The War Against Drugs of Doom

BIG PHARMA’S PROPAGANDA: HOW LONG-TERM USE OF PSYCHIATRIC DRUGS GAINED MOMENTUM

The war against Drugs of Doom, and when we look at pharmaceutical drugs in general, it becomes more and more apparent that they are among the main drivers of certain illnesses and fatalities. For instance, we have discussed here on ‘The War Room’ the dangerous relationship between psychology and pharmakeia, or the pharmaceutical industry. But, now, today we ought to address the concerning factors driving this relationship. The first is the harm caused by the psychiatric/psychotropic medicines themselves – in particular as it relates to addiction; and the second factor is how much of this is hidden by psychologists and the pharmaceutical company. First, on the dangers of psychiatric so-called medicines, these medicines work by altering the nervous system. Stopping or decreasing too fast is a wrenching physical adjustment that can create the same states the drugs are meant to fix: depression, anxiety, confusion, and more.

But though psychiatric medications have existed since the 1950s, the idea of taking them permanently gained ground around the 1980s, as a biological view of mental “illness” replaced a more psychological one. Drugs like Prozac were promoted as correcting the “chemical imbalance” causing depression, an imbalance that would theoretically be lifelong. Pharmaceutical companies, seeing lifelong patients of psychiatric drugs as a profit making avenue, obviously embraced the idea.

As a result of this, a shift occurred then from defining [mental states] as episodic, temporary experiences to incurable brain diseases. Psychiatric language ALSO shifted from using terms like “reaction” or “disturbance” to “disorder” and “disease.” This was intended in part to reduce stigma. BUT the shift also had striking consequences for big pharma’s ability to have life long patients. This is to say that depression (for example) that is a “reaction” or “disturbance” implies not just a limit but an origin, while “disorder” does not—furthermore, the former terms emphasises cause over chemicals. And this is how the pharmaceutical industry essential manufactured addiction to psychiatric drugs in people – it was through redefining mental illness from being episodic, to being incurable brain diseases.

But, beyond the definitional changes, there was also a practical problem with this shift in seeing mental illness as a chronic suffering. In particular, medications like antipsychotics, anti-anxiety drugs, and antidepressants were in most cases developed for short-term use. Many trials of psychiatric drugs last less than two months, even though the length of time spent on a medication increases the difficulty of stopping it. Which means that the consequences of long-term or chronic use are not well studied, thus making it extremely dangerous for people to use these drugs in the long term.

THE (HIDDEN) ADDICTIVE NATURE OF PSYCHIATRIC DRUGS 

Despite these problems, “staying on meds” has become not just the likely outcome in psychiatry but a test of virtue. “Good” patients stay on meds. Bad patients don’t, often because they’re “so sick they don’t know they’re sick.” The narrative that accompanies this one is that “To take psychiatric drugs is to acknowledge there’s something wrong with you; to shun them means something even worse”. Yet drug withdrawal is far slower and harder than most people, including doctors, realise. In fact the chronic consumption of the drugs is a far greater threat, making withdrawal even harder. Concerningly enough, things that people suffer withdrawal symptoms from are things that they are addicted to! [PAUSE] This is, therefore, PROOF of the addictive nature of psychiatric or psychotropic drugs!

SSRIs: HOW DANGEROUS MUST A DRUG BE BEFORE IT IS PULLED FROM THE MARKET?

So, considering how addictive these drugs are, there must be an assessment of how the pharmaceutical industry (being the producers of the drugs of doom) have responded when their drugs were proven to be harmful. Which brings us to a crucial question on: how dangerous must a drug be before it is pulled from the market? Well, SSRIs are a crucial focus in answering this question. Most holistic doctors consider Selective Serotonin Re-uptake Inhibitors (also known as SSRI) antidepressants to be one of most harmful mass-prescribed drugs on the market. However, unlike the other drugs, which are just unsafe and ineffective, SSRIs also have a fairly unique problem—which is that they can kill people who are NOT even taking the drugs.

