Search This Blog

Friday 31 July 2015

Autism IS caused by MMR vaccine. Evidence of 'no connection' was fraudulent medical science

  • The MMR vaccine causes Autism. 
  • It is the major reason for the epidemic that has harmed children for many decades.
  • Evidence that there is 'no connection' between the two is fraudulent.
Our Drug Regulators, the pharmaceutical industry, and conventional health professionals, have known this now for many years, and they have turned a blind eye, and failed to inform us about the harm they know they are doing to our children.

The mainstream media have known this now for about a year, but they have failed to inform us about the harm they know conventional medicine is doing to our children.

Our politicians now know this, but they continue to refuse to inform us about the harm they know conventional medicine is doing to our children.

The Age of Autism have published this transcript of a statement made by Congressman Posey to the USA Congress on 29th July 2015. It is based on information provided by Dr William Thompson, a senior scientist at the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), who first reveal the extent of the fraudulent actions of the conventional medical establishment in August 2014.


MR. POSEY: Thank you Mr. Speaker. I arrive today on matters of research and scientific integrity. To begin with, I am absolutely, resolutely pro-vaccine. Advancements in immunization have saved countless lives and have greatly benefited public health.  

     That being said, it’s troubling to me that in a recent senate hearing on childhood vaccination, it was never mentioned that our government has paid out over three billion dollars through a vaccine injury compensation program for children who have been injured by vaccinations. Regardless of the subject matter, parents making decisions about their children’s health deserve to have the best information available to them. They should be able to count on federal agencies to tell them the truth.

     For these reasons, I bring the following matter to the floor. In August, 2014,  Dr. William Thompson, a senior scientist at the Center for Disease Control and Prevention worked with a whistleblower attorney to provide my office with documents related to a 2004 CDC study that examined the possibility of a relationship between the mumps, measles and rubella vaccines and autism.  In a statement released in August, 2014, Dr. Thompson stated 

     “I regret that my co-authors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the Journal of Pediatrics.”

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully request the following excerpts from the statement written by Dr. Thompson be entered into record. (Now quoting Dr. Thompson):

     “My primary job duties while working in the Immunization Safety Branch from 2000 to ’06 were lead or co-lead three major vaccine safety studies—the MADDSP MMR Autism Cases Control study  was being carried out in response to the Wakefield Lancet study that suggested an association between the MMR vaccine and an autism-like health outcome. There were several major concerns among scientists and consumer advocates outside the CDC in the fall of 2000 regarding the execution of the Verstraeten study.

     "One of the important goals that was determined up front in the spring of ’01 before any of these studies started, was to have all three protocols vetted outside the CDC prior to the start of the analyses so that consumer advocates could not claim that we were presenting analyses that presented our own goals and biases. We hypothesized that if we found statistically significant effects at either 18 or 36 month thresholds, we would conclude that vaccinating children early with MMR could lead to autism-like characteristics or features.  We all met and finalized the study protocol and analysis plan. The goal was to not deviate from the analysis plan to avoid the debacle that occurred with the Verstraeten thimerosal study published in Pediatrics in ’03.  At the September 5th meeting, we discussed in detail how to code race for both the sample and the birth certificate sample.

     "At the bottom of Table 7 it also shows that for the non-birth certificate sample, the adjusted race effect statistical significance was huge. All the authors and I met and decided sometime between August and September ’02 not to report any race effects for the paper.  Sometime soon after the meeting, we decided to exclude reporting any race effects, the co-authors scheduled a meeting to destroy documents related to the study.  The remaining four co-authors all met and brought a big garbage can into the meeting room and reviewed and went through all the hard copy documents that we had thought we should discard and put them in a huge garbage can.  However, because I assumed it was illegal and would violate both FOIA and DOJ requests, I kept hard copies of all documents in my office and I retained all associated computer files. I believe we intentionally withheld controversial findings from the final draft of the Pediatrics paper.

Mr. Speaker, I believe it’s our duty to ensure that the documents that Dr. Thompson provided are not ignored. Therefore I will provide them to members of congress and the house committees upon request. Considering the nature of the whistleblower’s documents, as well as the involvement of the CDC, a hearing and a thorough investigation is warranted. So I ask Mr. Speaker, I beg, I implore my colleagues on the appropriations committees to please, please take such action. 

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I yield back.

What this means is that the major concerns about the links between Autism and the MMR vaccine, raised by Dr Andrew Wakefield in the late 1990's, were correct; that the conventional medical establishment moved to counter these concerns; and that to do so, in 2004, they engaged in fraudulent activity that they presented to us as 'medical science'.

