In our relentless pursuit to transcend the human suffering, we’ve stumbled into a dangerous oversimplification: an improved mental state reflects the absence or decrease in negative emotional states. This reductionist view has not only cheapened our understanding of the human emotional spectrum but has also paved the way for a troubling linguistic shift.
The word “sad” has all but vanished from our lexicon, replaced by the catch-all term “depression” – a linguistic sleight of hand that medicalizes every shade of human sorrow, from loneliness to anxiety, from fear to disappointment. This semantic broadening has opened the floodgates for indiscriminate prescribing of “antidepressant” drugs, extending far beyond their original purpose to treat clinical depression.
Today, these powerful drugs are doled out for an alarming array of off-label conditions: gastrointestinal issues, fibromyalgia, grief, chronic pain, and eating disorders, to name but a few. This prescription epidemic is built not on scientific evidence, but on a dangerous myth – the allure of a quick fix for life’s complexities. The medical profession and mental health communities, seemingly hypnotized by the promise of “antidepressant” effects, have unwittingly become complicit in a grand experiment on human neurochemistry.
At the heart of this phenomenon lies a disturbing paradox: the very mechanism that gives these drugs their “antidepressant” label – emotional blunting – is causing more harm than good. By dampening our ability to feel, these “medications” offer a Faustian bargain: potential short-term relief from suffering at the cost of our full range of human experiences.
For those battling severe clinical depression, the trade-off of emotional blunting might seem a necessary evil. Yet paradoxically, these individuals often struggle most acutely with the very emptiness that antidepressants can exacerbate. More alarmingly, the vast majority caught up in the widening net of antidepressant prescriptions aren’t facing such severe depressive episodes. For them, the potential for permanent emotional deadening was never a consideration, let alone a risk they knowingly accepted.
Emotional Blunting is Not Mental Healthcare
In our misguided quest to eradicate pain, we’ve stumbled upon a chemical lobotomy that threatens the very essence of what makes us human. Emotional blunting, the insidious “side effect of antidepressants”, doesn’t just dull our sorrows – it extinguishes the vibrant flames of joy, love, and connection that give life its meaning.
Imagine a world painted in shades of gray, where the highs of ecstasy and the lows of despair are replaced by a monotonous, tepid middle ground. This is the reality for countless individuals trapped in the purgatory of SSRI-induced emotional blunting. They walk through life as spectators, unable to fully participate in the rich tapestry of human experience.
The medical establishment, in its haste to silence the symptoms, has forgotten a fundamental truth: pain, in all its forms, is not just an inconvenience to be eliminated. It’s a vital signal, a call to action, a catalyst for growth and change. By indiscriminately muting this signal, we’re not just treating depression – we’re risking the very essence of what makes us human.
But the consequences of this chemical flattening extend far beyond personal discomfort. Recent research has unveiled a chilling truth: SSRIs decrease affective empathy, our ability to emotionally resonate with others’ experiences. Neuroimaging reveals a reduction in activity across three crucial brain regions associated with empathy for pain. In our attempt to shield ourselves from suffering, we’ve created a generation of emotional zombies, incapable of truly connecting with the joys and sorrows of those around them.
Consider the implications for love and attachment – the very foundations of human society. How can one form deep, meaningful bonds when the heart’s strings have been chemically severed? The butterflies of new love, the warmth of familial affection, the bittersweet ache of nostalgia – all reduced to mere concepts, intellectually understood but never truly felt. In this emotional wasteland, how can we expect individuals to develop a robust sense of gender and sexual identity, both of which are intimately tied to our capacity for emotional and physical intimacy?
The cruel irony is that in our desperate bid to numb pain, we’ve numbed everything that makes life worth living. Joy becomes a faded memory, a concept understood but no longer experienced. The exhilaration of achievement, the quiet satisfaction of a beautiful sunset, the overwhelming surge of love for a newborn child – all diluted into pale imitations of their former glory.
This emotional castration strikes at the very heart of the human spirit. Our ability to feel deeply – to be moved by music, stirred by art, inspired by acts of kindness – is what separates us from machines. It’s the wellspring of creativity, the driving force behind innovation, the fuel for compassion and altruism. By chemically muting these essential aspects of our humanity, we risk creating a society of hollow individuals, going through the motions of life without ever truly living.
The consequences ripple out far beyond the individual. A populace incapable of deep emotional resonance is a populace ripe for manipulation, apathy, and moral decay. How can we expect people to fight injustice, to stand up for the oppressed, to sacrifice for the greater good, when they can no longer feel the burning indignation or overwhelming compassion that drives such actions?
In our shortsighted attempt to eliminate suffering, we’ve stumbled upon a cure far worse than the disease. The price of emotional blunting is nothing less than our humanity itself. As we continue down this perilous path, we must ask ourselves: in our quest for painlessness, are we willing to sacrifice everything that makes us human? What impact does this emotional blunting have on sexual desire and intimacy?
Post SSRI Sexual Dysfunction (PSSD)
Imagine a world where the very essence of your being – your capacity for intimacy, pleasure, and connection – is suddenly and inexplicably stripped away. This isn’t the plot of a dystopian novel; it’s the harsh reality for countless individuals suffering with Post-SSRI Sexual Dysfunction (PSSD), a hidden epidemic born from our society’s pill-popping approach to mental health.
A vibrant libido isn’t just about carnal pleasure; it’s the body’s barometer of vitality, a complex symphony of physical, hormonal, and psychological factors humming in harmony. But for those struck by PSSD, this life-affirming melody is replaced by a deafening silence.
PSSD is the pharmaceutical industry’s dirty little secret, a Pandora’s box of sexual side effects that persist long after the last antidepressant pill is swallowed. We’re talking about a cruel trifecta of desire destroyed, genitals numbed, and an inability to orgasm.
The numbers are staggering – up to 73% of patients dancing with these serotonin-enhancing devils report one or more of these bedroom-killing effects. That’s not a side effect; that’s a full-blown assault on human sexuality.
But here’s where it gets truly Kafkaesque: PSSD doesn’t play by the rules. It doesn’t fade away when you kick the meds to the curb. No, it sets up shop in your nervous system, potentially rewiring your sexual circuitry for years – or even indefinitely. Imagine trying to rebuild your life post-depression, only to find that your capacity for one of life’s most fundamental joys has been carpet-bombed into oblivion.
The medical community, in its infinite wisdom, largely turns a blind eye to this sexual holocaust. PSSD sufferers are left adrift in a sea of misdiagnoses and dismissals, their anguish compounded by the very professionals sworn to help them.
As for the root cause of this sexual sabotage? The jury’s still out. Some point to a chemical lobotomy of the brain’s pleasure centers, others to a genetic vandalism that silences the body’s sexual whispers. But while the white coats scratch their heads, real people are left struggling with shattered relationships, crippled self-esteem, and a quality of life that’s been gutted like a fish.
We stand at a critical juncture in mental health care, facing a silent epidemic that threatens the very essence of human experience. Post-SSRI Sexual Dysfunction (PSSD) is not just a side effect – it’s a life sentence of emotional and sexual numbness that demands immediate recognition and action.
To the medical community, pharmaceutical industry, and mental health advocates: I implore you to acknowledge PSSD as a real and devastating condition. To researchers and funding bodies: We desperately need your support to unravel the mechanisms behind PSSD and develop effective treatments. Donations could be the lifeline that restores hope to countless sufferers.
But recognition and research are not enough. We must revolutionize the informed consent process for antidepressant prescription. To every potential patient, we pose this grave question:
Would you willingly sacrifice your ability to feel emotions deeply, to experience sexual desire, and to forge intimate connections, all for the possibility of short-term relief?