More specifically, since SSRIs first entered the market, many have noticed the unusual correlation between their consumption and completely out of character violently psychotic behavior, such as extremely disturbing homicides or suicides being committed by the individual. As the years have gone by, more and more evidence has accumulated (e.g., through lawsuits against the drug companies) that SSRIs cause psychotic violence, and in parallel, as the usage of these drugs has spiked, more and more grisly killings have occurred.

The pharmaceutical lobby and the mainstream media’s response has been to dismiss this as mere correlation that does not point to causation. However, the violent risks of SSRI’s have gradually become more acceptable to talk about (e.g., RFK Jr. has mentioned them during his presidential campaign and not backed down when challenged on the point). In turn, each time a mass shooting happens, the mainstream media would try to monopolise the discussion with the same, tired script, in which they state that we need to ban all guns and have more mental health care (which is code for prescribing more psychiatric meds or SSRIs for everyone). Fortunately, this script is losing its appeal and SSRIs are more and more frequently being mentioned each time a mass shooting happens.

WITH SSRIs CORRELATION DOES (IN FACT) EQUAL CAUSATION

One of the most common arguments used to dismiss the link between SSRIs and psychotic violence is that people who are mentally ill are more likely to be on psyche meds, so the “correlation” between psych meds and psychotic violence is simply a product of pre-existing mental illness and would have happened independently of the psyche med.

However, while claiming “correlation is not causation” makes it possible to refute this link while sounding intelligent in the process, there are a number of major problems with this argument. First, there is a lot of evidence tying SSRI usage to these events, including clinical trial data that was hidden from the public. Second, there is often a black-box warning on the SSRIs for them increasing the risk of suicide, something which can only be possible if some degree of causation does in fact exist. Third, these psychotic events are completely out of character for the individuals who commit them, and in many cases they report a very similar (and disconcerting) narrative of what they experienced prior to and during the shooting.

Furthermore, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (being SSRIs) have a similar primary mechanism of action to cocaine! More specifically, SSRIs block the reuptake of Serotonin, and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (or SNRIs), which are also commonly prescribed, block the reuptake of Serotonin and Nore-pine-phrine (but, henceforth “SSRI refers to both SSRI and SNRI). These are similar to cocaine in that cocaine blocks the reuptake of Serotonin, Norepinephrine, and Dopamine. And so, considering that SSRIs have this chemical effect, much like cocaine does, clearly, correlation between SSRIs and mass shootings or psychotic behaviour DOES equal causation. [PAUSE] And this is why SSRIs keep reappearing in discussions of people with mental illnesses that are found at the centre of mass shootings or other questionable and fatal behaviours.

THE PHARMACEUTICAL LOBBY’S ROLE IN COVERING THE DANGERS OF SSRIs

With what we’ve just discussed: from the addictive nature of psychiatric drugs, to the dangers of SSRIs, immediately, we have to ask why this information is not as mainstream as it should be – especially considering the number of people consuming these drugs. And the reason lies with the pharmaceutical lobby and the tactics that it uses to cover its ills.

The pharmaceutical lobby has been a problem. For instance, through the pharmaceutical lobby and their financed litigations, despite an overwhelming lack of consensus on vaccine efficacy and vaccine mandates, the US has vaccine mandates. You’d recall that by early 2022, government entities at virtually every level in the United States had enacted COVID-19 vaccination requirements. At the federal level, officials in the executive branch imposed vaccination requirements on large employers, health care facilities participating in Medicare and Medicaid, federal contractors, federal employees, and military personnel. State and local governments also imposed a diverse array of vaccination mandates, covering groups such as government employees, public-facing employees of private businesses, and health care workers in some states and cities. And yet (once again) despite widespread public debate about whether vaccination mandates are permissible at all, US courts have decisively rejected the notion that vaccination mandates are not permissible.

This highlights that the US government (and governments in various nations) have long curated policies that insist on the submission of patients to the dictates of doctors and the medical industrial complex at large, because these vaccine mandates are made possible by the pharmaceutical lobby. In fact, a 2005 House of Commons report in the United Kingdom detailed the control and consequences of the pharmaceutical lobby: it stated that “people have been taking ineffective and harmful medicines for centuries… The industry is hugely influential, affecting every aspect of the medical world, including prescribers, patients, academics, the media, and even the institutions designed to regulate it. Its influence in Parliament is extensive… Approximately 90% of clinical drug trials and 70% of trials reported in major medical journals are conducted or commissioned by the pharmaceutical industry.” As the pharmaceutical industry does most of the research, inevitably the industry not only has a major effect on what gets researched, but also how it is researched and how results are interpreted and reported.”Conflicts of interest, financial, political, and legal corruption are commonplace in the pharmaceutical industry.

