“Being penalized for working the equivalent of two jobs to keep my bills paid seems just a wee bit counterintuitive.
What really gets my goat is that some of the wealthiest in this great nation aren’t paying their fair share. Some use tax loopholes to avoid paying anything, while simultaneously receiving tax rebates.
Call me a few sammies short of a picnic, but just because something is legal doesn’t mean it’s right.”
“What bugs me the most about this baloney is that the money being squirrelled away by all these corporations isn’t going where it should: to benefit the citizens of the country where these galoots are fortunate enough to operate.
Their profits are going through the roof while average Canadians work multiple jobs and struggle to provide their kids with the necessities of life.”
“As a single mother of three who’s given up eating meat, getting haircuts and drives a second-hand 2006 Chevy to make ends meet, I’m damned if I’m going to get stuck with a tax bill when there are billions of dollars hidden away in corporate Canada’s coffers, earning interest.”
Tax time is over, and I’m stuck paying. Again.
Thanks to our government eliminating deductions faster than Drake drops hits, it’s getting harder each year to avoid owing. Funny — I thought the government taxed things they didn’t want you to do: smoke, drink, have fun of any kind.
Being penalized for working the equivalent of two jobs to keep my bills paid seems just a wee bit counterintuitive.
What really gets my goat is that some of the wealthiest in this great nation aren’t paying their fair share. Some use tax loopholes to avoid paying anything, while simultaneously receiving tax rebates.
Call me a few sammies short of a picnic, but just because something is legal doesn’t mean it’s right.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m grateful to live in a country where I can fall on a fork and be able to receive medical treatment, all without opening my wallet. I get that everything comes at a price. I’m fine with paying my share to keep schools open, roads paved and parks beautiful.
What twigged me to this ridiculousness was what I read online last week. Apparently, U.S. mega-corporation Amazon doesn’t pay a dime in taxes. In fact, it’s now in the enviable position of having a tax rate of negative one per cent.
This according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, which reported in February 2019 that despite doubling its profits to $11.2 billion in 2018, not only did Amazon not pay the statutory 21 per cent income tax rate on its U.S. income last year, it actually reported a federal income tax rebate of $129 million. This sweet deal is due in part to a variety of tax credits, in addition to a tax break for executive stock options.
At first, I just shook my head and pitied my American friends. I didn’t think that kind of blatant inequity could happen here. A gander at the world wide web enlightened me otherwise.
Back in 2017, a Toronto Star investigative team tried to discover just how Canadian corporate taxation (or lack thereof) has evolved since 1952. In case you didn’t know, that was the last year corporate and personal income tax were equal in our great land. Since then, the Star report says that gap has widened, with personal income tax adding up to $145 billion in 2015, when corporate taxes were a relatively modest $41 billion.
What else did the Star’s team find after examining the tax filings of Canada’s 102 largest corporations? Disgustingly, these companies used complex techniques and tax loopholes to avoid a whopping $62.9 billion worth of taxes between 2011 and 2016.
What bugs me the most about this baloney is that the money being squirrelled away by all these corporations isn’t going where it should: to benefit the citizens of the country where these galoots are fortunate enough to operate.
Their profits are going through the roof while average Canadians work multiple jobs and struggle to provide their kids with the necessities of life.
We watch hospital wait times increase, roads fall apart, and child poverty soar, while Canada’s corporate CEOs are earning bonuses larger than the yearly incomes of multiple families.
Not only is it morally reprehensible for this to go on, it just doesn’t make fiscal sense at a time when federal and provincial governments are struggling to balance their budgets while still providing services to Canadians.
It’s not like we aren’t paying our fair share. When you add up sales, property and income taxes, as well as all the other taxes we pay, the Fraser Institute says the average Canadian family paid a breathtaking 43.1 per cent of its total income in tax in 2017.
The think tank went on to say that “since 1961, the average Canadian family’s total tax bill increased by 2,112 per cent, dwarfing increases in annual housing costs (1,480 per cent), clothing (732 per cent), and food (625 per cent). Even after accounting for inflation, the tax bill has still increased 166.4 per cent over this period.”
Canadian corporations are using tax loopholes and offshore accounts to avoid paying taxes, while tax deductions for average Canadians are disappearing faster than ice cubes in August. I used to be able to deduct my year’s worth of monthly bus passes, but that went the way of the dodo two years ago.
We now have the carbon tax rebate, which rewarded individuals with a whopping $170 this year. Pardon me if I’m not all dewy-eyed over that drop in the bucket when the previous transit deduction was worth hundreds more and translated into me taking the bus every day. I’m pretty sure that reduced my carbon footprint, but hey, I might be wrong.