This is not a hypothetical – it’s the reality faced by PSSD sufferers worldwide. We demand transparency about these risks before a single pill is prescribed. The human cost of our current approach is too high, the potential for lifelong suffering too great. It’s time to prioritize true informed consent and explore alternative treatments that don’t gamble with the core of our humanity. The stakes couldn’t be higher – it’s not just about saving lives, but preserving what makes those lives worth living.
I encourage everyone to visit the PSSD Network to learn more about this debilitating condition.
In 1991, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) first recommended that all infants in the United States receive the hepatitis B vaccine at birth or within 1–2 months of age. The goal was to prevent maternal transmission of the hepatitis B virus (HBV) and reduce the incidence of infections in babies. Many healthy mothers without hepatitis B or risk factors such as IV drug abuse with normal infants ask what is the benefit in their babies?
The CDC recommends that children receive three doses of the hepatitis B vaccine as part of their routine childhood vaccine schedule:
First dose: Within 24 hours of birth
Second dose: Between 1–2 months of age
Third dose: Between 6–18 months of age
What happens later in life when young people go into the medical field and are potentially exposed to hepatitis B in sick patients? Posuwan et al evaluated a prospective cohort of young people (mean age 18 years) going into medicine and evaluated their antibody titers as a proxy of enduring immunity to hepatitis B.
Posuwan N, Vorayingyong A, Jaroonvanichkul V, Wasitthankasem R, Wanlapakorn N, Vongpunsawad S, Poovorawan Y. Implementation of hepatitis B vaccine in high-risk young adults with waning immunity. PLoS One. 2018 Aug 20;13(8):e0202637. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0202637. PMID: 30125298; PMCID: PMC6101408.
The investigators were disappointed to find that only 6.9% had long-lasting immunity to hepatitis B, and thus underwent booster doses upon entering medical school. It is unclear when immunity is lost in this cohort. The results are important for parents to understand that the hepatitis B shots given at birth are only applicable if the mother has hepatitis B or serious risks for carrying it including active IV drug abuse. Otherwise the vaccine schedule for this illness has little value at that age.
Stock prices for mpox vaccine maker Bavarian Nordic surged after the World Health Organization (WHO) on Thursday declared mpox a global public health emergency.
The company’s share prices jumped 17% in early trading in Copenhagen today, Forbes reported, after climbing 12% yesterday when the WHO made its announcement. In the U.S., shares were up 33% this morning.
The WHO cited recent outbreaks in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and neighboring nations in its declaration.
In the first known infection of its kind outside Africa, Sweden today confirmed a case of the highly contagious strain of mpox, according to NBC News. The WHO’s European regional office in Copenhagen said it was discussing with Sweden how best to manage the newly detected case, according to Medical Xpress.
This is the second time in two years the WHO has declared mpox a “public health emergency of international concern” PHEIC — pronounced “fake” — which is its highest form of an alert.
The announcement follows a declaration Tuesday by the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention that mpox is a continent-wide public health emergency.
The DRC, where the outbreak is concentrated and most severe, has approved two vaccines — Japan’s LC16 and Bavarian Nordic’s Jynneos, which is also marketed as Imvamune and Imvanex.
Bavarian Nordic is one of the few companies in the world with an already-approved mpox vaccine that is also available in large quantities. Other contenders, such as Emergent BioSolutions’ ACAM2000 have been available under special investigational protocols. Others, like Tonix Pharmaceuticals, have experimental shots that are in earlier stages of development.
Jynneos and ACAM2000 can cause myocarditis, pericarditis and other serious side effects at high rates, Dr. Meryl Nass told The Defender last week, as the labels for both drugs indicate.
The Japanese LC16 vaccine also has been linked to encephalitis, Nass reported on her Substack today.
“The WHO is using the monkeypox outbreak in Africa to fast-track, under emergency use, two monkeypox vaccines,” Dr. Kat Lindley, a senior fellow at FLCCC Family Medicine and president of the Global Health Project told The Defender.
“We need to use discernment and evaluate risks and benefits before recommending any experimental new product to a vulnerable population,” she said.
The African CDC in a LinkedIn post said it needed 10 million doses to control the outbreak and called for global support for its vaccination efforts.
Bavarian Nordic’s CEO Paul Chaplin told Bloomberg the company can provide 10 million doses of its vaccine to African countries over the next year and a half.
In an interview Wednesday — before today’s stock price surge — Chaplin said, “We have inventory and we have the capabilities. What we’re missing are the orders.”
In May 2022, the WHO announced it would phase out the name “monkeypox” and rename the disease “mpox” to avoid the stigma generated by associating the disease with monkeys.
WHO process for issuing PHEIC declarations ‘non-transparent and contradictory’
WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said in his press announcement that the agency decided to declare a PHEIC because:
“The detection and rapid spread of a new clade of mpox in eastern DRC [Democratic Republic of Congo], its detection in neighboring countries that had not previously reported mpox, and the potential for further spread within Africa and beyond is very worrying.”
The WHO declaration signals a public health risk requiring an international coordinated response. It can lead to WHO member countries and private investors pouring substantial resources into countries with outbreaks to facilitate sharing of vaccines, treatments and testing.
The declaration also grants the WHO authority to issue travel warnings or restrictions, to review and critique the validity of public health measures by member countries and to help persuade people that they ought to follow public health recommendations.
This is the eighth public health emergency the WHO has declared since 2007, when it substantially revised its International Health Regulations (IHR). Critics have called the process for designating such an emergency “non-transparent and contradictory.”
In July 2022, the WHO declared mpox a global emergency after reporting the disease had spread to more than 70 countries, mostly affecting gay and bisexual men. At the time, Tedros made the declaration unilaterally, in direct contradiction to independent review panel advice.
At that time, the Jynneos vaccine was licensed in the U.S. and ACAM2000 was “made available for use against mpox in the current outbreak [2022] under an Expanded Access Investigational New Drug (EA-IND) protocol.” Jynneos received emergency use authorization in the U.S. for children under 18 considered to be at high risk.
Although in the U.S. monkeypox has appeared to be a mild illness, several lucrative government contracts in 2022 paid the vaccine makers hundreds of millions to stockpile the vaccines.
The 2022 outbreak reportedly affected nearly 100,000 people, primarily gay and bisexual men, in 116 countries and about 200 people died.
Despite media hype and hundreds of millions of dollars spent to stockpile mpox vaccines in the U.S., the designation was quietly withdrawn in May 2023, “given the sustained decline in cases.”
On Aug. 8, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority renewed its contract with Bavarian Nordic, committing $156.8 million to manufacture and store Jynneos doses to partly replenish the inventory used to manufacture vaccines in response to the mpox outbreak in 2022.
Critics suggest ‘common sense mitigation measures’
Mpox was first detected in humans in 1970 in the DRC, according to the WHO, and is considered endemic to countries in central and west Africa, with the number of cases rising and falling periodically.
The disease causes flu-like symptoms and pus-filled lesions. It is usually mild but can be serious, particularly in people with weakened immune systems, Reutersreported.
In its announcement Wednesday, the WHO said the DRC is experiencing a severe outbreak of mpox, with 15,600 cases and 537 deaths. It said the current outbreak is caused by a virus strain, or “clade” — clade 1b — that is more severe than clade 2, which was responsible for the global outbreak in 2022.
It “appears to be spreading mainly through sexual networks,” and it has been detected in neighboring countries of Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda and Uganda, with 100 “laboratory-confirmed cases of clade 1b” in total in those countries.
Lindley said health officials are most likely using PCR tests, which were shown during the COVID-19 pandemic to generate false positive results.
“We really have no idea,” she said, if the alleged deaths are “complications of people who have depressed immune systems and are dying of other things.”
“Why would we start mass vaccination with a new product for which we know nothing about the safety profile when common sense mitigation measures can work?” she asked. “If it is sexually transmitted, use a condom or abstain from sex. If it can be transmitted through secretions, wash your hands and don’t touch people with clinical presentation.”
