— by Polydamas

More than five years ago, on December 16, 2012, The Cassandra Times posted an article titled “The Sandy Hook Massacre’s Hidden Psychiatric Drug Angle” concerning the December 14, 2012 massacre of 20 grammar school children at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. (http://tinyurl.com/ybja27w6). We alerted our readers to the causal connection between psychiatric drugs known as Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRI) and mass murderers. We pointed out that the Welsh psychiatrist and psychopharmacologist Dr. David Healy demonstrates this connection in exhaustive detail on his website (http://www.ssristories.com). David Kupelian’s February 15, 2018 article “Media Ignoring 1 Crucial Factor in Florida School Shooting” which is respectfully reproduced below also provides an excellent summary. (http://bit.ly/2Cp2Ndt).

Five years after Adam Lanza snuffed out the lives of Newtown’s 20 elementary school children, another mass murderer named Nikolas Cruz took the lives of 17 high school students in Parkland, Florida. Both murderers had their brain synapses pickled with SSRI drugs. Yet, by and large, the mainstream media obfuscates, dissembles, and blames millions of gun owners for the misdeeds of a few crazed gunmen, which is the precise opposite of how it vigorously defends millions of Muslims from the terrorist acts of jihadist terrorists.

The mega-million dollar question here is why does the left bury the conclusive connection between psychiatric drugs and mass murderers as a cat conceals its droppings in the sandbox? The dirty secret is exposed below.

For the past century, the leftists in the federal and the various state governments have injected themselves into public education, regulating every aspect of the lives of school children. For the past half century, since the Sexual Revolution, successive generations of leftists have attempted to stamp out what they deemed to be the rambunctious masculine traits of children.

This is not idle conspiracy theory, but evolutionary sciences and anthropology. Little Johnny and little Susie come from a very long line, many millions of years old, of hunters and gatherers. Little Johnny is a young warrior and hunter, just like his paternal line before him. He is naturally restless and longs to roam wide open spaces in search of game for his tribe. Little Susie is a patient young gatherer like her maternal line before her. Evolution made her very well adapted to perform small detail work for many hours. She is able to tend to children, sort out foodstuffs, prepare foods, sew, knit, and excel at all the other tasks that human society requires.

Beginning with the 1960s and the Sexual Revolution, it became increasingly anathema in academia and in leftist circles that there are any innate differences between little Johnny and little Susie. According to them. a paternalistic, male chauvinistic, and misogynistic patriarchy decreed that little Susie cannot do everything that little Johnny can do and vice versa. Gender roles are an outdated social construct, they told us. Little boys and girls are identical, they preached, and any differences were merely superficial, external features. Little boys and girls must be taught and treated exactly alike.

The problem, however, is that little Johnny cannot sit still in a modern classroom for hours without end; Susie certainly can. Little Johnny is biologically programmed to run, jump, physically compete with his peers, hunt game, and engage in hunter warrior activities. He simply cannot be cooped up in a modern classroom and forced to perform the detail work that female students excel at without releasing his pent-up steam. His attention span wanders in the middle of classes that reward rote memory and the regurgitation of information imparted in lectures. Instead, he looks out the window at the wide open spaces that he was evolved to roam. He follows the flight path of a fly in the classroom, exercising his predatory hunter instincts.

In defiance of nature and evolutionary biology, academicians and armies of government employees, including counselors, therapists, and social workers, have deemed little Johnny to be a broken, defective version of little Susie. Little Susie sits quietly in class and studiously absorbs the teachings of her overwhelming number of female teachers; little Johnny does not. Since little Johnny is a defective little Susie, he must be “repaired” or “cured” to perform to little Susie’s specifications.

The government then enlisted the services of big pharmaceutical companies and a legion of psychiatrists and doctors. Their aim was to transform rambunctious boys like little Johnny into more tractable little Susies. For three decades, the government has administered SSRIs to little Johnnies in an effort to extinguish their undesirable male traits. They dampened male aggression and yearning to roam free. They artificially focused male minds on the detail work that female students excel at. However, in some percentage of male students, the SSRIs simply fail and cause the opposite effect.

As we observed in our December 16, 2012 article, astute science fiction fans will recall Joss Whedon’s 2002 television series “Firefly” and his 2005 movie “Serenity”. In the movie, a future galactic government decided to pacify the violent tendencies on a planet named Miranda by secretly introducing a chemical agent into the atmosphere. The gas G-23 “Paxilon Hydrochlorate” caused 99.9 percent of Miranda’s people to become docile. They became so passive and lazy that they died of starvation. However, in less than 1 percent of Miranda’s population, the opposite effect resulted and created hyper-aggressive, violent zombie-like cannibals, called Reavers. Reavers roamed like packs of wild predators, committing mass atrocities, including raping, murdering, and eating their victims, not necessarily in that order. Another story line involved the galactic government cover up of its direct responsibility in actually creating the Reaver scourge and how it was exposed.

We at The Cassandra Times have no idea if the screenwriters of the movie “Serenity” secretly intended their futuristic story to be a social commentary on the abuse of psychiatric drugs. However, the exact analogy between the fictional Reavers and the mass murderers on SSRIs in 21st century America fits perfectly. Likewise, our government has evaded and covered up its culpability in creating SSRI-infused mass murderers just as the galactic government in “Serenity” did with its Reavers.

In our daily lives, we do not continue to trust people who fail us. We do not continue to lend money to people who never return their loans. We do not deposit our hard-earned monies in banks whose officers either embezzle funds or who routinely fail to employ reasonable security measures to deter and prevent bank robberies. We do not promote business people to higher positions of greater responsibility and power when they spectacularly failed in previous positions. This is just common sense.

If one agrees with the premise expressed in the previous paragraph, the campaign to confiscate all of America’s firearms from its responsible citizens on account of relatively few SSRI-pickled mass murderers makes zero sense. It means entrusting all of the firearms in the hands of the government bodies that created the SSRI epidemic in the first place. It also means rewarding the government and entrusting it with even more opportunities to conduct disastrous social engineering experiments without facing the adverse consequences.

Most importantly, a disarmed American population is rendered incapable of resisting future disastrous social engineering experiments by the government.

 

---

Media Ignoring 1 Crucial Factor in Florida School Shooting

David Kupelian

World Net Daily

February 15, 2018

Here we go again. A horrific mass shooting occurs. Everyone is in shock and grief. Democrats blame guns and Republicans. Pundits urge the public, “If you see something, say something.” And everyone asks, “Why?”

As information about the perpetrator emerges, a relative confides to a newspaper that the “troubled youth” who committed the mass murder was on psychiatric medications – you know, those powerful, little understood, mind-altering drugs with fearsome side effects including “suicidal ideation” and even “homicidal ideation.”

Yet the predictable response from the press is always the same – not only a total lack of curiosity, but disdain for any who ask the question, as though connecting psychiatric meds to mass shootings is pursuing a “conspiracy theory.”

Here’s a good way to tell whether or not something is a conspiracy theory: If it’s true, it’s not a conspiracy theory.

In the case of Nikolas Cruz, the 19-year-old Florida mass-shooter, his mother’s sister, Barbara Kumbatovich, told the Miami Herald that she believed Cruz was on medication to deal with his emotional fragility.

This is strikingly similar to reports right after the 2013 school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, when Mark and Louise Tambascio, family friends of shooter Adam Lanza and his mother, were interviewed on CBS’ “60 Minutes,” during which Louise Tambascio told correspondent Scott Pelley: “I know he was on medication and everything, but she homeschooled him at home cause he couldn’t deal with the school classes sometimes, so she just homeschooled Adam at home. And that was her life.” And here, Tambascio tells ABC News, “I knew he was on medication, but that’s all I know.”

But there was little journalistic curiosity or follow-up, and one wonders whether that will be the case this time around.

But, you may well be asking, why is the issue of psychiatric medications even important?