It was not medical science!
  • It was an unprincipled conspiracy to defend and support the profits being made by the pharmaceutical industry selling the MMR vaccine. 
  • The mainstream media were threatened into a deafening silence about the safety of vaccines that continues to this day. 
  • Andrew Wakefield lost his job, and his reputation. 
  • Millions of parents were given inaccurate and misleading information about the 'safety' of the MMR vaccine, making it impossible for them to make an 'informed choice' about whether to give the vaccine to their children.
  • The epidemic of Autism was allowed to continue and grow, alongside denials of any connection to the MMR vaccine, and the conventional medical establishment using fraudulent research to defend their view.
Only these question now remains.
  • Will the mainstream media now tell its readers, listeners and viewers the truth?
  • Will the conventional medical establishment inform the public about the link between Autism and the MMR vaccine?
  • Will our politicians instigate a thorough investigation into this matter, and hold those responsible to account through criminal proceedings?
  • Will the pharmaceutical industry now withdraw the MMR vaccination, make appropriate apologies, and pay proper compensation to all their victims, and their families?
Or will the conventional medical establishment seek to ignore this information, try to keep it from becoming known by the general public, and carry on as if nothing has happened.

Thursday 23 July 2015

Solanezumab. A new miracle drug for dementia / Alzheimer's Disease?

Have the pharmaceutical industry discovered a new 'miracle' cure for dementia? They obviously think so, and our mainstream media appears to agree with them. At least, it was prepared yesterday (22nd July 2015) to provide Eli Lilly with free advertising for most of the day! As usual, the BBC boarded the drugs bandwagon with its usual alacrity, giving the drug maximum news coverage in each of their news bulletins for most of the day. Fergus Walsh, the BBC's Health Correspondent, was beside himself with excitement!

Dr Eric Siemers, from the drug company Eli Lilly is quoted by the BBC saying:

"It's another piece of evidence that solanezumab does have an effect on the underlying disease pathology. We think there is a chance that solanezumab will be the first disease-modifying medication to be available."

Dr Eric Karran, director of research at Alzheimer's Research UK (a patient support organisation known to be funded in large part by the pharmaceutical industry) is quoted as telling BBC News:

"If this gets replicated, then I think this is a real breakthrough in Alzheimer's research. Then, for the first time, the medical community can say we can slow Alzheimer's, which is an incredible step forward. These data need replicating, this is not proof, but what you can say is it is entirely consistent with a disease-modifying effect.

The BBC News coverage appeared to have no such reserve. There has never been a drug available before to treat dementia. So this is wonderful news! Now the prospect of a treatment to delay (not stop, or reverse) the disease might be available - if we wait another 3 years time. They offered us a married couple who were hoping for a cure for the wife. They offered us a collection of people from the conventional medical establishment, to speak up for the new drug. They offered us little that questioned what the drug companies wanted us to know.

Eli Willy must have been delighted with the advertising that was, delivered to the entirely free of charge. They must also have been delighted that their press release remained unquestioned, unexamined, and that no searching questions were asked.

The BBC have, of course, been long-time supporters of the pharmaceutical drugs industry! And they have been reporting conventional medical breakthroughs for dementia for many years, at least back to 2007 (I have not bothered to go back further!)

29 April 2007. "Scientists 'reverse' memory loss".
11 June 2008. "Dual action Alzhemer's drug hope".
29 July 2008. "Praise for new Alzheimer's drug".
29 July 2008. "Alzheimer's drug 'halts' decline.
6 May 2009. "Drug Trials 'reverse' Alzheimers".

Yet never once did they ask - what has happened to these medical breakthroughs? Why have we been told about such breakthrough so often, with so little outcome? How long will we have to wait for this drug? Why did two earlier trials of this drug end in failure?

And, true to form, the question of side effects, or disease-inducing-effects, were never once mentioned. Despite the record of the pharmaceutical drugs industry, the safety of drugs does not appear to be of any interest to our mainstream media.

  • It is all good news - but for the future. 
  • It is all good new - perhaps until patients are given the drug, and find that they contract other diseases.

And, true to form, the central question - what is the cause of the Alzheimer's epidemic -  was never asked.

Without any doubt one of the main causes of the current epidemic of dementia and Alzheimer's Disease are pharmaceutical drugs! 

So should the media not have ask the question about whether people who are worried about, or suffering from early stage dementia, would not be better avoid drugs such as Benzodiazepines, Antidepressants, Anticholinergics, and not least, the Influenza vaccine?

No, of course not! Our media seems to think it is better for us not to know about these things! Perhaps they believe it is too upsetting for us. Perhaps they think it is easier to go along, meekly and cravenly, with the official line of the conventional medical establishment! Perhaps it is lazy journalism, it being easier to parrot a press release than to ask serious questions, especially when that involves challenging the conventional medical establishment about its drug safety record, and the history of drug company corruption and fraud.

Perhaps they believe it is not right to question whether drug companies are causing disease with their drugs and vaccines, and then coming up with other drugs in order to deal with the diseases they have caused in the first place!