Nass expressed similar skepticism on her Substack:
“If this generally mild viral illness is killing people, what is the cause of death? Does it only cause death in severely immune suppressed patients? Are babies dying due to dehydration? Do we need to treat babies with fluids rather than give them a vaccine that was never tested in babies? Lots of unanswered questions.”
Recently, I listened to an interview with Dr Carl Elliott based on his published book released in June 2024 titled “The Occasional Human Sacrifice: Medical Experimentation and the Price of Saying No”. Dr Elliott is a bioethicist at the University of Minnesota who was trained in medicine as well as philosophy. For years, he fought for an independent inquiry into a case of corruption at a psychiatric research study at his own university in which sadly an especially vulnerable patient lost his life. Carl experienced first hand what it is like to be an academic whistleblower, and endured a terrible experience. His own efforts resulted in him being shunned by his friends and colleagues and impeded by his own university, who denied any wrongdoing, until an independent state investigation finally vindicated his claims after a 7-year-long battle.
Carl posits that As mentioned, his foray into this is very sad and disturbing. He detailed the extraordinary case of a mentally vulnerable man, Dan Markingson, who was admitted to a psychiatric unit after experiencing a series of psychotic episodes. Despite being a danger to himself and others, he was enrolled on a clinical trial of a new multi-drug regimen. Dan was coerced into following the treatment decisions of his psychiatrist, but against the strong objections of his concerned mother, he entered the study because he gave his “consent”. Worried for his safety, Dan’s mother spent several months trying to get him out of the study, after his behaviour dramatically worsened. She wrote to the study centre and study coordinator to ask to remove her son from the study. Despite her justified concerns, she was ignored. Tragically, several months later in the Spring of 2004, Dan killed himself in extreme circumstances.
Carl discussed several stories of how participants of medical research can be deceived into taking part in experimental programmes they do not understand, even in circumstances when the mortality risks are high. Many patients are coerced into studies with blatant financial conflicts of interest or industry funding. When Carl learned of Dan’s case and raised concerns he could not get anyone to take him seriously, so he decided to do his own research and publish a book. By bringing this issue to a broader audience, Carl hoped it would prompt the university into doing something, but this failed spectacularly, and he became a despised figure in his own academic centre.
After learning of Dan’s case in 2008, Carl spent 7 years trying to get Dan’s death investigated. His efforts included creating petitions, writing to the University Alumni, writing to the FDA and federal government. Eventually, he got a state investigation, and although the ruling was positive and vindicated everything he and other critics raised, the follow up was non-existent. His efforts accomplished very little – there was no apology from the academic university, no compensation to victims, no reform, or sanctions for the wrongdoers or efforts to learn from the devastating situation. This was a demoralising ending after such a long struggle.
Ethical standards and integrity have been gradually compromised for several decades. It is unclear why there is pressure to violate ethical rules in the medical research domain. Some of the reasons are financial, but perhaps a bigger issue is the pursuit of glory for some academic clinicians. In psychiatry, balancing the interests of individual participants in trials versus the pursuit of scientific answers is compromised. In 90% of the scandals Carl teaches about at the University of Minnesota, trial participants are mentally ill, disabled, have low socioeconomic status, are vulnerable, and cannot look out for themselves – collective traits that are exploited. As he describes it, the ‘honour code’ in medicine should safeguard and offer protections for such patient groups.
Many whistle-blower stories in the 1970s and 1980s predate the rise of the Big Pharma trials of today. Among clinicians and academics there is a race for glory, status, academic promotion, awards, and prizes. In the 1990s, the financial status changed unrecognisably with recent scandals having huge money stakes, absent from earlier corruption cases. In the past 20-30 years, academic research is less about patient care and more about research funding, which is a toxic situation. Sectors outside medicine have a regulatory system, which is absent in medical research. Instead, an ‘honour’ system exists in which professionals are trusted to behave honestly. Ultimately, there is a quasi regulatory responsibility by industry for overseeing integrity in its multi-billion dollar sector. Coupled with medical arrogance, bioethics within academic centres is now funded by the same industry players funding the studies. Thus, bioethics has been absorbed into academic health centres, relocating ethics to the belly of the beast!
There is a huge difficulty in maintaining independence and not being ‘captured’ by academic medicine. When research funding for academic salaries or tenure is through government-led institutions combined with the pressure to publish findings in high-profile medical journals, this creates a dangerous authoritarian culture. Such an environment has sometimes led to the dehumanisation of the patient, and maintaining ethical standards is a challenge. In a fee-for-service culture where high financial incentives exist, dismissing adverse effects of experimental treatments and lowering the inclusion criteria threshold are all too pervasive. There are of course well-intentioned medical professionals, but corporate overlords, dependence on practice guidelines coupled with the tremendous academic workload, stymies patient safeguarding and forges academic burnout.
What do whistleblowers have in common? They are motivated by honour, integrity, and moral concerns. They have no expectation for financial gain and they do not derive any personal advantages for themselves; in fact, they usually have everything to lose, such as financial stability and reputational damage, yet they still speak out. The reason many whistleblowers persisted in what they felt was a near futile struggle for years or even decades before resolution, was they were tenacious and refused to give up. Notably, cases known to the public are only examples in which a ‘resolution’ was achieved, even though the whistleblowers had reputational damage and no apology or financial compensation for victims was provided. So the situation is likely worse in terms of the treacherous path travelled by many whistleblowers, as we only hear of the most ‘successful’ cases.
Whistleblowers who worked for the public health sector often got nowhere. All whistleblowers had a common metaphor – if they were to look in the mirror, could they live with themselves if they did not do something? Many experience a form of PTSD and none experience improved lives following their exposure. Does disillusionment occur prior to whistleblowing, or when attempts or reports are ignored? Sadly, it seems there is a slow descent into nihilism. Most whistleblowers believe that if the outside world knew what they knew, this would encourage people to defend or change the corruption – notably this never happens. They also hope that close friends or relatives will stand by them, but in its absence, an existential break occurs.
Some whistleblowers feel a sense of guilt because of their complicity in their own industry. Others feel guilt out of a sense of disloyalty to their peers or not wanting to expose an entire institution into disrepute. The notion that whistleblowers are heroic victorious figures that embark on a ‘David versus Goliath’ image is a falsehood! Perhaps the whistleblower is a rare breed; many who are concerned might be more realistic or disillusioned to begin with, so have a lower expectation in terms of likely justice. Possible reasons there are not more whistleblowers is because they know their action would be futile, they could get disciplined, they did not want to snitch on friends or colleagues, or they had a (misplaced) loyalty to their institution. Indeed, a recent BMA survey reported that 61% of doctors polled about patient safety concerns would not raise concerns because of fears that they or their colleagues might be “unfairly blamed or suffer adverse consequences”.
Organisational loyalty is puzzling because an institution intrinsically seems to instil loyalty, but fighting something that undermines it, ironically goes against those who expose it. One way to address this would be to establish independent organisations to investigate such cases. Although many are aware bad behaviour exists, those in senior leadership positions do not ask, so the corruption remains under the radar. One example was at the Karolinska Institute over lethal synthetic trachea transplants, in which a surgeon had falsified results and misled the hospital about the health of those who received the transplants. While the surgeon involved, Paolo Macchiarini, received a prison conviction, the Swedish legal authorities and Karolinska Institute did not apologise to whistleblowers or compensate the victims. This high-profile case did not tarnish the institute’s reputation; in fact, it is rare for institutions to suffer in medical corruption cases. Leaders at academic institutions worry that if problems are exposed, it will deleteriously impact them, so silence or internal handling is considered the best policy.