To be clear: it’s not about “making the rich pay.” It’s about ensuring that our country’s tax burden is apportioned equitably, rather than balanced on the backs of middle-class Canadians who are already struggling on the daily.
As a single mother of three who’s given up eating meat, getting haircuts and drives a second-hand 2006 Chevy to make ends meet, I’m damned if I’m going to get stuck with a tax bill when there are billions of dollars hidden away in corporate Canada’s coffers, earning interest.
I’ll pay my fair share. As long as everyone else does, too.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
But a new study—the biggest and most comprehensive of its kind yet—shows that this seemingly sturdy mountain of research is actually a house of cards, built on nonexistent foundations.
Border and Keller’s study may be “bigger and better” than its predecessors, but “the results are not a surprise,” says Cathryn Lewis, a geneticist at Kings College London. Warnings about the SLC6A4/depression link have been sounded for years. When geneticists finally gained the power to cost-efficiently analyze entire genomes, they realized that most disorders and diseases are influenced by thousands of genes, each of which has a tiny effect. To reliably detect these miniscule effects, you need to compare hundreds of thousands of volunteers. By contrast, the candidate-gene studies of the 2000s looked at an average of 345 people! They couldn’t possibly have found effects as large as they did, using samples as small as they had. Those results must have been flukes—mirages produced by a lack of statistical power. That’s true for candidate-gene studies in many diseases, but Lewis says that other researchers “have moved on faster than we have in depression.”
Marcus Munafo from the University of Bristol remembers being impressed by the early SLC6A4 research. “It all seemed to fit together,” he says, “but when I started doing my own studies in this area, I began to realize how fragile the evidence was.” Sometimes the gene was linked to depression; sometimes it wasn’t. And crucially, the better the methods, the less likely he was to see such a link. When he and others finally did a large study in 2005—with 100,000 people rather than the 1,000 from the original 1996 paper—they got nothing.e University, who did early influential work on SLC6A4, notes that the candidate-gene approach has already been superseded by other methods. “The relative volume of candidate-gene studies is going way down, and is highly likely to be trivial indeed,” she says. Border and Keller disagree. Yes, they say, their geneticist colleagues have largely abandoned the approach, which is often seen as something of a historical embarrassment. “But we have colleagues in other sciences who had no idea that there was even any question about these genes, and are doing this research to this day,” Border says. “There’s not good communication between sub-fields.” (A few studies on SLC6A4 and depression have even emerged since their study was published in March.)
Britain’s prime minister and four of her predecessors, some of whom are renowned war criminals, have united in calling for a holocaust memorial to be built in proximity to parliament. “A sacred, national mission” is how Theresa May described the idea and, for once, I totally agree with this tragic, sad woman. I would take it further: don’t just build a holocaust shrine in Westminster, make the UK parliament itself a holocaust monument. We don’t really need a House of Commons; as things stand, it would be more transparent if we were to be governed by our true rulers in Tel Aviv.
But there is a deeper ethical rationale that justifies the erection of a holocaust memorial instead of our dysfunctional parliament. Every political commentator in Britain knows by now that the more Jewish pressure groups terrorise Britain, its human rights campaigners, artists, writers and poets, the more Britons become aware of the crimes of Zionism, Israel and their ruthless lobby. The more British politicians join parliamentary friends of Israel clubs, the less Britons will trust their political system. The more holocaust indoctrination is shoved down our throats, the more suspicious Britons become of the manner in which history is told.
Watch Britain’s compromised prime minister and her predecessors in this video:
According to May: “By putting our national holocaust memorial and education centre next to our parliament, we make a solemn and eternal promise that Britain will never forget what happened in the holocaust.” Is that true Mrs May? Do you really mean what you say? Will our holocaust memorial bring to light the embarrassing fact that Britain made it very difficult for Jewish refugees to seek a safe haven in the UK or in other parts of the empire?
In 1937, as the rate of Jewish refugees looking to immigrate to Britain increased, the British government created stricter standards for those whom they would admit. One was that refugees had to have ₤50 deposited in an overseas bank, but in Germany it was against the law to possess foreign currency. If this was not enough to stop Jewish immigration from Germany, the British government limited the number of immigrants in 1938 and 1939. Practically speaking, the British government turned its back on German and Austrian Jews.
The prime minister vowed that “in the face of despicable holocaust denial, this memorial will stand to preserve the truth forever”. I am here to tell you with confidence that the British holocaust memorial will in fact conceal British complicity in the destruction of European Jewry.
