, like suicidal thoughts and behavioral problems in the paroxetine group and heart problems in the imipramine group.
Many times, we have heard time and time again that we are an over-medicated society, and the goal of drug companies and a compliant and harried medical establishment is ultimately to have some drug coursing through every individuals’ bloodstream. It’s a lot easier to quickly pop a pill or prescribe than it is to explore the reasons for a person’s distress.
Always remember the scenario in 1960’s science fiction movies of a dystopic future or Soviet-style world with drugs used to control minds.
Well, that future is here and the social control and culling we have dreaded or dismissed as conspiracy theory is now accepted in the form of a pill.