One would think it would be better to come clean so that things can be remedied, and the error not repeated, in the hope wrongdoers are punished and institutions reformed. However, in his research and experience, Carl has never come across an institution that took positive resolution steps. Academic organisations still attack anyone who threatens their reputation. Often the senior figures in such scandals, such as Deans, Presidents or Directors, have left by the time a scandal is exposed, which one might think would help reduce any reputational damage. Although no one currently employed would be implicated in such scandals if the culprits have departed, the corrupt behaviour remains unchanged, so it is hard to offer an explanation.
The general public has a high opinion of doctors, believing medical professionals have strong ethics and want to help people and save lives. While this is true for many doctors, modern medicine has become big business financially. Patients are nowadays consumers, which is an inevitable slide into corruption. The marketing of medical devices and drugs has become more covert, such as bribes given to doctors. The scandals involved to preserve the illusion of integrity internally and externally are egregious. Carl is sceptical that a greater awareness of Big Pharma and how their marketing efforts operate would result in a more-positive outcome.
Ultimately, drug representatives are salesmen: they try to get doctors to prescribe their drugs. For many years, the vast majority of marketing was aimed at doctors not patients, although direct-to-consumer advertising is now ubiquitous. Huge financial sums are at stake, and most doctors do not like to imagine their prescription decisions are influenced by Big Pharma. Drug representatives have developed relationships with doctors – they are mercenaries. In the blockbuster drug era, especially in the USA, it is possible to make billion dollar drug sales for chronic illnesses, and doctors can be exploited to earn millions. Other than consultancy, doctors can receive lavish gifts, such as expensive dinners or premium tickets to expensive events. In the 1990s, the development of script tracking enabled the ability to measure in real time how marketing efforts affected doctors script sales. All drug representatives have access to the same data, so they compete for doctors with highest prescriber practices.
Ultimately, all the systems follow the same money trail. People who run the hospitals are worse, and according to Carl, those getting most from industry have the largest bribes. This farce is omnipresent; alarmingly, many bioethicists are not averse to taking industry money, highlighting that we are falling off the bioethics cliff. It is striking how universal and commonplace the language of medicine has become to describe the human experience. People define themselves on the basis of a medical diagnosis, illustrating how marketing has infiltrated our lives. For instance, people describe medical interventions as the person they are inside and how this fulfils their authentic self. It is an illusion that an intervention helps you become who you really are on the inside. Carl suggests pressure exists either to fit in or to stand out, which are two sides of the same coin.
Does bioethics have a rescue philosophy? In general, bioethics is a huge disappointment, with the status quo unchanged since the 1980s. Bioethics has taken up residence in academic health centres and is controlled by the same corrupt forces. It is sobering that not a single medical research scandal exists, whether patient care, sexual abuse, or research misconduct, in which a bioethicist has criticized their own institution. They know how unwelcome it would be, so they keep quiet! The conclusions of Carl’s book and interview are disheartening: being a whistleblower is not worth the hassle or personal devastation involved for the noble individuals who speak out. Since the Covid era, whistleblowers have become more prolific as many no longer accept the associated injustice. Let’s hope this seeds change and a much-needed new cultural shift to inspire and support future academic whistleblowers rather than deter them. The brave but solitary path of the academic whistleblower must be a human sacrifice worth taking!
FactCheck.org, the organization that flags “misleading” COVID-19 content for Facebook, is supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a philanthropic organization funded by pharmaceutical giant and vaccine maker Johnson & Johnson (J&J), YouTube commentator Jimmy Dore reported.
“These fact check organizations aren’t there to check facts,” Dore said. “They’re there to push a political point of view and an agenda and to discredit people.”
Dore said when the organization “fact-checked” his work in the past, its claims were always “bogus.” He said FactCheck.org never reached out to consult him about his content, it twisted his words and it never even pointed to any erroneous facts.
Instead, he said, “They didn’t like my headlines,” and they would say they were misleading.
Johnson & Johnson’s viral vector COVID-19 vaccine received emergency use authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in February 2021. After the shot was linked to dangerous blood clots, its use was suspended a couple of months later and it was eventually completely pulled from the market in May 2023.
Its current CEO, Dr. Richard Besser, formerly worked at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where he was acting director during the H1N1 outbreak.
When Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) first sounded the alarm in 2021 about FactCheck.org on Twitter (now X), the organization responded by saying, “The views expressed by FactCheck.org do not necessarily reflect the views of the foundation.”
The organization continues to receive funding from Robert Wood Johnson for its work “correcting health misinformation.” It reiterates on its website, the foundation “has no control over our editorial decisions.”
If you have not seen this before, please take a moment to really let this image we created sink in—and keep in mind that this only reflects the vaccines given during pregnancy and the first year of life (there are far more thereafter on the current schedule):
Also keep in mind that virtually every single one of today’s vaccines was developed by a pharma company knowing it would not face liability for injuries caused by these products. This is because, as most of you know, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 gave them immunity from having to pay for harms.
And chronic childhood diseases, many of which are autoimmune or immune-mediated, have exploded from 12.4% in the early 1980s to over 50 percent of children today. CDC and public “health” authorities cannot figure out the cause despite desperately searching (though they haven’t studied vaccines, even though smaller independent studies have indicated vaccines are a major contributor).
With that in mind, let this chart also sink in, comparing the clinical trials relied upon to license Pfizer’s top five selling products (excluding the COVID-19 vaccine) with vaccines given in the first six months of life:
The 9th Circuit US Court of Appeals ruled this week in favor of Meta, Facebook’s parent company. The case was brought forward by the Children’s Health Defense (CHD) over allegations that the social media giant violated free speech rights.
The lawsuit, initiated in August 2020 and later updated in December, claimed that Facebook, along with its CEO Mark Zuckerberg and two fact-checking entities, Science Feedback, and the Poynter Institute’s PolitiFact site, was complicit in an unconstitutional act of privately exercising governmental censorship. CHD alleges that Facebook, in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other federal institutions, is censoring content and discussions that the government is barred from suppressing under the First Amendment.
The plaintiff specifically accused these sides of working in tandem to unfairly stifle valid attempts to discuss vaccine safety on Facebook, often through indirect yet sensorial measures like the use of warning labels. According to CHD, this type of arrangement between public entities and private corporations represents a breach of the First Amendment due to its perceived status as “state action.”
Despite these arguments, the 9th Circuit court concluded that CHD was not successful in meeting the initial requirement for state action, as the censorship inflicted was more a result of Meta’s content moderation policies and not any directive under federal law. Further, the court also asserted that CHD did not present any evidence of a binding agreement requiring Facebook to execute any particular action in response to misinformation about vaccines.
Although all judges did not share the same opinion, Circuit Judge Daniel P. Collins presented a partially dissenting viewpoint. He opined that the interactions between Meta and the Government involving the suppression of specific types of vaccine-related speech were substantial enough to evoke First Amendment considerations.
Expressing disappointment and worry, CHD CEO Mary Holland stated, “If we cannot stop the government’s joint action with Big Tech to censor unwanted information, our First Amendment is a pyrrhic victory — it means almost nothing in our real world of social media.” While she was pleased with the non-unanimous nature of the decision, Holland hinted at the possibility of appealing to the US Supreme Court after further review.
At the heart of the court battle, ongoing for almost four years, were claims, primarily leveled by CHD’s then-Chairman and Chief Executive Counsel, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., that tactics employed by the US Government to pressure Facebook into censoring vaccine “misinformation” were existential threats.
HBO funnyman and vaccine shill, John Oliver, made another attempt this week on his show to amplify the mainstream vaccine safety narrative, citing the same studies he referred to in a similar segment on his show in 2017. Del once again destroys his stale, recycled misinformation.
Picture a soul in turmoil, wrapped in the suffocating embrace of despair. In the sanctuary of a therapist’s office, they finally find the courage to voice the unspeakable:
“Sometimes, I think about not being here anymore.”