Mrs May was joined by all the living former UK prime ministers: David Cameron, Gordon Brown, Tony Blair and John Major. With the exception of Major, all the other living ex-prime ministers have been involved in a lot of death and carnage. While Blair and Brown led this country to a disastrous criminal war in Iraq that resulted in millions of casualties, it was Cameron who managed to pull this country into a chain of disasters in Libya, Syria and beyond.
Blair, whom a third of the British people see as a war criminal, said in his message that “anti-Semitism and hate did not end in 1945. Unfortunately, today some of this poison is back from the political fringe to parts of the political mainstream.” Blair was probably referring to his own party, which is struggling to disown the criminal past he himself inflicted on it. But the truth of the matter is that anti-Semitism didn’t die in 1945, certainly not in Britain. The postwar Labour government went out of its way to make the lives of Jewish holocaust survivors impossible. In Zionist history, British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin (Labour) is remembered as one of the bitterest enemies of the Jewish people. This senior Labour politician had opposed removing the limiting of Jewish immigration to Palestine. Is this Zionist chronicle of Labour anti-Jewish politics going to be explored in the holocaust monument?
It doesn’t take a genius to gather why Blair and Brown are so enthusiastic about a museum that chronicles Nazi crimes rather than a proper and timely institute that would explore their own crimes in Iraq. It is pretty clear why Cameron prefers to divert attention from his own blunders in Syria and Libya. But it goes further. Britain and its empire have a long list of crimes against humanity to account for: slavery, concentration camps in the Boer war, the partitioning of India, the destruction of Palestine, famines in Ireland and Bengal. Millions of innocent people lost their lives due to the crimes of the empire, yet our ethically compromised prime minister and her predecessors are committed to the commemoration of crimes that were committed by another people. Is this the ethical message we are supposed to pass to the next generations? Is zero self-reflection a new British value?
I have learned that Jeremy Corbyn, the person who according to the polls is destined to become Britain’s next prime minister, is not at all different from his predecessors. Corbyn, who at a certain point claimed to care for the many, is now subscribing to the primacy of Jewish suffering. Corbyn was quick to announce that he also would “strongly support permanent commemoration, including a national memorial, alongside extra investment in educational programmes”. I guess that supporting a holocaust memorial is an entry ticket to 10 Downing Street.
The ‘America Under Watch’ report is a warning that authorities in select US cities may soon be able to pick you out from a crowd, identify you, and trace your movements via a secret network of cameras constantly capturing images of your face.
The report claims both Detroit and Chicago purchased software from a South Carolina company, DataWorks Plus, that gives police the ability to scan live video from cameras located at businesses, health clinics, schools, and apartment buildings. Both cities say they are not currently using the technology.
DataWorks says it provides software which “provides continuous screening and monitoring of live video streams.” The system is also designed to operate on “not less than 100 concurrent video feeds.”
According to the research team’s report, live footage is captured by cameras installed around Detroit as part of Project Green Light, a public-private initiative to deter crime which launched in 2016. The expanse of the police department’s facial recognition policy last summer, however, means the face recognition technology can now be connected to any live video, including security cameras, drone footage, and body-worn cams.
Green Light Detroit@D_GreenLightRT @copystar: “Detroit’s real-time face surveillance is designed to operate together with a program called Project Green Light Detroit, an initiative launched in January 2016 that has dramatically expanded the city’s network of surveillance cameras” …
Illinois, meanwhile, is host to one of the most advanced biometric surveillance systems in the country, the report claims, adding that the Chicago Police Department (CPD) and the Chicago Transit Authority have had face surveillance capabilities since “at least 2016.”
Similar face surveillance is also apparently on the horizon for NYC, Orlando, and DC.
The report authors, Clare Garvie and Laura M. Moy, are now calling for a “complete moratorium on police use of face recognition” to give communities a chance to decide whether they want to be monitored in their streets and neighborhoods.
Last week, San Francisco became the first US city to ban facial recognition software used by police and other municipal agencies.
May 19, 2019
According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), a mass murder occurs when at least four people are murdered, not including the shooter, over a relatively short period of time during a single incident. Over the last 30 years, the United States has seen a significant increase in mass shootings, which are becoming more frequent and more deadly.
Seemingly every time a mass shooting occurs, whether it’s at a synagogue in Pittsburgh or a nightclub in Orlando, the anti-gun media and politicians have a knee-jerk response – they blame the tragedy solely on the tool used, namely firearms, and focus all of their proposed “solutions” on more laws, ignoring that the murderer already broke numerous laws when they committed their atrocity.
Facts matter when addressing such an emotionally charged topic, and more gun control legislation has shown that law-abiding Americans who own guns are not the problem. Consider the following: The more gun control laws that are passed, the more mass murders have occurred.
Whether or not this is correlation or causation is debatable. What is not debatable is that this sick phenomenon of mass murderers targeting “gun-free zones,” where they know civilian carry isn’t available to law-abiding Americans, is happening. According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, 97.8 percent of public shootings occur in “gun-free zones” – and “gun-free zones” are the epitome of the core philosophical tenant of gun control, that laws are all the defense one needs against violence.
Therefore, when the media and politicians focus their ire on guns, specifically what types of guns are used, such as AR-styles, carbines, semi-automatics, and “high capacity” handguns, in the wake of such tragedies the American public are being intentionally drawn into an emotionally charged debate about legal gun ownership (irrespective of whether the murderer’s gun was legally or illegally obtained). This debate leads them away from the elephant in the room and one of the real issues behind mass shootings – mental health and prescription drugs.
Ignoring what’s going on in the heads of these psychopaths not only allows mass shootings to continue, it leads to misguided gun control laws that violate the Second Amendment and negate the rights of law-abiding U.S. citizens. As Jeff Snyder put it in The Washington Times:
“But to ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow.”
Violence, especially random violence, is a complex manifestation of various thoughts, feelings, and external factors. When a multivariate analysis of these factors is conducted, it becomes apparent that it’s not just mental health issues that are leading to such an increase. There may be an underlying substance which plays a role in a high percentage of these violent acts – the use of prescription antidepressants, specifically selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs.
At first glance, it makes sense that those involved in mass shootings may be taking antidepressants, as they’re clearly suffering from some sort of mental health issue. But the issue with SSRIs runs much deeper than just a random mental health break. These drugs are a prescription for violent crimes, and that’s a story the anti-gun media and politicians don’t want to talk about.
To understand the rise in antidepressant use, one must first understand depression. Everyone, no matter how great their life, has periods of sadness, times when they feel down or low. This is especially true when faced with hardships or going through things like a divorce, the loss of a job, or the death of a parent.
This is not clinical depression. Clinical depression is a serious mental disorder that impacts how a person functions on a daily basis. Depression makes it hard to get out of bed. It makes it hard to go to work. It makes it hard to take a shower or answer the phone. It stops a person from functioning on the basic levels.
According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, commonly referred to as the DSM-5, to be considered clinically depressed, a patient must experience five of the following symptoms most of the day, every day, for at least two weeks. What’s more, these symptoms must be so severe, they interfere with normal functioning:
Depression is a serious, and sometimes life-threatening, illness. But in the modern world, it’s highly over-diagnosed. A study published in Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics looked at 5,639 patients in the U.S. who were diagnosed with depression by their clinician and compared their symptoms to the DSM criteria for clinical depression. Of these patients, only 38.4 percent met the criteria, even though the majority of the 5,639 patients were prescribed depression medication.
Today, with the way antidepressants are prescribed, nearly one in four Americans will meet the criteria to be diagnosed with depression within their lifetime, and will be prescribed medications that interfere with how their brain functions.
In the 1950s, the first generation of antidepressants hit the market. The introductory class of antidepressants to gain Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval were monoamine oxidase inhibitors, known as MAOIs. Although highly effective, MAOIs can cause extremely high blood pressure when paired with certain foods or medications, and therefore require diet restrictions. Because of these restrictions, they’re rarely used today to treat depression except in cases where other treatments fail.
By the late 1950s, a new class of antidepressants became available – tricyclic antidepressants. Tricyclic antidepressants are also highly effective for treating depression, but are prone to side effects. Even so, this class of antidepressants remained the go-to depression treatment for years. Other drugs were tested for depression treatment, but they hadn’t proved more effective than tricyclic and MAOI antidepressants, especially for severe depression.
Fast forward to the 1980s. America’s tranquilizer dependence was becoming problematic. Quaaludes were heavily over-prescribed for anxiety, resulting in overdose deaths, as well as an increase in deaths from vehicle accidents. The Feds stepped in and in 1984, classified Quaaludes as a Schedule 1 drug, making them illegal to sell, buy, and use.
Valium, a benzodiazepine prescribed for anxiety, was also extremely popular, and was the most prescribed medication in the U.S. from 1969 through 1982. In 1978, the year the medication peaked, more than 2.3 billion pills were sold in the U.S. But Valium was highly addictive and it was believed that a serotonergic medication was a better option to fill the void that was left when Quaaludes were outlawed.