So this blog will seek to follow the future triumphs of Solanezumab. It is already noteworthy to suggest that we have been through this hype before, that we have only the drug companies assurance about the results of the tests, and that even then, it is only delaying the decline, not arresting or reversing it. The costs, financial and personal, will only become apparent over time.

Should doctors recommend Homeopathy?

A doctor has recently published a bold statement about the value of conventional medical treatment. It is doing the rounds on the website, the Natural and Integrative Medicine group. I quote it here in full.
As a retired physician I can honestly say unless you are in a serious accident, your best chance of living to a ripe old age is to avoid doctors and hospitals and learn about nutrition, herbal medicine and other forms of natural medicine unless you are fortunate enough to have a naturopathic physician available.
Almost all drugs are toxic and are designed only to treat symptoms and not to cure anyone. 
Vaccines are highly dangerous, have never, been adequately studied or proven to be effective and have a poor risk/reward ratio. 
Most surgery is unnecessary and most textbooks of medicine are inaccurate and deceptive. Almost every disease is said to be idiopathic (without known cause) or genetic-although this is untrue. In short our mainstream medical system is hopelessly inept/and or corrupt. 
The treatment of cancer and degenerative diseases is a national scandal. The sooner you learn this the better off you will be"
The dangers and lack of effectiveness of conventional medicine, and its huge and unacceptable costs, are not as well known as they should be. Our media is silent on all the health issues raised in the doctor's statement, although regular readers of this blog will be better informed.

What this doctor is saying, honestly, is that conventional medicine is not something anyone should seek, except perhaps in an emergency.

There does appear to be a move away by the conventional medical establishment that dominates the NHS from their slavish long-term slavish adherence to pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. For example, exercise and nutritional guidance is being given more attention, as is the hitherto unquestioned trust in antipsychotic and antidepressant drugs in favour of counselling and psychological-based therapies.

And the British Medical Journal, (BMJ), one of the pillars of conventional medical establishment in Britain, has recently published an article, and conducted a poll, asking the simple question:

Should doctors recommend Homeopathy?

The article consisted of Peter Fisher, director of research, Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine, arguing for "Yes", and Edzard Ernst, emeritus professor, University of Exeter, arguing for "No".

Such BMJ polls have sometimes attracted as many as 500 votes, although most barely attract 100 votes. This particular poll attracted over 5,000 votes!

Homeopathy is always capable of provoking a good discussion!

The result has surprised many homeopaths, including myself, who expected the rabid 'homeopathy denialists' from Sense about Science, and conventional doctors, would come out in large numbers to support the "No" vote. However, the "Yes" vote won, convincingly.

Yes: 3,193 (62%)
No: 1,944 (38%)
Total votes cast: 5,137

So the tide certainly seems to be turning. Conventional drugs and vaccines are proving to be so dangerous that doctors are increasingly unable to prescribe them, and so ineffective there is little point doing so.

Meanwhile, the pharmaceutical companies seem entirely intent on maximising their profits, and continually lie about the safety and effectiveness of their products. Their regular corruption and fraudulent activity, their apparent inability to keep themselves out of court, must be deeply nauseating to supporters of conventional drug-based medicine.

And as evidence of drug harm begins to filter through, patients are increasingly looking for safer and more effective medical therapies.

The time for more choice in health care is on its way in Britain. Perhaps the NHS is now being forced to recognise that will no longer be able to support the conventional medical monopoly it has been running for much longer.

Thursday 16 July 2015

Drug Regulation. Pharmaceutical drugs that have killed people, and caused disease, have all been approved.

Pharmaceutical drug regulation system has failed patients

Every pharmaceutical drug and vaccine that has been found to cause disease, and are known to have killed people, have passed through the regulatory process designed to protect patients!

So this poster is not a joke - it is real.


The drug regulatory system should ensure all the following:

  • drug companies have thoroughly researched the drug
  • drug companies have thoroughly test the drug, to prove that it works, and if safe for patients to take.
  • Drug regulators, in every country, thoroughly review the evidence prior to approving and giving a licence to any particular drug.
So it must be self evidently true that all the drugs and vaccines that have caused side effects, adverse reactions, disease and death - and most conventional drugs and vaccines do all these things - have "slipped through the net".

Actually, there is no realistic net. The drug regulators in every country, including the FDA in the USA, and the MHRA in Britain, is dominated by Big Pharma place-men who see their role as safeguarding pharmaceutical profits rather than protecting patients.

Most conventional pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines harm patients. Most of them actually cause disease. Many of them are known to kill patients.

What should we learn from this? There can be no assumption that any drug or vaccine approved by drug regulators can be trusted not to harm us.

Wednesday 15 July 2015

Older Pharmaceutical Drugs. Read how they have been harming patients for centuries

The Conventional Medical Establishment has been developing and giving us drugs for centuries, and most of them have proven to be either useless, or dangerous, or more often, both. 