The words hang heavy in the air, a testament to the crushing weight of their pain, loneliness, and emptiness. This confession, born from a place of vulnerability and trust, should be the beginning of a deeper healing journey.
During these intense emotional struggles, it’s important to understand that thoughts of escape, including suicide, are a common human response to overwhelming pain. There’s a vast chasm between contemplating an end to suffering and actively planning to end one’s life.
Context is everything.
The mind, overwhelmed by anguish, may grasp at any perceived exit, including the idea of nonexistence. But voicing these thoughts doesn’t signal imminent danger. Rather, it’s often a cry for understanding, a desperate reach for connection in the depths of isolation.
Skilled and experienced therapists understand this.
The very act of sharing these dark musings with a trusted professional can be profoundly cathartic. It’s in these raw, unfiltered moments that true therapy has the potential to work its magic. A skilled therapist, one who can navigate these turbulent waters without succumbing to panic, becomes a lifeline. They offer not just a listening ear, but a steady hand to guide the patient through the storm, helping them to contextualize their pain and find hope in the midst of despair. This is the essence of healing – not in avoiding the darkness, but in facing it together, unafraid.
Fast forward to mental healthcare in 2024.
As the demand for mental health services skyrockets, we’re witnessing a disturbing trend: the proliferation of ill-equipped therapists flooding the market. What was once a skilled profession has, in many cases, devolved into little more than paid listening.
The rise of virtual therapy platforms, while increasing accessibility, has created a cohort of isolated practitioners. Lured by the promise of higher profits without the overhead of a physical office, many therapists now find themselves cut off from the vital support networks of supervisors and mentors. Without this crucial guidance, they’re left to navigate treacherous emotional waters alone, often defaulting to a “cover your ass” mentality when confronted with challenging situations.
Simultaneously, as large hospital networks muscle into the mental health arena, therapy is increasingly reduced to an appendage of psychiatry. The nuanced art of healing is replaced by a simplistic “take your pills and manage your mental illness” approach. This medicalization of human suffering is fundamentally dehumanizing, reducing complex emotional states to mere chemical imbalances.
The consequences of this shift are stark. Individuals brave enough to voice thoughts of death are no longer met with understanding, but with fear. Their pain is hastily labeled as emerging “mental illness,” triggering a rigid psychiatric protocol that leads to overmedicalization and unnecessary hospitalization.
“I want you to go to the emergency room”
The knee-jerk mantra of risk-averse therapists and doctors who’ve been brainwashed to treat every fleeting suicidal thought like a ticking time bomb.
They herd the emotionally vulnerable into sterile, overpriced hospital rooms, mistaking cold fluorescent lights and paper gowns for actual care. It’s a convenient way to abdicate responsibility, slap a band-aid on deep-seated pain, and pad the pockets of our broken healthcare system – all while patting themselves on the back for “saving lives.”
A Rise In Psychiatric Hospitalizations
The U.S. mental health care system is at a breaking point, buckling under the weight of an insatiable demand for inpatient care. Recent federal data, as reported by CBS News, reveals a system in crisis: hospitals and clinics are operating at a staggering 144% capacity for inpatient psychiatric beds. This alarming statistic, courtesy of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), exposes the raw nerve of a long-festering problem – a dire shortage of psychiatric inpatient facilities.
Yet, this begs a crucial question: Is this surge in demand a genuine need, or merely a symptom of a more insidious systemic failure?
The COVID-19 pandemic has cast a long shadow over youth mental health, with alarming consequences. A recent study comparing mental health emergency admissions among young people before and after the outbreak reveals a disturbing trend. In the two years following March 2020, youth psychiatric emergencies surged by an astonishing 116.7% compared to the same period in 2018-2020. Even more concerning, this new wave of patients skewed younger and were less likely to have prior psychiatric histories.
These findings suggest a troubling shift: the pandemic appears to have triggered new, earlier onset psychiatric manifestations in previously unaffected youth. Moreover, these emergencies lead to psychiatric drugs as a matter of course.
A single checked box on these questionable screening measures can set off a chain reaction of fear-mongering, with parents being urgently directed to emergency rooms for what may be nothing more than typical teenage angst or temporary emotional struggles. This knee-jerk approach not only overwhelms emergency services unnecessarily but also risks pathologizing normal developmental experiences.
The media’s portrayal of primary care doctors drowning in a youth mental health crisis obscures a more insidious reality: these physicians, despite their best intentions, are conducting mental health evaluations in alarmingly short timeframes without the proper training to contextualize their findings.
The result is a perfect storm of misunderstanding, where the vulnerability and complex emotions inherent to adolescence are stripped of their context and hastily labeled as mental health emergencies. This approach not only fails to address the real needs of struggling youth but also potentially traumatizes families and clogs a healthcare system already stretched to its limits.
When desperate parents drag a sullen teenager to the ER, or a vulnerable adult finds themselves cornered by an ER social worker, a grim dance begins. The fluorescent-lit stage is set for a performance of “crisis management theater,” where real human suffering collides with bureaucratic checklists and liability concerns.
Parents, gripped by fear that their child might take their own life, often feel coerced into consenting to psychiatric hospitalization and medication. This fear becomes a potent weapon wielded by hospital staff, despite the lack of evidence that such interventions actually prevent suicide.
The experience of psychiatric detention is frequently described as traumatizing. Patients are stripped of their dignity – quite literally during invasive searches – and their autonomy, as their phones and personal belongings are confiscated. Many report being treated like cattle by burned-out, unprofessional staff.
Young women often feel unsafe, surrounded by men who are also experiencing mental health crises. For women struggling with the aftermath of sexual violence – a common precursor to psychiatric hospitalization – the hospital stay itself can be profoundly re-traumatizing.
This system, designed ostensibly to help, often inflicts further harm. It substitutes genuine care and understanding with a one-size-fits-all approach that prioritizes risk management over true healing. In our rush to “do something,” we’ve created a revolving door of trauma, where those seeking help often emerge more damaged than when they entered.
When parents, armed with knowledge and a desire to protect their children from potentially harmful interventions, attempt to resist the pressure to medicate, they’re often met with a dismissive and exasperated “What do you want us to do then?”
It exposes a mental health apparatus that has become reliant on the false promise of quick-fix pharmaceutical solutions, lacking the resources, training, or willingness to explore alternative approaches. This attitude effectively holds families hostage: either accept potentially harmful psychiatric drugs or be left with no support at all.
This false dichotomy – drugs or nothing – is a damning indictment of a system that has lost sight of its purpose. It reveals a profound lack of creativity and compassion in addressing mental health crises. Instead of working collaboratively with families to develop comprehensive, individualized care plans, hospital staff often default to a one-size-fits-all approach that prioritizes expediency over efficacy.
Moreover, this response subtly shifts blame onto the parents, implying that by refusing medication, they’re somehow obstructing their child’s care. It’s a manipulative tactic that exploits parental fear and guilt, further eroding trust between families and mental health providers.
Fear Based Therapy
The mental health industry has a dirty secret: it’s terrified of the patients it claims to help. Therapists, those supposed bastions of understanding and support, turn into protocol-driven robots at the mere whisper of suicide. Gone is the empathy, replaced by a checklist of CYA questions designed more to protect their licenses than to save lives.
This is how they are trained.
This fear-based charade masquerading as care has created a toxic environment where honesty is punished. Patients learn quickly: bare your soul at your own risk. Admit to dark thoughts, and watch your therapist’s eyes glaze over with panic as they mentally rehearse their mandatory reporting script.
In my years of specializing in treating chronically suicidal clients, I’ve witnessed firsthand the deep-seated trauma inflicted not just by their original experiences, but by the very system purporting to help them.