But, in addition, this lobby is regularly responsible for health scandals, to the point that there is even an epidemic of harmful drug side effects, largely hidden. Meanwhile, these companies could not act without the media intermediary, responsible for spreading and the proselytising of a polluted science. The COVID-19 period has shown a very high level of scientific censorship, causing many people difficulties to access relevant health information. Moreover, the pharmaceutical industries are known for their propaganda in favour of the disease. Pharmaceutical industries are known to provide inaccurate and misleading promotional information about their medicines, but also inaccurate information on diseases and disease risks, which can lead to unnecessary medication and induce side effects caused by these medicines. They pay government officials and even medical practitioners to keep themselves from being exposed. Furthermore, they also capture the mainstream media through advertising revenue, which allows them to regulate what is said about pharmaceutical products.

LONG-TERM USE OF STATINS LINKED TO HEART DISEASE

But, this discussion on drugs of doom, particularly through the pharmaceutical drugs of doom, is not relative to new drugs or recent vaccines. In fact, when we look at some of the older drugs that have been approved and heralded, we’ll discover that the same issues arise. And so, let’s talk about Statins, which were also re-highlighted in the Drugs of Doom documentary. Stantins, which are one of history’s most commonly prescribed drugs, have shaped Western society’s approach to treating heart disease. Akira Endo, a Japanese-born biochemist, discovered statins from mould. His research garnered the attention of pharmaceutical companies, aiming to find a compound that could effectively lower cholesterol—the assumed cause of heart disease. Merck (the pharmaceutical company) ultimately obtained samples of the drug and was “astonished at the potency,” Mr. Endo said in his review, spurring the pharmaceutical company to develop its own statin. Then, in 1987, the FDA approved Merck’s lovastatin, the first commercial statin. But, at the same time, questions began to accumulate about this wonder drug.

STATINS: THE MOST PRESCRIBED DRUG WITH DOWNPLAYED SIDE EFFECTS

Well, for decades, statins have been heralded as reliable heroes in the battle against heart disease, which was said to be the leading cause of death globally. However, a new expert review suggests that long-term use of statins may ACTUALLY be aiding the enemy by accelerating coronary artery calcification instead of providing protection. The review, published in Clinical Pharmacology, suggests that statins may act as “mitochondrial toxins,” impairing muscle function in the heart and blood vessels by depleting coenzyme Q10 (also known as CoQ10), which is an antioxidant that cells use for growth and maintenance. Multiple studies show that statins inhibit CoQ10 synthesis, leading many patients to supplement. Now, CoQ10 is vital for producing what is known as ATP, which is the cell’s fundamental energy carrier. Insufficient CoQ10 inhibits ATP production, resulting in an energy deficit that the review authors say “could be a major cause for heart muscle and coronary artery damage.”

The crucial question that then arises is: “Who’s behind the studies proving statins’ alleged benefits then? Well, it appears that “virtually all of the major clinical trials of statins were funded by the manufacturers—when the drugs were still on patent”! More specifically, in a 2015 investigative meta-analysis published in The Journal of American Cardiology, researchers reviewed all phase 2 and 3 clinical trials in a decade. They found that nearly 80 percent of the trials had a conflict of interest, and almost 60 percent involved more than half of the authors. Of these studies, 54 had favourable outcomes, and only 12 had unfavourable results.

So, as far as statins are concerned, the manufacturers fabricated the data! The financial ties allowed the manufacturers to design the studies and select patients most likely to benefit from and not be harmed by statin therapy. These ties also allowed the manufacturers to not compare the benefit of statin therapy to the benefit of adopting healthy lifestyle habits and to not ask prospectively about side effects. This truly exposes the deceptive works of pharmakeia (the pharmaceutical industry) shown to us in Revelation 18:23!

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso