By Ysenda Maxtone-Graham
The Daily Mail
With pictures, captions and comments by Lasha Darkmoon
LD: Freud researcher Professor Frederick Crews suggests in a new book that Sigmund Freud, founder of psychoanalysis, was not only a fraud but a “vile sex crazed creep” who would grope his female patients. Women would always come away from his treatments in a far worse condition. An amusing anecdote is often told about Freud that is instructive. He was once told he worked too hard and asked why he never went on vacation. “I can’t take a break,” he replied cynically. “Because when I get back, all my patients would be cured!” [LD]
Gimmicky, perhaps, that the ‘E’ in ‘FREUD’ on the jacket of this book has been crossed out and replaced with a scrawled ‘A’. But it’s apt. ‘Freud = Fraud’ sums up the message.
Anyone who enjoys reading the systematic dismantling of a reputation will relish this riveting exposé.
It’s written not by a scientist or psychologist, but by an eloquent American Emeritus professor of English, Frederick Crews.
Over 650 pages, Professor Crews builds up a portrait of Freud as the most vile, medically useless, misogynistic, snobbish, petulant, jealous, crazy, sex-obsessed creep you could ever hope not to look up at from a couch — and a man whose ‘treatment’ you wouldn’t wish on your worst enemy.
Professor Frederick Crews portrays Freud as a vile sex-obsessed creep in his new book Freud: The Making Of An Illusion
‘Lock up your daughters!’ I wanted to scream, when yet another innocent young Viennese woman with a cough or an aching leg got sent to Freud for treatment at today’s equivalent of £230 ($300) an hour, and came out a few months later totally traumatised and much more ill than she had been when she started.
Not once in this account does Freud do or say a single kind or unselfish thing.
Though a doctor, he had no Hippocratic sense that each human being deserved respectful treatment. He once remarked in a letter: ‘I have found little that is “good” about human beings . . . In my experience, most of them are trash.’
But this is such a damningly one-sided portrait that I did sometimes wonder: ‘What is your problem, Crews?’
His accusation that Freud ‘wrenched his patients’ histories into alignment with his theory’ could be levelled at the author, who wrenches every detail of Freud’s doings and writings into alignment with his theory of Sigmund as an incompetent monster.
It’s all highly convincing, though.
The rot seems to have set in during Freud’s childhood, when the family moved to a lower-class Jewish enclave in Vienna, instilling in him a ruthless determination to distance himself from his origins and an unquenchable thirst for wealth and fame.
Crews deduces that while his parents were away and he was left in charge of his younger siblings, the teenage Freud sexually abused his younger sister. He was in love with his mother, admitting later to his friend, Wilhelm Fliess: ‘I have found, in my own case, the phenomenon of being in love with my mother and jealous of my father, and I now consider it a universal event in early childhood.’
After Freud and his wife Martha’s sex life ceased, he had a clandestine affair with her sister, Minna, who came to live with them when she was widowed. (Picture of Freud and his wife Martha)
His friend’s eventual damning verdict on Freud was that ‘the reader of thoughts merely reads his own thoughts into other people’.
An early adopter and promoter of cocaine as a medical drug, Freud was a lifelong cocaine addict himself, and this, Crews thinks, must have marred his ability to think straight.
Freud liked to diagnose his patients with whichever ‘ailment’ was currently preoccupying him.
So, when a young woman, Emma Eckstein, came to see him with an aching leg and bad period pains, he forced her story into line with his current theory that ‘a misconstrued erotic incident, having befallen a virgin prior to the onset of sexual awareness, gets suppressed and thereby becomes a cause of hysteria, but only when a second such incident reawakens that memory and renders it horrifying’.
If a patient didn’t come up with a nice pre-pubescent erotic incident, he or she was being ‘resistant’.
After many hours of probing, Freud eventually managed to get Emma to admit that a shopkeeper had once tried to grab her genitals when she was a child.
At the same time, Freud had latched on to the theory that the nose was the ‘control centre for other organs and their maladies’. He diagnosed Emma with a double-syndrome, ‘hystero-neurasthenia’, the neurosis-part brought on by masturbation (Freud’s pet-hate).
LD : I’m not sure if masturbation was Freud’s “pet hate”. It was certainly his pet obsession. Freud described masturbation as “the primal habit” and firmly believed that smoking was a “substitute for masturbation”. Curiously enough, he was himself a chain smoker.
Cigars were Freud’s downfall. Even though he ended up with oral cancer, undergoing 30 operative procedures to replace his resected jaw and palate, he couldn’t give up his cigars. He died at the age of 83 in agony, still puffing away at the cigars that exacerbated his condition and only made things worse for him.