These ‘older drugs’ were used in the 18th and 19th centuries, and some into the first half of the 20th century, before the spectacular rise of the big pharmaceutical companies, which were to become so powerful, so influential, and which now dominate the conventional medical establishment. 

These are no longer used, but are regularly referred to in historical novels! They demonstrate that conventional drugs have always been dangerous, that they have always harmed patients, and that the rise of the pharmaceutical industry was not based on any prior success in the treatment of illness and disease.

Antimony tells us much about medieval and pre-20th century medicine, and the medical practitioners of the pre-modern era, the predecessors of our current doctors. They routinely used highly toxic drugs to treat illness and disease. What links the modern doctor with those of earlier centuries was the understanding that the sick body is a malfunctioning machine whose chemistry must be forced back into submission and good order.

Antimony was a drug used in medicine from about 900ad, and it was still being used by conventional medical practitioners at the turn of the 20th century. Antimony was a powerful purgative and emetic combined, and it held an almost magical hold over conventional medicine for over a millennium. 

Purgative and emetic drugs, alongside enemas and bloodletting, were all highly prized means of 'purifying' the body, used to 'wash away' the 'putrid matter' that was perceived to be the reason for ill-health.

It should be remembered that during medieval times the origin of disease was widely believed to be spiritual, the supernatural governed our vital powers. So during these more religious times, both the disease and the drug used to treat it was seen as a punishment from God, retribution for some form of personal sin or wickedness. People believed that they were ill because they had been sinful. 

Yet whereas wickedness was regarded as the definitive cause of disease, its manifestation was in the putrid matter found within the body. So not only must the sin be expunged, the putrid matter must also be forcibly expelled too, regardless of the cost to the patient, the sinner. The body needed to be purged in order to cleanse and heal from both disease and sin. 

If this was so, then Antimony was indeed a suitable punishment! We now know that just by breathing Antimony for a time irritates eyes and lungs, and can cause stomach ulcers, heart and lung problems. No doubt its medicinal use caused considerable pain, disease, and death to those unsuspecting patients who were given the drug.

           "If the cure was infinitely worse than the disease, the prospect of a treatment capable of eliminating all corruption from the body, was surely irresistible. In the last resort, the triumph of hope over experience may explain why antimony enjoyed such an enduring popularity." 
Rawcliffe, Carole, Antimony in Medical History by R Ian McCallum, Pentland Press, book review, BMJ 2000; 320: 879 [25 March].

It was purgative drugs like Antimony, extolled by the conventional medical establishment of its day as being so virtuous and efficacious, that Samuel Hahnemann sought to extricate himself. Homeopathy was the result.

Yet whilst conventional medicine has now also extricated itself from the use of Antimony, as well as practices such as bloodletting, blistering, emetics and purgatives, the same love of toxicity, the need for medicine to have a physical and/or chemical effect on the body, remains apparent in conventional medical practice today. 

Calomel, also known as quicksilver, is a drug based on the deadly poison, mercury. It had a long and tragic history in the sphere of human health. It was used for a variety of physical and mental ailments, and was taken internally as a laxative and disinfectant, as well as a treatment for syphilis. 

Calomel was highly toxic, and its toxicity was made worse because the mercury accumulates in the body over time as a poison.

Conventional medicine used calomel into the beginning of the 20th century. It was believed to be an effective purgative that released the 'impurities' from the sick patient. It also did irreversible damage to the body, including the loss of hair and teeth, and was ultimately the cause of many deaths. Some of its historical uses involved important historical figures. The physicians attending General Washington, during his final hours, gave the dying President calomel. Louisa May Alcott (the author of Little Women) suffered from the drug.

Dr James Hamilton, a distinguished Edinburgh physician, in his book "Observations on the Use and Abuse of Mercurial Medicine" published in 1819, was one of the first studies of drug side-effects. He said that whilst the immediate side-effects of Calomel were rare, its long-term action might be much more insidious, especially in children, and just as deadly. Griggs (p194) describes his argument:

"He suggested that a great many of the major health problems of the day, as well as much general ill-health and debility, were due to constant dosing with calomel. He was frightened by the alarming rise in the incidence of convulsions - 'all those fatal conversions to the head, which of late years have so frequently taken place in the fevers of children' - and by 'the daily increasing ravages of hereditary scrofulous disorders' that tuberculous infection of the lymph nodes in the neck which produced the huge disfiguring ulcers known as The Kings Evil. Hamilton became more and more convinced that both could be laid at the door of calomel, and he strongly suspected that this drug might also be a factor in the upsurge in numbers of deaths from ordinary tuberculosis”.

It took another 100 years before Calomel finally fell out of use within the conventional medical establishment!

Watch most movies, or read most books set in the 18th and 19th Centuries, and the drug Laudanum will often feature. It appears to have been the conventional medical ‘drug of choice’ for a variety of conditions and illnesses for a very long time.