In 1987, Prozac, the first SSRI, was released for depression. Along with it came the idea that depression could be the underlying cause of anxiety. The idea took off, as did the sales of Prozac, and within a few years, it overtook the antidepressant market. Soon, other SSRIs followed.
Along with these SSRIs came direct-to-consumer advertising, which became legal in 1985. By the mid-1990s, the FDA regulations became looser and direct-to-consumer ads exploded into the market. Prozac and other medications showed Americans through glossy advertisements that unhappiness, stress, and anxiety could be treated with a pill.
Instead of doctors recommending a specific medication, patients started coming in, requesting a medication they saw in a magazine or on television.
SSRI sales skyrocketed.
By 2010, 11 percent of Americans over the age of 12 were prescribed an antidepressant, making it the third most prescribed medication, topped only by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) like ibuprofen and naproxen. When looked at over time, there has been a 400-percent increase in antidepressant use from 1988 through 2008.
Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, a class of drugs commonly referred to as SSRIs, are the most prescribed antidepressant in the United States. These second-generation antidepressants are marketed to doctors and patients as safe and effective, with relatively minimal side effects. SSRIs are designated to treat mild to moderate depression, as well as anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, and bulimia nervosa.
SSRIs work to increase the amount of serotonin in the brain. A neurotransmitter that helps neurons communicate, serotonin is associated with many different body functions, but is best known for its influence on mood. Sometimes called “the happy chemical,” serotonin plays a role in a person’s happiness and general feelings of wellbeing.
Low levels of serotonin are linked to depression, although the relationship is not clear. Research has not determined if the low neurotransmitter level causes depression or if depression causes the level of serotonin to drop. It should also be noted that a large amount of serotonin, up to 90 percent, is produced in the gut and may be influenced by what a person eats and drinks.
SSRI medication does exactly what its name says. When two neurons communicate, one releases neurotransmitters, which causes the other neuron to react in a certain way. Because this is constantly going on, these chemicals are always present in the brain. To keep the brain’s chemical balance correct, neurons regulate the amount of neurotransmitters released by a process called reuptake, which involves the reabsorption of the chemical by a neuron.
For instance, if there’s a high level of serotonin, the neuron knows to release less through reuptake, keeping the level balanced. If levels of the neurotransmitter are low, reuptake tells the neurons to release more.
SSRIs inhibit the reuptake of serotonin, causing neurons to release more of the neurotransmitter, therefore increasing the amount of the chemical found in the brain.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a variety of SSRIs, including:
When it comes to effectiveness, SSRIs don’t appear to have an influence on those with moderate to severe depression, with virtually no improvement seen when comparing SSRI use to placebos. Instead of a popular drug with a high efficiency, modern SSRIs have become popular based on an effective marketing campaign and little more.
Sometimes serotonin levels become too high, causing Serotonin Syndrome. A potentially life-threatening disease, it occurs when serotonin levels in the brain increase to a toxic level, often caused by too much medication or taking two serotonin-increasing medications that use different mechanisms to increase the neurotransmitter.
Along with physical symptoms of excessive nerve activity, such as dilated pupils, elevated heart rate, and high blood pressure, those with the syndrome may also experience:
Regardless if depression is overdiagnosed and America has a habit of over-prescribing mind-altering medications, there’s little doubt that SSRIs have a risk of increasing violence in patients, even in patients who have no previous history of violence or aggression before taking the medication.
This risk of violent behavior, both to the individual taking the medication and those around them, is so significant, it has led to the FDA mandating a black box warning on all SSRI medications. These black box warnings are designed to provide information and draw attention to the fact that the medication has serious and life-threatening risks.
As of 2004, all antidepressants in the U.S. are labeled:
“Anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility, aggressiveness, impulsivity, akathisia, hypomania, and mania have been reported in adult and pediatric patients being treated with antidepressants for major depressive disorder as well as for indications, both psychiatric and nonpsychiatric.”
In one study published in the American Journal of Psychiatry, patients suffering from depression, but free of serious suicidal ideation, were given fluoxetine. Within two to seven weeks of starting the medication, six patients developed an intense, preoccupation with violent suicide. Although all were immediately taken off the medication, this preoccupation persisted from three days to three months, depending on the case. In all six cases, the patient had never experienced such a severe level of depression or troubled state of mind before or with other psychotropic prescriptions.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Surveillance for Violent Deaths, in 2013, 35.3 percent of those who committed suicide tested positive for antidepressants at the time of their death.