In addition to cigars, Freud was addicted to cocaine as a painkiller, apparently unconcerned (or perhaps delighted) at the drug’s potent aphrodisiacal qualities. Cocaine is known to increase levels of dopamine and norepinephrine in the brain. Freud was undoubtedly aware of the drug’s ability to confer exquisite pleasure and euphoria, increasing sexual stamina to an extraordinary degree and making multiple orgasms possible. Freud’s private sex life remains a mystery, but I think it would be a mistake to assume it was irreproachable, given his total obsession with sex. [LD]
The last 16 years of the life of Sigmund Freud were spent in a brave battle against a massive intraoral cancer to which he finally succumbed at the age of 83. He was subjected to 30 operative procedures and endured daily manipulations of a cumbersome prosthesis worn to replace his resected jaw and palate. This study reveals medical details of his illness and suggests modern options of management of this tumor.
The treatment? The surgical removal of a bone from the poor girl’s nose. Emma haemorrhaged blood. A month later, she was still bleeding profusely. Freud worked out that her bleeding came from ‘sexual longing — expressing her desires through spurts of blood’.
This was typical. Freud went through a phase of doing ‘pressure treatment’ on women’s foreheads and bodies in his darkened consulting room, telling them to remove any tight clothing and then searching their bodies for their ‘hystereogenic zones’, while coercing them to tell him details of their sexual history.
As you read this book, it becomes ever-clearer that the real problem was inside Freud’s own head — what Crews calls ‘his interior house of horrors’.
Not only did he think all boys were in love with their mothers and wanted to murder their fathers, in accordance with his own Oedipus complex, he also had a weird theory that women — all women — were sinister creatures whose vagina threatened to castrate any male who crossed its threshold.
He divined that the secret ambition of every female was to acquire the ‘envied penis’ by severing it. His mind, Crews tells us, ‘conjoined illogic and bizarre ideas with misogyny, prurience and cruelty.’
What Freud did have was a gift for gripping writing, using lots of literary references to heighten his prose. His written accounts of his so-called ‘solved cases’ became popular because they were a satisfying mixture of detective stories (Freud saw himself as ‘the Sherlock Holmes of the unconscious’) and soft porn.
‘Tell me one thing,’ he would write, recalling a case. ‘What part of his body was it that you felt that night?’ His disciples were titillated, and they lapped up these accounts of the thrilling tension between the wise analyst and his resistant patient. Those cases, Crews writes, ‘belong not to the genre of clinical report, but of detective fiction’.
A genius at self-promotion, who bribed his way to a professorship at Vienna University, Freud parasitically latched on to the theories of his peers and then later condemned those whose theories had given him a leg-up. In The Interpretation Of Dreams, Freud reinvented himself as a uniquely sagacious authority, finding examples from literature and history to prove that all human behaviour had always been ‘Freudian’.
Pity Freud’s wife. Martha Bernays was a sweet, playful, ardent, young woman whose personality Freud slowly extinguished.
In Die Brautbriefe — the whinging, self-obsessed letters he wrote to Martha during their four year-long engagement when he was frantically seeking success — there are frequent signs of what we would now call coercive control. He cut her off from her own family and friends and made her renounce her Orthodox Jewish faith. ‘If I have become unbearable recently,’ he wrote to her threateningly, ‘just ask yourself what made me so.’
After giving birth to six children, Martha lost her figure and Sigmund saw her as a used-up woman who belonged in the nursery. Their sex life ceased, and Freud had a clandestine affair with her sister, Minna, who came to live with them when she was widowed.
How unfair it seems that many of the great physicians who worked alongside Freud are now forgotten, while Freud is a household name.
This devastating book might kick‑start the long-awaited process of Freud’s downfall from grace.
“Sexual morality is contemptible.
I advocate an incomparably freer sexual life.
If only Americans knew, we are bringing them the plague!”
— Sigmund Freud
Researchers report that while sleep disruptions contribute to a number of psychological disorders, it appears only nightmares are associated with increased risk of self harming behaviors.
Summary: Researchers report that while sleep disruptions contribute to a number of psychological disorders, it appears only nightmares are associated with increased risk of self harming behaviors.
Source: Florida State University.
New research from Florida State University finds a link between nightmares and self-injurious behavior, such as cutting or burning oneself.
The findings are similar to previous research showing other sleep problems, such as nightmares, insomnia and trouble falling asleep, are linked to suicide and attempted suicide.
“We’re seeing sleep disturbances linked to so many psychological disorders, including depression and suicide,” said FSU psychology doctoral student Chelsea Ennis, the lead author of the paper in the journal Comprehensive Psychiatry. “We found only nightmares were related to self-injury.”
Ennis has seen many forms of self-injury in her work as a therapist at FSU’s Psychology Clinic on campus, including patients who cut, burn or scrape their skin. Some use many different ways to hurt themselves.
One of the main reasons people engage in self-injurious behavior is to deal with a negative emotion or something that has become so upsetting, they don’t know how to cope. Ennis wondered whether that kind of behavior, clinically known as “nonsuicidal self-injury,” was linked to general sleep problems.
She tested whether nightmares are related to self-injury with data from two samples: patients at the clinic and undergraduate students. Ennis found a specific link between nightmares and self-injury in both samples, even after accounting for depression.