What many people do not realise is that it is still around, and that it is still being prescribed in many countries, although, of course, with a different name. It is still present in many conventional ‘medicines’, and many of us were given it as children, and can still give to our children today!

Gee’s Linctus!

Laudanum is a drug based on opium. It is a tincture containing almost all of the opium alkaloids, including morphine and codeine. Its use dates back to the 16th Century, and Paracelsus. It is a highly potent narcotic and extremely addictive. Laudanum was used to treat a variety of ailments until the 20th Century. 

Today it is usually referred to as ‘tincture of opium’, and can still be prescribed in countries such as the USA and Britain.

Laudanum was used to treat coughs, sleeplessness, diarrhoea, and pain, including menstrual cramping, but as Wikipedia confirms, it was “widely prescribed for ailments from colds to meningitis to cardiac diseases”

It was routinely used for children, and widely used in epidemics of cholera, dysentery and yellow fever in the 19th Century, and also for diseases such as dropsy (Oedema), consumption (TB) and rheumatism.

The side effects and adverse reactions to Laudanum, tincture of opium are well known. They are a refinement of those known since the 19th Century.

Difficulty having a bowel movement (stool)
hives or welts
blurred vision
blue lips and fingernails
chest pain or discomfort
cold sweats
constricted, pinpoint, or small pupils (black part of eye)
cool, clammy skin
coughing that sometimes produces a pink frothy sputum
difficult, fast, or noisy breathing, sometimes with wheezing
difficult or troubled breathing
difficulty sleeping
dizziness, faintness, lightheadedness
drowsiness to profound coma
fast heartbeat
increased hunger
increased sweating
irregular, fast or slow, or shallow breathing
mood or other mental changes
no blood pressure or pulse
no muscle tone or movement
not breathing
pale or blue lips, fingernails, or skin
shortness of breath
slow or irregular heartbeat
slurred speech
stopping of heart
swelling in legs and ankles
unusual tiredness or weakness
Itching skin
redness of skin
skin rash

Yet whilst Laudanum is no longer widely proscribed it can apparently still be purchased through conventional chemists on the High Street, and on the internet! Gee’s Linctis. One chemist describes it as “a trusted name for cough relief for generations”.

The side effects given on a packet of Gee’s Linctus include nausea, sickness, constipation, drowsiness, confusion, loss of appetite, diarrhoea, stomach pain, shortage of breath, difficulty in urinating, skin itching and flushing, rash, low blood pressure. And “prolonged use may lead to tolerance (the medicine loses its effect) and dependence’.

Not much changes then! Including the willingness of the conventional medical establishment to continue giving us harmful and dangerous drugs, even to our children.

Tuesday 14 July 2015

The dangers of Antipsychotic Drugs

Antipsychotic drugs are drugs that treat psychosis, a medical term that means that you might suffer from hallucinations, hearing or seeing things, or have delusions, having ideas of beliefs that are not shared by other people around you. These ‘psychotic’ symptoms can be experienced as part of mental health conditions like schizophrenia, personality disorder and bipolar disorder. However, antipsychotic drugs are also used for conditions such as dementia.

Antipsychotic drugs are the main response of the conventional medical establishment for the treatment of mental illness. Roger Whittaker, in his book “Anatomy of an Epidemic” (2010), described these as "powerful psychotropic, mind-altering drugs"

"Aside from the immediate risk of death, another serious and widespread problem caused by these drugs is excessive weight gain and metabolic problems like diabetes. The effect varies by drug, but children typically gain TWICE as much weight in the first six months on these drugs as they should through normal growth, adding an average of two to three inches to their waistline. A lot of this is abdominal fat, which also increases their risk of diabetes and heart disease".