Fact: A disturbing number of perpetrators of school shootings and similar mass murders in our modern era were either on – or just recently coming off of – psychiatric medications. A few of the most high-profile examples, out of many others, include:

• Columbine mass-killer Eric Harris was taking Luvox – like Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Effexor and many others, a modern and widely prescribed type of antidepressant drug called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs. Harris and fellow student Dylan Klebold went on a hellish school shooting rampage in 1999 during which they killed 12 students and a teacher and wounded 24 others before turning their guns on themselves. Luvox manufacturer Solvay Pharmaceuticals concedes that during short-term controlled clinical trials, 4 percent of children and youth taking Luvox – that’s one in 25 – developed mania, a dangerous and violence-prone mental derangement characterized by extreme excitement and delusion.
• Patrick Purdy went on a schoolyard shooting rampage in Stockton, California, in 1989, which became the catalyst for the original legislative frenzy to ban “semiautomatic assault weapons” in California and the nation. The 25-year-old Purdy, who murdered five children and wounded 30, had been on Amitriptyline, an antidepressant, as well as the antipsychotic drug Thorazine.
• Kip Kinkel, 15, murdered his parents in 1998 and the next day went to his school, Thurston High in Springfield, Oregon, and opened fire on his classmates, killing two and wounding 22 others. He had been prescribed both Prozac and Ritalin.
• In 1988, 31-year-old Laurie Dann went on a shooting rampage in a second-grade classroom in Winnetka, Illinois, killing one child and wounding six. She had been taking the antidepressant Anafranil as well as Lithium, long used to treat mania.
• In Paducah, Kentucky, in late 1997, 14-year-old Michael Carneal, son of a prominent attorney, traveled to Heath High School and started shooting students in a prayer meeting taking place in the school’s lobby, killing three and leaving another paralyzed. Carneal reportedly was on Ritalin.
• In 2005, 16-year-old Jeff Weise, living on Minnesota’s Red Lake Indian Reservation, shot and killed nine people and wounded five others before killing himself. Weise had been taking Prozac.
• In another famous case, 47-year-old Joseph T. Wesbecker, just a month after he began taking Prozac in 1989, shot 20 workers at Standard Gravure Corp. in Louisville, Kentucky, killing nine. Prozac-maker Eli Lilly later settled a lawsuit brought by survivors.
• Kurt Danysh, 18, shot his own father to death in 1996, a little more than two weeks after starting on Prozac. Danysh’s description of own his mental-emotional state at the time of the murder is chilling: “I didn’t realize I did it until after it was done,” Danysh said. “This might sound weird, but it felt like I had no control of what I was doing, like I was left there just holding a gun.”
• John Hinckley, age 25, took four Valium two hours before shooting and almost killing President Ronald Reagan in 1981. In the assassination attempt, Hinckley also wounded press secretary James Brady, Secret Service agent Timothy McCarthy and policeman Thomas Delahanty.
• One more case is instructive, that of 12-year-old Christopher Pittman, who struggled in court to explain why he murdered his grandparents, who had provided the only love and stability he’d ever known in his turbulent life. “When I was lying in my bed that night,” he testified, “I couldn’t sleep because my voice in my head kept echoing through my mind telling me to kill them.” Christopher had been angry with his grandfather, who had disciplined him earlier that day for hurting another student during a fight on the school bus. So later that night, he shot both of his grandparents in the head with a .410 shotgun as they slept and then burned down their South Carolina home, where he had lived with them. “I got up, got the gun, and I went upstairs and I pulled the trigger,” he recalled. “Through the whole thing, it was like watching your favorite TV show. You know what is going to happen, but you can’t do anything to stop it.” Pittman’s lawyers would later argue that the boy had been a victim of “involuntary intoxication,” since his doctors had him taking the antidepressants Paxil and Zoloft just prior to the murders.
• Andrea Yates, in one of the most heartrending crimes in modern history, drowned all five of her children – aged 7 years down to 6 months – in a bathtub. Insisting inner voices commanded her to kill her children, she had become increasingly psychotic over the course of several years. At her 2006 murder re-trial (after a 2002 guilty verdict was overturned on appeal), Yates’ longtime friend Debbie Holmes testified: “She asked me if I thought Satan could read her mind and if I believed in demon possession.” And Dr. George Ringholz, after evaluating Yates for two days, recounted an experience she had after the birth of her first child: “What she described was feeling a presence … Satan … telling her to take a knife and stab her son Noah,” Ringholz said, adding that Yates’ delusion at the time of the bathtub murders was not only that she had to kill her children to save them, but that Satan had entered her and that she had to be executed in order to kill Satan.Yates had been taking the antidepressant Effexor. In November 2005, more than four years after Yates drowned her children, Effexor manufacturer Wyeth Pharmaceuticals quietly added “homicidal ideation” to the drug’s list of “rare adverse events.” The Medical Accountability Network, a private nonprofit focused on medical ethics issues, publicly criticized Wyeth, saying Effexor’s “homicidal ideation” risk wasn’t well publicized and that Wyeth failed to send letters to doctors or issue warning labels announcing the change.And what exactly does “rare” mean in the phrase “rare adverse events”? The FDA defines it as occurring in less than one in 1,000 people. But since that same year 19.2 million prescriptions for Effexor were filled in the U.S., statistically that means thousands of Americans might experience “homicidal ideation” – murderous thoughts – as a result of taking just this one brand of antidepressant drug. Effexor is Wyeth’s best-selling drug, by the way, which in one recent year brought in over $3 billion in sales, accounting for almost a fifth of the company’s annual revenues.

Paxil’s known “adverse drug reactions” – according to the drug’s FDA-approved label – include “mania,” “insomnia,” “anxiety,” “agitation,” “confusion,” “amnesia,” “depression,” “paranoid reaction,” “psychosis,” “hostility,” “delirium,” “hallucinations,” “abnormal thinking,” “depersonalization” and “lack of emotion,” among others. The preceding examples are only a few of the best-known offenders who had been taking prescribed psychiatric drugs before committing their violent crimes – there are many others.

Whether we like to admit it or not, it is undeniable that when certain people living on the edge of sanity take psychiatric medications, those drugs can – and occasionally do – push them over the edge into violent madness. Remember, every single SSRI antidepressant sold in the United States of America today, no matter what brand or manufacturer, bears a “black box” FDA warning label – the government’s most serious drug warning – of “increased risks of suicidal thinking and behavior, known as suicidality, in young adults ages 18 to 24.” Common sense tells us that where there are suicidal thoughts – especially in a very, very angry person – homicidal thoughts may not be far behind. Indeed, the mass shooters we are describing often take their own lives when the police show up, having planned their suicide ahead of time.

Never lost a lawsuit

Pharmaceutical manufacturers are understandably nervous about publicity connecting their highly lucrative drugs to murderous violence, which may be why we rarely if ever hear any confirmation to those first-day reports from grief-stricken relatives who confide to journalists that the perpetrator was taking psychiatric drugs. After all, who are by far the biggest sponsors of TV news? Pharmaceutical companies, and they don’t want any free publicity of this sort.

The truth is, to avoid costly settlements and public relations catastrophes – such as when GlaxoSmithKline was ordered to pay millions of dollars to the family of 60-year-old Donald Schell who murdered his wife, daughter and granddaughter in a fit of rage shortly after starting on Paxil – drug companies’ legal teams have quietly and skillfully settled hundreds of cases out-of-court, shelling out hundreds of millions of dollars to plaintiffs. Pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly fought scores of legal claims against Prozac in this way, settling for cash before the complaint could go to court while stipulating that the settlement remain secret – and then claiming it had never lost a Prozac lawsuit.

Which brings us back to the key question: When are we going to get official confirmation as to whether Nikolas Cruz, like so many other mass shooters, had been taking psychiatric drugs?