A disturbing pattern emerges, particularly among women survivors of sexual violence. Their acute trauma reactions are frequently misunderstood and hastily misdiagnosed as bipolar disorder or other psychiatric illnesses, leading to a cascade of inappropriate treatments and interventions. The psychiatric hospitalizations that often follow are not just ineffective; they’re actively traumatizing.
When these survivors finally find their way to my office, the damage is palpable. Trust, the very foundation of effective therapy, has been shattered by their previous encounters with mental health professionals. It can take months of patient, careful work to rebuild that trust, to convince them that it’s safe to be open and honest in therapy. This process is painstaking, requiring us to undo layers of iatrogenic harm – harm caused by the very institutions and individuals tasked with healing.
The tragedy here is twofold: not only are these women denied proper care for their actual traumas, but they’re also subjected to a secondary trauma at the hands of a mental health system that fails to recognize the complexities of their experiences. This cycle of misdiagnosis, inappropriate treatment, and subsequent re-traumatization doesn’t just delay healing – it actively impedes it, sometimes for years. Many never recover.
What Genuine Help Looks Like
True healing begins with the compassionate ear of a skilled, experienced therapist who can create a safe space for emotional expression and validation. This approach recognizes a fundamental truth: everything, including emotional pain and suicidal thinking, is temporary. By understanding struggles in their proper context, therapists can help clients navigate their darkest moments without resorting to extreme measures.
A competent therapist knows that most expressions of suicidal thoughts are not declarations of intent, but rather desperate attempts to communicate profound suffering. This nuance, while seemingly obvious, often eludes less experienced or inadequately trained professionals who are paralyzed by fear and uncertainty. Instead of reacting with panic, skilled therapists help clients explore their pain and envision a life worth living, even in the midst of emotional turmoil and trauma.
When someone is in emotional turmoil and suicidal risk is present, truly skilled therapists know that a gentle, personalized approach can make all the difference. Instead of rushing to hospitalization, these compassionate professionals take the time to really listen and understand. They work hand-in-hand with the person in crisis, crafting a safety plan that feels right and makes sense for their unique situation. It’s not about imposing rules, but about finding inner strength and support.
Effective therapy often involves teaching clients how to regulate intense emotions and tolerate distress. This might include techniques drawn from dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) or other evidence-based approaches. For many, additional support such as telephone coaching and family-based therapies can create a plan to weather crisis periods. These interventions recognize that suicidal crises tend to be episodic and often resolve when the underlying problems are addressed.
Primary care doctors should not be administering mental health screening measures or prescribing psychiatric drugs for complex emotional issues. Their well-intentioned but misguided interventions often exacerbate the situation, medicalizing normal human experiences and setting patients on a path of unnecessary and harmful treatments.
Working in “mental health” requires patience, understanding, and a willingness to sit with discomfort – both from the client and the therapist. By moving away from a fear-based, reactionary model of care towards one that embraces complexity and prioritizes genuine human connection, we can create a mental health system that truly serves those in need.
When the storm of the mind rages, feel-good therapy buzzwords and empty reassurances are as useful as a paper umbrella in a hurricane. What’s needed isn’t another degree or certification, but something far rarer: the guts to stare unflinchingly into the abyss of another’s pain without flinching. In the end, perhaps the most radical act in modern mental health care is simply having the backbone to shut up, sit down, and bear witness to suffering without trying to sanitize it.
Big Pharma and its key investors are rolling out a new strategy — “the full takeover of the public sector, specifically the World Health Organization (WHO), and the regulatory system that now holds the entire market hostage” — according to a new investigative report by Unlimited Hangout’s Max Jones.
What’s behind the new strategy? The pharmaceutical industry is facing a “patent cliff” by 2030, as many of its blockbuster drugs are set to lose their patent protection, placing $180 billion in sales at risk and threatening to topple the industry.
According to Jones, for years, when patents expired on profitable drugs, pharmaceutical giants deployed a “mergers and acquisitions” strategy, buying up smaller drug companies to add to their product portfolios.
As a result, the industry is now dominated by a handful of companies, conventional chemical drugs exist for most health issues, and the regulatory process for new ones has become onerous.
Big Pharma has now pivoted to acquiring biotech and biologic companies, whose products are “more complex, unpredictable and difficult and expensive to make,” than chemical-based medicine, Jones wrote.
Conventional drugs are chemically synthesized and have a known structure according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Biologics come from living humans, animal or microorganism cells, and are technologically altered to target particular proteins or cells in the immune system. The FDA calls biologics “complex mixtures that are not easily identified or characterized.”
As a drug class, biologics offer an appealing solution to the patent cliff problem, because they can’t be easily replicated like generic versions of conventional drugs.
Instead, producers make “biosimilars,” which unlike genetics can’t simply be interchanged with the original drug during a course of treatment without serious safety risks, according to Jones. And while generics are cheap, biosimilars are still expensive to produce. There also are regulatory hurdles to getting biosimilars to market.
However, Jones wrote, the serious safety issues associated with biologics — the high risk of serious adverse events associated with the COVID-19 vaccine, for example — make it difficult for drugmakers to find commercial success in a conventional regulatory environment.
“Luckily for Big Pharma,” Jones wrote, the WHO and its private backers “are pursuing an unprecedented legal process that would cement loopholes that could solve these significant market challenges of at least some biotechnologies.”
Such loopholes made Pfizer and Moderna’s COVID-19 mRNA vaccines — the paradigmatic example of this new strategy — Big Pharma’s highest-selling annual market success ever.
Distribution of the COVID-19 vaccines to approximately 70% of people globally was possible only because of the “fast-tracked, deregulated development and mandated consumption of the experimental drugs,” Jones wrote.
The industry hopes to replicate that model with other drugs. And it has already begun — last month the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, or BARDA, gave Moderna $176 million to develop an mRNA bird flu vaccine.
Stakeholders behind the WHO have turned it into an arm of Big Pharma
According to Jones, the process of rapidly developed and mandated experimental drugs was first adopted by the U.S. military for bioweapons threats. Now, it is being internationally legitimized by the WHO through the agency’s revisions to the International Health Regulations (IHR) and its continued attempt to push its pandemic treaty.
The amendments were watered down and the treaty was partially thwarted at the last meeting of the World Health Assembly, which ended on June 1. However, the powers added to the amendments and the language in the treaty WHO and its backers are still hoping to advance next year show the type of biotech pandemic market Big Pharma has in the works.
According to Jones, this market:
“Will not be one that depends on the free will of consumers to opt in and out of products — but instead relies on tactics of forced consumption and manipulation of regulatory paradigms.
“At the forefront of this push are the WHO’s public-private-partners/private stakeholders, who directly shape and benefit from this policy. Their influence has, in effect, turned the WHO into an arm of Big Pharma, one so powerful that it already demonstrated its ability to morph the entire international regulatory process for the benefit of the pharmaceutical industry during the COVID-19 pandemic.”
These stakeholders can wield this power in part because the WHO receives 80% of its funding from private stakeholders.
Those stakeholders include private-sector giants like Bill Gates, his public-private partnership organizations like the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) and public-sector bureaucrats, such as Dr. Anthony Fauci and Rick Bright, Ph.D., of BARDA and the Rockefeller Foundation, who have been working for years to create a new system that would speed up vaccine production.
During the COVID-19 pandemic period, even states that lacked legal structures to provide emergency authorization for new drugs created them, using the WHO’s Emergency Use Listing Procedure (EUL) as justification, and aided by the WHO’s COVAX vaccine distribution system. COVAX was co-led by the WHO, Gavi, CEPI and Unicef, which are all backed by Gates.
The goal now, Jones wrote, is to institutionalize the procedures that were put in place globally for COVID-19 to pave the way for a new pandemic market.
The One Health agenda, which requires “full-scale surveillance of the human-animal environment,” both before and during pandemics, is central to this plan, he wrote.