Antipsychotic drugs come in many different and confusing names. These include Acepromazine (Plegicil), Amisulpride (Solian), Amoxapine (Asendin), Aripiprazole (Abilify), Asenapine (Saphris, Sycrest), Benperidol (Anguil, Benguil, Frenactil, Glianimon), Blonanserin (Lonasen), Bromperidol (Bromodol, Impromen), Carpipramine (Defekton, Prazinil), Clocapramine (Clofekton, Padrasen), Chlorpromazine (Largactil, Thorazine), Chlorprothixene (Cloxan, Taractan, Truxal), Clopenthixol (Sordinol), Clotiapine (Entumine, Etomine, Etumine), Clozapine (Clozaril), (Haldol), Cyamemazine (Tercian), Dixyrazine (Esucos), Droperidol (Droleptan, Inapsine), Fluphenazine (Modecate, Permitil, Prolixin), Flupentixol (Depixol, Fluanxol), Fluspirilene (Imap), Haloperidol (Haldol, Serenace), Haloperidol (Haldol, Serenace), Iloperidone (Fanapt, Fanapta, Zomaril), Levomepromazine (Levinan, Levoprome, Nozinan), Loxapine (Adasuve, Loxitane), Lurasidone (Latuda), Mesoridazine (Lidanil, Serentil), Melperone (Buronil, Buronon, Eunerpan, Melpax, Neuril), Molindone (Moban), Moperone (Luvatren), Mosapramine (Cremin), Nemonapride (Emilace), Olanzapine (Zyprexa), Paliperidone (Invega), Penfluridol (Semap), Perazine (Peragal, Perazin, Pernazinum, Taxilan), Pericyazine (Neulactil, Neuleptil), Perospirone (Lullan), Pimozide (Orap), Perphenazine (Trilafon), Pimozide (Orap), Pipamperone (Dipiperon, Piperonil), Pipotiazine (Lonseren, Piportil), Prochlorperazine (Compazine), Promazine (Prozine, Sparine), Promethazine (Avomine, Phenergan), Prothipendyl (Dominal), Quetiapine (Seroquel), Remoxipride (Roxiam), Risperidone (Risperdal), Sertindole (Serdolect, Serlect), Sulpiride (Dolmatil, Meresa), Sultopride (Barnetil, Topral), Thioproperazine (Majeptil), Thioridazine (Aldazine, Mellaril, Melleril), Timiperone (Celmanil, Tolopelon), Tiotixene (Navane, Thixit), Trifluoperazine (Stelazine), Triflupromazine (Vesprin), Veralipride (Agreal), Trimipramine (Surmontil), Ziprasidone (Geodon, Zeldox), Zuclopenthixol (Acuphase, Cisordinol, Clopixol), Zotepine (Lodopin, Losizopilon, Nipolept, Setous) and, in the interests of obfuscation, no doubt many more!

The History of the Drug
There are two issues about antipsychotic drugs. The first are the drugs themselves, and the harm they are known to do to human health. The second is the enormous rise in the number of people who are being diagnosed with ‘mental illness’, and thus, allegedly, requiring these drugs. These two factors, together, make antipsychotic drugs some of the most controversial of all drugs.

Whittaker, for instance, says that since 1987, the percentage of the US population receiving federal disability payments for mental illness has more than doubled. And that among children under the age of 18, the percentage has grown by a factor of 35.

This MedPage article looks specifically at the link between anti-psychotic medication and diabetes in children. Indeed, much of the increased use of anti-psychotic drugs in recent years has been for the 'treatment' of children and young people.

Yet it is accepted that children and young people are more vulnerable to the side effects of antipsychotic drugs! A Channel 4 television programme undertook a survey that exposed that as many as 15,000 children and young people under 18 were prescribed antipsychotics drugs in 2010. However, this figure included only doctor prescriptions, and excluded hospital prescriptions, so the real figure was probably considerably hight

This Child Health Safety article outlines how these harmful, mind-altering drugs have been given to children, some of them less than a year old.

In a study published in the journal of American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, January 2010, it was found that the number of children, aged 2-5, being given antipsychotics had doubled “in recent years”.

And although this drugging (of children and adults) is going on around the world there is little evidence that antipsychotic drugs do any good. The British Medical Journal (BMJ) published a “Review on the current use of antipsychotic drugs in children and adolescents”  and it stated there was 'no information about the efficacy or safety of anti-pyschotics in your people'

So much for 'evidence-based medicine! 

Yet perhaps it is older people who have suffered most from anti-psychotic drugs. Much attention has been paid to this problem in recent times, even within conventional medical circles, as these drugs are known to kill. And in particular, they kill older people. This article, in the GP magazine ‘Pulse’ makes it clear that GPs are, or at least should be, aware that anti-psychotic drugs cause death in older people.

A large analysis of older patients in nursing homes, published in the British Medical Journal, looked at 75,500 new users of antipsychotics aged 65 years or older. Over five years it found haloperidol had doubled the risk of mortality compared with the most commonly used antipsychotic, risperidone. The researchers concluded that "the use of haloperido (an anti-psychotic) to this vulnerable population cannot be justified, because of the excess harm”. Perhaps they should also have said that risperidone also cannot be justified - but they didn’t.

          "...... it was confirmed by the team that the use of antipsychotics by dementia patients is responsible for a surge in drug-related deaths, presumably as a result of negative side effects both internally to the body, and externally in the form of altered behavior. The findings also confirmed previous ones that identified an uptick in at least 1,800 additional deaths a year as a result of dementia patients taking antipsychotic drugs.

This stark message to doctors was repeated again in the GP magazine, Pulse, in February 2012. Why? Apparently because the original message had been ignored! This was confirmed in a further article, in March 2012, stating that: "... a Pulse investigation revealed that PCTs were failing to implement a major NHS programme seen by ministers as key to their campaign to cut the use of drugs".

So, it would seem that even if government issues a direct instruction, and makes serious threats to doctors, the Conventional Medical Establishment is so hooked on giving us drugs regardless of the limited evidence for their efficacy, and despite the extensive evidence that anti-psychotic drugs are dangerous, it steadfastly refuses to do so.