The risk of SSRIs and suicide is most prevalent in patients under the age of 25. It’s also more likely to occur shortly after starting the medication, after a dosage increase, or after a patient stops taking the medication.
Some of the side effects caused by SSRIs can increase the risk of violence against others. Perhaps the most risky, emotional blunting (or detachment) has been linked to SSRI use and many people who’ve taken the drugs report “not feeling” or “not caring” about anything. There’s also been an established causal relationship between SSRI use and psychosis and hallucinations, both of which are known to increase the risk of violence in individuals.
According to a review of the FDA’s database, 484 drugs were identified as triggers to serious adverse events significant enough to warrant a case study during the five-year period from 2004 through 2009. Of these 484 medications, 31 were identified to have a “disproportionate” association with violence. These 31 drugs make up 78.8 percent of all cases of violence toward others in the FDA’s database and included multiple psychotropic medications:
Researchers concluded that violence against others was a “genuine and serious adverse drug event” and that of the 484 medications, the drugs that were most consistently and strongly associated with violence were the smoking cessation medication, varenicline (Chantix), and SSRIs.
The list includes five SSRI antidepressants:
While a surprise to the American public, this shouldn’t have been a surprise to the drug companies. During the clinical trials for paroxetine, hostility, which was the term to include homicidal idealization and aggression, presented in 60 of the 9,219 participants (.65 percent). Hostile acts were documented both while taking the medication and after tapering off. Children with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) taking the medication were the most at risk for becoming hostile, with a 17-times higher probability than the rest of those in the clinical study.
In a Swedish study published in PLoS, researchers looked at information on over 850,000 patients prescribed SSRIs in the Swedish Prescribed Drug Register, which is a national database of all dispensed medications. They then compared the violent crimes committed during a three-year period and compared it to violent crimes committed by the same individuals when not taking the medications. When age was taken into effect, a significant association was apparent between violent crime convictions and SSRI use in patients between the ages of 15 and 24.
In one 2001 case, Cory Baadsgaard, a 16-year-old who attended Wahluke High School in Washington, was first prescribed Paxil, which caused hallucinations, and then was switched to Effexor. He started at a 40 mg dosage that, over the course of three weeks, increased to 300 mg. On the first day of that high dose, he woke with a headache and returned to bed. He then got up, took a rifle to his high school, and held 23 classmates hostage.
Baadsgaard’s testimony claims he has no recollection of the event, or of his principal convincing him to put the gun down and release the hostages.
In 2002, the BBC aired the documentary Panorama, which focused on paroxetine. The producers received 1,374 emails from viewers, the majority of whom told stories of violence or self-harm while taking the medication, particularly when starting and when increasing the dosage.
What’s more, in 2009, after investigating the connection between SSRIs and violence, the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare revised the label warnings on these drugs to read: “There are cases where we cannot rule out a causal relationship [of hostility, anxiety, and sudden acts of violence] with the medication.”
In most cases, the vast majority of people who suffer from mental illness are nonviolent. Even those who self-harm are highly unlikely to hurt others. In fact, these individuals are more likely to become victims of violent crimes than the general public.
Yet after each mass shooting tragedy, the media fills with psychiatrists who say that the individual didn’t seek the help they needed and that with the proper treatment, the tragedy may have been prevented. But research doesn’t support that philosophy.
In fact, depression in particular doesn’t lead to violence, yet since the increase in SSRI antidepressants being widely prescribed, the rise in mass shootings has increased right along with it. And evidence shows that many mass shooters were either taking or had recently taken SSRIs.
Here are just some examples:
The list goes on and on. And with the implication of patient privacy laws, getting information on the medication and mental health diagnoses of people has become harder and harder, even with mounting evidence that there’s a connection between SSRI use and violence.
In 1996, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act commonly referred to as HIPAA, was set in place. HIPAA represents the U.S.’s first attempt at national regulations for the use and disclosure of a person’s personal health information, or PHI. HIPAA makes it more difficult for medical personnel to release information regarding a person’s medical care, diagnosis, and prescription drugs, including those involved with mental health related crimes.
For example, in the 2008 Virginia Tech shooting, perpetrator Seung Hui Cho had multiple interactions with the mental health department on campus, some for suicidal ideation, but yet his parents nor authorities were never notified. University officials stated privacy laws restricted them from sharing the information.
Beyond the necessity for communication prior to these horrific shootings, after the incident, the person’s records are often protected. Even in situations where the perpetrator dies during the shooting, HIPAA protects their records for 50 years.