The four pillars of the emerging pandemic market
There are four pillars to the plan for securing this market. The pillars are embodied in the WHO’s recently passed IHR amendments and the proposed pandemic treaty.
WHO private stakeholders, like the Wellcome Trust and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, have been funding such initiatives for years and continue to be at the forefront of similar initiatives today, Jones wrote.
2. Rapid sharing of data and research: Under the IHR amendments, the WHO’s director-general must provide support for member states’ research and development. In the pending treaty, that would include helping them rapidly share data during a pandemic.
Such sharing should help coordinate global pandemic responses and also “pandemic prevention.” That means building a globally coordinated effort to research and share data on diseases that don’t currently pose a public health threat but are allegedly “likely to cause epidemics in the future.”
The WHO’s announcement last week that it is facilitating data-sharing for a new mRNA bird flu vaccine from Argentina is one example.
Jones also noted that it is “highly likely” that the same global organizations that partner with the WHO and are funded by its largest private donors will be the ones doing this research and development on vaccines for “future pathogens with pandemic potential” — and also the ones profiting from it.
3. New regulatory pathways: The WHO is developing new regulatory pathways for unapproved medical products to get to market during pandemic emergencies. The IHR amendments are vague on this, Jones wrote, but the proposed language of the treaty aims to speed up emergency authorizations of WHO-recommended investigational “relevant health products.”
The proposed treaty also seeks to compel member countries to take steps to ensure they have the “legal, administrative and financial frameworks in place to support emergency regulatory authorizations for the effective and timely approval of pandemic-related health products during a pandemic.”
4. Global mandates of unapproved products: The final key element in the Big Pharma-WHO plan to pave the way for a new pandemic market is shoring up the global capacity to mandate unapproved medical products.
According to Jones, in July 2023, the WHO adopted the European Union’s (EU) digital COVID-19 passport system, or the “immunity pass” which recorded people’s vaccination records, negative test results or records of previous infections.
“While a digital vaccine passport does not function as a hard mandate in which every citizen of a given population is forced to take a vaccine, it acts as a conditional mandate — one which offers the illusion of choice, but — in reality — restricts the civil liberties of those who do not comply,” Jones wrote.
The 2005 version of the IHR allowed for travel-based mandates that required proof of vaccination to enter countries when there was a public health risk. The new IHR, Jones wrote, expands on this by detailing the kinds of technology that can be used to check such information during future pandemics.
The WHO also is developing its Global Digital Health Certification Network, which expands the EU digital passport system to a global scale. It will digitize vaccination records and health records and will be “interoperable” with existing networks.
While interoperability makes it possible for decentralized data to be shared globally, Jones wrote, “The UN is seeking to impose digital identification as a ‘human right,’ or rather as a condition for accessing other human rights, for the entire global citizenry by 2030, as established in its Sustainable Development Goal 16.9.”
The initiative seeks to provide people with a “trusted, verifiable way” to prove who they are in the physical world and online.
“Verification systems of this size will place the right of citizens to do basic activities — like traveling, eating at a restaurant or working their job — in the hands of governments and potentially employers.
“The rights of civilians will be conditional, dictated by data stored in a massive digital hub that is global in its sharing abilities. Not only will domestic governments have access to the health information of their own citizens under this system, but an entire global bureaucracy will as well.”
Recently, The Conversation ran an article which claimed to “debunk” a range of myths about antidepressants such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs).
Natalina Salmaso, a clinical psychologist at Carleton University in Canada, highlighted five common myths that make people hesitant to take antidepressants.
Salmaso said hesitancy is often “unfounded” and “may not be grounded in science” and that “debunking the myths surrounding antidepressants is critical to permitting educated treatment decisions for those who suffer.”
However, Salmaso’s article was full of omissions and falsehoods, so we decided to debunk the debunker.
Myth 1 – I am stronger if I do this without meds
Salmaso says that a person with depression is like an athlete with a broken leg.
An athlete cannot compete effectively with a broken leg, in the same way a person with depression cannot function effectively, because their brain “is no longer responding to everyday life.”
She adds that a person’s brain needs to “heal” before they can expect it to function like they did pre-depression and implied antidepressants can help.
This is grossly misguided. This feeds into the false narrative that depression is a brain disease that can be cured by antidepressants.
Antidepressants don’t cure people with depression and their symptomatic effects are so small that they lack clinical relevance.
Myth 2 – I will be dependent on antidepressants to be happy
Salmaso says that antidepressants won’t make people ‘happy’ per se, but they “allow people to experience all emotions in an appropriate and balanced way.”
However, this is not what patients report. SSRIs tend to make people feel “numb” and unable to experience emotions. Some describe it as an inability to feel love, attachment or sexual excitement.
Some experience sexual dysfunction, which can continue long after the drug is discontinued.
Salmaso says that antidepressants “are a long-term (typically at a minimum for a year) and (hopefully) curative treatment, much like chemotherapy for certain types of cancer.”
This is also misguided. Most people become depressed because they have stressful or depressing circumstances, which no drug can cure.
People have been misled to believe that antidepressants can “correct” a chemical imbalance in the brain. A systematic review in 2022 thoroughly debunked the hypothesis that depression is caused a serotonin imbalance.
Salmaso even says that “most studies show that if you take antidepressant medications for a year before coming off of them, the majority of people will not relapse.”
This is also incorrect. The majority of studies on relapse are flawed because they involve subjects already on antidepressants and when they suddenly stop them for the trial they experience withdrawals, which interferes with the assessment of relapse.
Also, the longer someone takes an antidepressant, the higher the probability of that person experiencing withdrawal effects.
Myth 3 – Meds will change who I am, I will be different or feel high
Salmaso says that antidepressants won’t change you, but rather “allow you to view things from a more balanced perspective.”
However, Danish psychiatrists have reported that half of the patients on antidepressants agreed that the treatment could alter their personality and that they had less control over their thoughts and feelings.
Far from rebalancing the brain, antidepressants alter the normal functioning of the brain and disrupt biological processes with potentially devastating consequences.
As far as “changing who you are,” there have been ample reports of out-of-body experiences (including akathisia) where people became suicidal or homicidal on antidepressants, even in people with no history of this behaviour.
A systematic review found that taking antidepressants increased aggression three times more than taking a placebo, in children and adolescents.
Myth 4: I will become addicted
Salmaso says that antidepressants “are generally not addictive and have a low potential for misuse.”
This is not correct. Antidepressants can lead to dependency. Many people experience withdrawal symptoms, which are very similar to those that people experience when they try to come off benzodiazepines.
Salmaso claims that some patients get headaches and other withdrawal symptoms when the stop taking antidepressants “suddenly” but says they are “generally short-lived and can be minimised by tapering off treatment slowly.”
However, it is well-documented that about half of patients on antidepressants cannot stop them without experiencing withdrawals symptoms, which for some, can persist for many years. These symptoms are very difficult to “minimise” even with slow tapering.
Myth 5: Meds should only be used as a last resort
Salmaso disagrees that antidepressants should be used as a last resort.
She says that reserving antidepressants only for extreme cases “doesn’t make sense” because depression can reduce “work productivity and has immense societal consequences.”
“The financial repercussions that can be attributed to depression in terms of the number of workdays missed, jobs lost, accidents caused, etc. are enormous,” she added.
However, studies examining the efficacy of antidepressants have not shown any meaningful effects, such as improvements in quality of life, and they make it more difficult for people to function.
In all countries where this relationship has been examined, the increased use of antidepressants has been accompanied by an increase in disability pensions for mental health reasons.
Salmaso argues that, “Depression significantly increases risk of cardiovascular disease, gastrointestinal disease, respiratory disease and Parkinson’s disease, to name a few. It also seems to worsen the outcomes for cancer.”