So how much trust can anyone place on a medical system that does this?

Known side-effects (DIEs)
So just how dangerous are anti-psychotic drugs? The brain is certainly our most sensitive organ we have, and in terms of who we are, as individuals, it the most important. Yet there is little that the conventional medical establishment will refuse to tamper with!

The idea that pharmaceutical drugs do more harm than good to those who take them is not a new one. Robert Whittaker in his book, "Anatomy of an Epidemic”, published in 2010, comes to just this conclusion. He contends that as recently as the 1950’s the four major mental disorders, depression, anxiety disorder, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, often manifested as ‘episodic’ or ‘self limiting’ events, and that most people simply got better over time. Severe, chronic mental illness was viewed as relatively rare. Now, with the emergence of antipsychotic drugs people with ‘mental health’ problems can be on drugs for many years, if not a lifetime.

The side effects of Antipsychotics drugs are numerous and severe. They are well summarised in the website, and this synopsis is largely based on this.

Neuromuscular side effects
Antipsychotics interfere with the brain chemical dopamine, which is important in controlling movement. This is more common with older antipsychotics, and much less likely with the newer drugs. Some of the side effects include: 
loss of movement
muscle spasms.

Some side effects resemble Parkinson’s disease, which is caused by the loss of dopamine:
• Muscles become stiff and weak, so that your face may lose its animation, and you find fine movement difficult.
• You may develop a slow tremor (shaking), especially in your hands.
• Your fingers may move as if you were rolling a pill.
• When walking, you may lean forward, take small steps, and find it difficult to start and stop.
• Your mouth may hang open and you may find you are dribbling.

Loss of movement
You may find it difficult to move, and your muscles may feel very weak. This may make people think you are depressed. 

You may feel intensely restless and unable to sit still. This is more than just a physical restlessness and can make you feel emotionally tense and uneasy, as well.
You may rock from foot to foot, shuffle your legs, cross or swing your legs repeatedly, or continuously pace up and down.

Muscle spasms
These are acute muscle contractions that are uncontrolled and may be painful. They particularly affect young men. If the problem affects the muscles of your voice box (larynx), you may find it difficult to speak normally (dysphonia). This can make you very self-conscious and may make it hard for people to understand you. 

If the muscle spasms affect the muscles that control your eye movements (oculogyric crisis), it makes the eyes turn suddenly, so that you can’t control where you look. This is both very unpleasant and may be dangerous e.g. if it happens while you are crossing the road, or pouring hot water. It can also be very disconcerting for people around you. 

It perhaps should be noted that the solution offered by the website (an organisation deeply committed to the use of drugs for the treatment of mental health) is to take drugs used in Parkinson’s disease, a prime example of disease, caused by pharmaceutical drugs, and treated with other drugs which have equally dangerous side effects.

Many antipsychotics cause seizures (fits) in some people, and should be used with caution if you have had seizures before. 

Sexual side effects 
Prolactin is the hormone which causes the breasts to produce milk, so levels of prolactin are normally low, except in women who are pregnant or breast-feeding. However, many antipsychotic drugs cause levels of prolactin to rise. Abnormally high levels are related to some very common sexual side effects for both women and men:

• Breast development and the production of breast milk. This can affect men as well as women
• A drop in sexual desire can make both men and women less easily aroused. Some drugs can interfere with erection and affect ejaculation.
• A persistent erection of the penis without sexual arousal (priapism). This is rare, but if it occurs you should treat it as an emergency and seek medical advice, because it may cause serious harm to the penis.
• Spontaneous ejaculation. 
• Loss of menstrual cycle, vaginal dryness, unwanted hair and acne may occur in women.
• The changes to your sex hormones may cause osteoporosis, which means your bones become weaker and more likely to break. This is a serious risk for both men and women.

Some of the newer antipsychotics have less effect on prolactin and produce fewer of these problems. Women who change from an older to a newer antipsychotic should bear in mind that this may cause prolactin levels to drop back down. This may cause your periods to return and you might need to think about contraception.

Effects on the heart
Many antipsychotics have effects on the heart rhythm, which in some cases, linked to high doses and to people being on more than one antipsychotic at the same time, have caused sudden death. People on high doses of antipsychotics should be given an ECG before treatment starts and every one to three months, while the dose remains high. Whatever your dose, if you have unexplained blackouts, you should have your heart rhythm monitored. Some antipsychotics also cause your heart to beat faster than usual, and palpitations. 

Antimuscarinic (also called anticholinergic) side effects
This is a medical name for a set of side effects caused by changes in the levels of the chemical messenger acetylcholine, which has important effects all over the body. These effects are more common with the older drugs. They include:

• drowsiness
• dry mouth which can cause tooth decay
• blurred vision
• dizziness
• feeling sick
• difficulty passing water
• rapid heartbeat
• constipation which may be severe enough to be life-threatening if not treated
• low blood pressure. This is especially risky in older and frail people, when it may  contribute to falls; hot baths increase the risk.