Because of this, the American public doesn’t know what kind of medications these people were taking and if it may have had an affect on their actions. Just looking at public shootings over the last five years, there’s a huge list of murderers who were likely on SSRIs. Here are a few:
With the media’s coverage of mass shootings, more and more legislation arises limiting the rights of those with mental health issues. While no one wants firearms in the hands of the mentally ill, the lack of clear language surrounding mental illness, and the limitations caused by government red tape, make knee-jerk mental health legislation dangerous and lay a path for more government control.
In general, people with mental illness are rarely violent to other people. Many mental health experts and advocates agree that policies that focus on the violence of mental illness make scapegoats of the individuals, who are likely to never act violently against another person.
What’s more, according to the MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment Study (MVRAS), substance abuse was significantly more responsible for violence committed by discharged psychiatric patients than their mental health. Those patients who didn’t abuse drugs or alcohol showed no higher risk for violence than the others in their communities without mental health issues.
Laws are being created that don’t focus on the research, but on the fear of guns, thinking that stricter gun laws will keep people safer.
Red flag laws are the newest gun legislation making their way through Congress. Considered a “protective order,” red flag laws will allow a family member or law officer to petition a temporary seize on someone’s firearms if they’re deemed a threat. What a “threat” consists of isn’t clearly defined.
There’s also a push for universal background checks on all gun sales, even those sold between private individuals, and the FixNICScampaign. The philosophy behind FixNICS is that the background check system can only be as strong as the records it contains. And it’s currently missing a lot, especially when it comes to mental health issues and domestic violence.
For instance, documentation of an individual diagnosed as “mental defective,” having been involuntarily committed to a mental health setting, or having engaged in domestic abuse disqualifies that person from purchasing or owning a firearm. When this information is present in the NICS, it flags the background check and stops the sale of the firearm. But too many of these records are missing.
That was the case with the 2017 Sutherlands Springs church shooting. The gunman Devin Patrick Kelley was prohibited from purchasing firearms due to a 2012 court martial for two counts of domestic abuse. The U.S. Air Force failed to provide this information to the NICS, allowing Kelley to erroneously pass his background check and to purchase an AR-style 5.56 rifle – which he used to kill 26 people and injure 20 more. He was confronted and pursued by a neighbor, another good guy with a gun.
When it comes to mass shootings, there’s no easy solution. Violence, especially random violence, is a complex manifestation of various thoughts, feelings, and external factors. While it may be impossible to fully stop mass murders, ignoring the fact that certain medications, including SSRIs, play a role in a high percentage of these violent acts, no justice is being served.
Gun control is obviously not the solution, as the rate of mass shootings has increased over the last 30 years, at a time when multiple gun control laws have been implemented. Taking firearms away from law abiding citizens has not and will not stop the problem.
Instead, doctors need to educate patients and make them aware of the risks, as well as take the time to explain warning signs to loved ones. If patients are taking medication for a mental health disorder, including depression, then they should see a mental health professional and be involved in mental health treatment. After all, medication – even mental health medication – does nothing to fix the problem, it only masks the symptoms.
Patients need to take some responsibility for their lives, improving their health before reaching for a mind-altering pill to make them feel good about themselves. A healthy diet, physical activity, and time spent in nature are ways to boost the mood that can help relieve the symptoms of mild depression.
Lastly, the government and big pharmaceutical companies need to be held accountable for not sharing what they know about the medications they create. A study published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) looked at drug company sponsored clinical trials on antidepressants.
Of the 74 FDA-registered trials the study looked at, 38 had positive outcomes, 36 had negative outcomes. Thirty-seven of the positive outcome trials were published, but of the 36 negative outcomes trials, 22 were not published and 11 were written in a way that initially presented the data to convey a misleading positive outcome. Only three were published with unbiased and accurate information about the drug.
With this type of misrepresentation of clinical trials on medications, particularly antidepressants, the medical community and the public can’t trust medical literature for honest and reliable drug information, nor the government agency that’s designed to monitor new pharmaceuticals for safety. When medical professionals can not rely on the FDA to provide unbiased and honest clinical trial information, a true risk-benefit ratio can’t be determined and patients suffer the consequences.
The connection between the FDA and big pharma goes beyond clinical studies. Drug companies lure FDA employees to sit on their regulatory boards. They hire their spouses. These pharmaceutical giants utilize the field’s leading experts, who happen to be the same experts who are invited by the FDA to sit on screening panels.
Big pharma’s influence over the FDA goes even deeper. Drug companies spend billions of dollars on political lobbying and campaign contributions. Direct payments support the FDA budget. And in response, the FDA conceals risks and looks the other way when necessary.