Antidepressants do not improve these conditions either. Overall, it is our view that Salmaso’s evidence and arguments are flawed and misguided.
A High Court judge in the United Kingdom (UK) ruled Monday that the previous conservative British government’s emergency order safeguarding children and teens from experimental puberty blockers is lawful.
The LGBT activist group TransActual and an unnamed young person brought a challenge to the Tory order issued in May in the wake of the release of a report detailing a comprehensive independent review led by British pediatrician Dr. Hilary Cass.
Cass and her team conducted a systematic examination of studies and guidelines related to the use of puberty blockers and other procedures associated with so-called “gender-affirming care” for children suffering with gender dysphoria.
They concluded the so-called “gender-affirming care” model of medical intervention for young people is based on “remarkably weak evidence.”
“The reality is that we have no good evidence on the long-term outcomes of interventions to manage gender-related distress,” Cass wrote, observing that puberty blockers were found in “multiple studies” to compromise bone density and fertility and lead to other harmful effects. The majority of minors who receive prescriptions for puberty blockers move on to cross-sex hormones, the study also found.
Justice Beverly Lang noted in her decision that she is “satisfied that the decision to make the emergency Order on 29 May 2024, was a rational one”:
Parliament has entrusted the Ministers to exercise the powers in section 62 MA 1968, in the exercise of their discretionary judgment. This decision required a complex and multi-factored predictive assessment, involving the application of clinical judgment and the weighing of competing risks and dangers, with which the Court should be slow to interfere.
Lang also observed, “There was cross-party support for this approach as the then Shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mr Wes Streeting) said in response to the Statement: ‘I also welcome what she said about the justifiably cautious and responsible approach she is taking in relation to puberty blockers in the light of the Cass report.’”
The Labour Party’s Streeting said he planned to safeguard children against the controversial drugs “via any means, subject to the outcome of a legal hearing.”
“Governments have the right and responsibility to protect citizens from danger and from crime,” Orient observed, adding:
Giving minors drugs that will interfere with their normal development and likely sterilize them is criminal. It is not possible for minors to give informed consent, even if a judge or counselor asserts that they are “mature.” Puberty blockers keep them from becoming mature, and it is deceptive to claim that the effects are reversible. The drugs have a long list of very severe adverse effects, including osteoporosis with frequent fractures.
In a statement reflecting TransActual’s reaction to the High Court’s ruling, the group said it “condemns” the decision and will decide whether to appeal it.
Chay Brown, TransActual’s director for healthcare, called the ruling “disappointing,” noting that it “leans heavily” on what the group calls “the widely discredited Cass review”:
We are seriously concerned about the safety and welfare of young trans people in the UK. Over the last few years, they have come to view the UK medical establishment as paying lip service to their needs; and all too happy to weaponise their very existence in pursuit of a now discredited culture war. It is essential that NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care now take urgent steps to reverse this perception.
In its statement, the group cited a white paper published in July by Professor Anne Alstott of Yale Law School and Dr. Meredithe McNamara, assistant professor of pediatrics at Yale School of Medicine – both co-founders of Yale’s activist Integrity Project, which tracks and attempts to “correct” and “oppose” efforts to protect children from life-altering transgender medical activists throughout America.
According to the Integrity Project:
Underserved and marginalized people are harmed most by the absence of sound science in law. U.S. states recently have adopted a number of measures based on scientific misinformation, in reproductive health, gender-affirming care and HIV prevention. The Integrity Project acts quickly to correct the scientific record and oppose these harmful measures.
The white paper that attempted to discredit the Cass report is co-authored by other transgender activist medical professionals such as Johanna Olson-Kennedy, M.D., professor of clinical pediatrics at the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, and Jack Turban, M.D., assistant professor of psychiatry & behavioral sciences at the Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco.
In a May 2018 paper, Olson-Kennedy recommended that girls as young as 13 with gender dysphoria be subjected to top surgeries (elective double mastectomies). Drawing that conclusion only from 136 “completed surveys” at her gender clinic, she and her colleagues determined:
Chest dysphoria was high among presurgical transmasculine youth, and surgical intervention positively affected both minors and young adults. Given these findings, professional guidelines and clinical practice should consider patients for chest surgery based on individual need rather than chronologic age.
Turban was found in January 2022 by the Daily Caller News Foundation (DCNF) to have authored a controversial study at Stanford University that concluded childhood hormone treatment was associated with “favorable mental health outcomes.”
The study was funded by the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP), which opposes restrictions on gender-affirming care for children. AACAP, in turn, is supported financially by pharmaceutical companies Arbor and Pfizer, both of which manufacture hormonal drugs used for gender transitions, DCNF reported.
“This study is particularly relevant now because many state legislatures are introducing bills that would outlaw this kind of care for transgender youth,” said Turban in the press release about his study. “We are adding to the evidence base that shows why gender-affirming care is beneficial from a mental health perspective.”
Orient underscored in her comments to CatholicVote that “one effect” of hormone drugs to treat gender dysphoria “is to make the recipients life-long patients for a very lucrative industry.”
“Puberty itself is probably the best treatment for ‘gender dysphoria,’” she added. “After experiencing normal puberty, the vast majority of teens will accept their biological sex and escape from the pipeline leading to harmful cross-sex hormones, mutilating surgery, and life-long psychiatric care.”
In the UK, James Esses, co-founder of Thoughtful Therapists and co-ordinator of Declaration for Biological Reality, posted to X that the High Court’s ruling was “seismic.”
“We must never allow children to be irreversibly harmed in the name of an ideology again,” he added.
By Jay Knott | Dissident Voice | September 24, 2013
In a recent article on Counterpunch, Rob Urie defended the traditional Marxist analysis of US policy in the Middle East. He argues that support for Israel is driven primarily by economic interest, not the Jewish lobby.
He starts by paying tribute to the idea that Western societies are uniquely racist. He says that the “Western narrative” claims there is an “Arab character”, and that this is “antique racist blather”. He gives no definition of these terms. Further, he establishes his credentials as part of the dominant current in the American left by claiming that “over a million people in Iraq died so ‘we’ in the West can drive SUVs.”1
When he tries to criticize bourgeois economics, he makes it clear he doesn’t understand the developments it has made since Marx’s day, using the mathematical discipline known as “game theory”. He dismisses the basic abstraction of economic theory, the idea of the rational individual, on the grounds that it is “devoid of history, culture and political context”. But abstractions are always devoid of something.
He defends a more concrete economic theory, mostly Marxist, with some input from another theorist of capitalist crisis, Hyman Minsky. This concrete theory leads him to the view that US activity in the Middle East is primarily driven by rational capitalist motives, the need to secure a supply of oil.
“Taking the totality of circumstance — former oil company executives launching war on an oil rich nation on a pretext they publicly proclaimed they didn’t believe shortly before taking office — and that upon launching their war proved to be non-existent, requires a willingness to overlook the obvious — that the war on Iraq was for oil, that is difficult to support.”1
Perhaps I’ve misunderstood him, but based on what he says in the rest of the article, this convoluted sentence seems to argue that, because president Bush and vice-president Cheney attacked Iraq on false premises, and they also said it was all about oil, and they are former oil executives, and Iraq has a lot of oil, it’s difficult to deny US attacks on Iraq are all about oil.
In fact, it’s not hard at all. As Urie points out, at times Bush and co. said that attacking Iraq was “protecting the world’s supply of oil.”1 But, as he also points out, they are congenital liars. Why should we believe them when they say they are trying to “protect” the oil supply? Protect it against what? When politicians “admit” attacks on Middle Eastern countries are wars for oil, they are parroting the neo-con party line, feeding the public, both left and right, with a plausible-sounding pretext. For right-wingers, “it’s a war for oil” is a reason to support war, and for leftists, it’s a way to feel better by complaining impotently about corporate greed. Both approaches help the war drive. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.