Sleepiness is a common side effect with antipsychotics.

Eye problems
Various antipsychotics may be responsible for different eye disorders. These include blurred vision and difficulty reading; a build up of granular deposits in the cornea and lens (which doesn’t usually affect sight); degeneration of the retina (the light-sensitive part of the eye) that restricts vision and may be serious; an oculogyric crisis and glaucoma (increased pressure inside the eye). Any antipsychotic can cause narrow-angle glaucoma, which is a medical emergency. You should not take some of the older antipsychotics if you have had glaucoma (see The different types of antipsychotics).

Weight gain
Weight gain is a very common side effect with many antipsychotics, including most of the newer ones, and causes a lot of distress. It is linked to increased appetite and decreased activity, but is mainly caused by changes in metabolism - by the way your body uses food and converts it to energy or stores it as fat. This means that dieting may not make much difference, although it will certainly help if you eat healthily. You may put on a lot of weight, and this may increase your risk of developing diabetes, and other physical health problems.

Metabolic syndrome
Some side effects may be referred to as ‘metabolic syndrome’. The main symptoms are:
• weight gain and obesity
• high blood sugar and diabetes
• high blood pressure
• high cholesterol.

These put people at risk of heart disease, stroke and diabetes. The risk is increased if you drink sugary fizzy drinks and eat a lot of fatty, sugary foods. Metabolic syndrome is thought to cause a two- to three-fold increase in the risk of death from cardiovascular disease.

Blood disorders
A number of blood disorders are linked to antipsychotics. The most serious is agranulocytosis, a serious blood disorder, which involves the loss of one type of white blood cell. It means that you are more likely to catch infections and less able to fight them, and some people have died because of this. It’s very rare with the older antipsychotics, and is mainly associated with clozapine. If you are getting sore throats, or mouth ulcers, a fever or chills, these may be signs that your immune system is not working as well as it should, and you should see your doctor.
Blood clotting disorders also occur with many antipsychotics. These include deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary thrombosis (blood clot in the lung) which may be life-threatening.

Skin problems
There are various skin problems that may occur. If you get a rash, you should go to the doctor straight away.
• Any allergic rashes usually occur within the first two months of starting treatment and disappear when the drug is stopped.
• Some types of skin may develop a blue-grey discolouration.
• Your skin may become more sensitive to sunlight, especially at high doses, so you should protect yourself from the sun.

Neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS)
This is a neurological complication that is thought to occur in about 1 in 100 of hospital patients taking antipsychotic drugs. It can be very dangerous if it’s not detected and treated, but the symptoms can also cause it to be mistaken for an infection. Although the criteria for making the diagnosis are not clear, in 11% of those with NMS it may be fatal. The symptoms are:

• sweating or fever, with a high temperature
• tremor, rigidity or loss of movement
• difficulty speaking and swallowing
• changes in consciousness, from lethargy and confusion to stupor or coma
• rapid heartbeat, very rapid breathing and changes in blood pressure.

Blood tests show abnormal results. NMS develops rapidly over 24 to 72 hours, and rigidity and a high temperature are usually the first symptoms to appear.

Tardive dyskinesia (TD)
TD is a disorder which causes abnormal, uncontrollable, disfiguring, and embarrassing movements. These usually start in the face and mouth, as involuntary tongue movements, twitching in your face, and slight grimacing. The problem can spread to the rest of the body, with writhing movements in the limbs, muscle spasms, tremors and tics.

Other physical effects
• Liver disorders and jaundice are sometimes linked to using these drugs.
• You may have problems with regulating body temperature. It may be too high or too low, both of which may make you feel a little unwell.
• Bed-wetting may occur, especially with newer antipsychotics.

Emotional effects
Antipsychotics can sometimes make you more excited, agitated and aggressive. They can also make you feel depressed. Some may have an antidepressant effect, although the available information about this is contradictory. Some drugs make you feel emotionally uneasy and restless, or give you bizarre dreams and disturb your sleep. They can make you feel out of touch with reality and more withdrawn socially, like being in a very familiar environment like a group of friends or family but feeling very detached from them, and 'alone in a crowd'.

Tardive psychosis
Sometimes, you get new psychotic symptoms while you are taking antipsychotics or after you have taken them for long periods of time. The drugs act by blocking dopamine receptors in the brain, and if you have taken the drugs for a long time, the brain responds by creating new receptors to replace those that are blocked. Existing receptors may also become super-sensitive to dopamine. This is called tardive psychosis, meaning psychosis that is a delayed effect. This means that you need to take higher doses to maintain the antipsychotic effects.

The possibility of tardive psychosis is one reason why antipsychotics should be withdrawn gradually - especially if you have been taking them for a long time - giving the brain time to readjust. In other words, antipsychotic drug have serious withdrawal symptoms.