The FDA also gives its own kickback to the drug companies. Only FDA-approved medications can be prescribed for government health insurance programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and through the VA. And to ensure Big Pharma continues to sell its drugs, the federal program only allows treatment claims on FDA-approved drugs.
The FDA approval process is a laborious and expensive endeavor, which typically takes more than a year and can cost up to a million dollars to complete. The process allows drug companies to patent their product. But when it comes to natural supplements, they can’t be patented, and therefore don’t go through the FDA approval process. Therefore supplements, which are often highly effective with little to no side effects, can not claim to “treat” a condition, even when there’s research that supports that claim.
On the surface, this may not seem like too big of a deal, but let’s circle back to Prozac, which hit the market in 1988. In the fall of 1989, the FDA recalled the supplement L-tryptophan, an amino acid that’s a precursor for serotonin and highly effective in treating depression. The recall occurred after one supplement company had an additive that caused a flu-like reaction. On March 22, 1990, the FDA issued a complete ban of L-tryptophan for public sale. Four days later, on March 26, 1990, Prozac was featured on the cover of Newsweek, along with a lead article about its benefits.
In 2001, the ban on L-tryptophan was lifted and since, research has shown it has huge therapeutic potential in the treatment of pain, insomnia, depression, seasonal affective disorder (SAD), bulimia, premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD), attention disorders, sleep disorders, and chronic fatigue.
A quick note about PMDD. Premenstrual dysphoric disorder is a severe form of premenstrual syndrome, otherwise known as PMS. It officially became a medical condition in 2013 with the newest addition of the DSM-V. Yet in July of 2000, the FDA approved a new medication from Eli Lilly, the same pharmaceutical company that created Prozac. The drug was Sarafem and it was marketed to treat PMDD, which technically wasn’t even a fully recognized medical condition at the time.
Sarafem is, quite literally, the exact same medication as Prozac, only in a different color capsule. Why would Eli Lilly issue the exact same drug under a different name? It just so happens that the patent for Prozac expired in August of 2001, which allowed generic versions to be made. Eli Lilly changed the medication’s name, indicated it for this “new” disease, and the company had a new patent for Sarafem that would last until 2007.
Situations like this demonstrate that the more aspects the government controls, the worse this corruption and mismanagement becomes. Federal agencies in the hands of big pharmaceutical companies, and politicians using gun control to give a false hope to the American people, distracts them from the real cause of the current state of the nation and the frequency of mass shootings.
It’s time to personally explore the evidence surrounding the issues and come to your own conclusions.
|Right to Know: A Historical Guide to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)|
|Federal Gun Control in America: A Historic Guide to Major Federal Gun Control Laws and Acts|
|State Gun Control in America: A Historic Guide to Major State Gun Control Laws and Acts|
|The TSA and Security Theater: Understanding American Airport Security Following 9/11|
|The Supreme Court and the Second Amendment: Understanding the Court’s Landmark Decisions|
|Negroes With Guns: The Untold History of Black NRA Gun Clubs and the Civil Rights Movement|
|American Gun Ownership: The Positive Impacts of Law-Abiding Citizens Owning Firearms|
|Handgun Wounding Factors: An Effectiveness Guide for Law Enforcement|
|3D-Printed Firearms and Defense Distributed: A Guide to Understanding “Ghost Guns”|
|Asymmetrical Warfare and 4GW: How Militia Groups are America’s Domestic Viet Cong|
|Weapons of War On Our Streets: A Guide to the Militarization of America’s Police|
|Policing For Profit: How Civil Asset Forfeiture Has Perverted American Law Enforcement|
|Locked Up: How the Modern Prison-Industrial Complex Puts So Many Americans in Jail|
|The 16th Amendment: How the U.S. Federal Income Tax Became D.C.’s Favorite Political Weapon|
|Commercial Ammo: The Untold History of Springfield Armory and America’s Munitions Factories|
|Gun Background Checks: How the State Came To Decide Who Can and Cannot Buy a Firearm|
|The American Old West: How Hollywood Made It “Wild” to Make Money & Advance Gun Control|
|America’s Sovereign States: The Obscure History of How 10 Independent States Joined the U.S.|
|Early American Militias: The Forgotten History of Freedmen Militias from 1776 until the Civil War|
|American Militias after the Civil War: From Black Codes to the Black Panthers and Beyond|
|Freedom vs. Liberty: How Subtle Differences Between These Two Big Ideas Changed Our World|
|Prescription For Violence: The Corresponding Rise of Antidepressants, SSRIs & Mass Shootings|