Other sleep problems, such as insomnia, did not show a connection to nonsuicidal injury.
“Dreams function to regulate and process our emotions, so when we have nightmares we are not processing properly,” said Ennis. “It’s a breakdown of what is supposed to happen in our emotional regulation process.”
That breakdown in a person’s ability to normally process negative emotions could cause a surge in emotional dysregulation — including severe mood fluctuations, angry outbursts or aggression — and those volatile emotions can raise the risk of self-injury. Ennis tested whether emotional dysregulation might explain the link between nightmares and self-injury.
“We found emotional dysregulation fully accounted for the relationship between nightmares and self-injury,” Ennis said.
The study found people who experienced more intense and frequent nightmares had a 1.1 times higher risk of self-injury, which, Ennis noted, was a small effect. However, another much larger research study found similar results and a larger risk. Ennis attributes the findings to the fact that nightmares disrupt a person’s normal ability to deal with emotions.
Nightmares take many forms, but certain themes emerge depending on a person’s experience. A traumatic event can trigger vivid, recurrent nightmares that jolt you awake and make your heart pound; other distressing themes might include the sensation of falling off a cliff or trying to sprint away from a threat but moving in slow motion.
If a person experiences those kinds of nightmares a couple of times a week and they’re disruptive, Ennis believes it’s a concern.
“If you have an upsetting nightmare once a week, that’s likely not problematic,” Ennis said. “But if nightmares start to interfere with your sleeping to the point where you’re afraid to go to sleep or you feel like you’re not getting adequate rest, that’s when it is a problem.”
And that’s when it deserves medical attention. Ennis said there are simple, effective treatments for nightmares and other sleep problems, including cognitive behavioral therapy, which is offered at FSU’s Psychology Clinic and the FSU Anxiety and Behavioral Health Clinic.
With an estimated 17 percent of teenagers and 13 percent of young adults suffering from self-injurious behaviors each year, as well as more than 44,000 Americans dying by suicide, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Ennis said the problem demands more study.
“We especially need more longitudinal research because it makes sense that nightmares can cause emotional dysregulation and then later self-injury,” Ennis said. “It fits in the puzzle, but more research is needed at this point.”
Source: Dave Heller – Florida State University
Publisher: Organized by NeuroscienceNews.com.
Image Source: NeuroscienceNews.com image is in the public domain.
Original Research: Abstract for “Nightmares and nonsuicidal self-injury: The mediating role of emotional dysregulation” by Chelsea R. Ennis, Nicole A. Short, Allison J. Moltisanti, Caitlin E. Smith, Thomas E. Joiner, and Jeanette Taylor in Comprehensive Psychiatry. Published online April 18 2017 doi:10.1016/j.comppsych.2017.04.003
Nightmares and nonsuicidal self-injury: The mediating role of emotional dysregulation
Nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) is a transdiagnostic behavior associated with significant psychopathology. Research has shown a positive association between sleep disturbances, (e.g., nightmares and insomnia), and suicidal behavior, however, the relation between NSSI and sleep disturbances has yet to be examined. Sleep disturbances have been found to have a causal role in problems with emotional dysfunction. Specifically, sleep disturbances inhibit the emotion processing function of sleep. Importantly, a majority of individuals engage in NSSI to regulate intense emotions, and it is possible that sleep disturbances increase propensity for NSSI by contributing to dysregulated emotions.
In two cross-sectional studies, the present research examined whether insomnia symptoms and nightmares were related to NSSI in a clinical sample (Study 1, N = 313) and in a university sample (Study 2, N = 152). Furthermore, the hypothesis that emotional dysregulation would atemporally mediate the relationship between sleep disturbances and NSSI was tested in Study 2.
Findings showed that nightmares, but not insomnia symptoms, were associated with NSSI while controlling for depressive symptoms. This pattern of findings was consistent across both clinical and university samples, which underscores the robustness of the finding. Further, the relationship between nightmares and NSSI was fully mediated by emotional dysregulation.
The present research provides initial evidence that nightmares are atemporally associated with an increased propensity for NSSI by contributing to emotional dysregulation, and provides support for the emotion regulation function of dreams.
“Nightmares and nonsuicidal self-injury: The mediating role of emotional dysregulation” by Chelsea R. Ennis, Nicole A. Short, Allison J. Moltisanti, Caitlin E. Smith, Thomas E. Joiner, and Jeanette Taylor in Comprehensive Psychiatry. Published online April 18 2017 doi:10.1016/j.comppsych.2017.04.003
— A groundbreaking new study shows that magic mushrooms may actually be an effective treatment for people with depression. Researchers from Imperial College London found that patients taking psilocybin, the psychoactive compound that occurs naturally in magic mushrooms, showed reduced symptoms weeks after treatment following a “reset” of their brains.
In the clinical trials, patients with treatment-resistant depression received two doses of psilocybin — 10 mg followed by 25 mg, one-week apart — while researchers focused on changes in brain function before and after treatment with the drug. The findings showed that the treatment produced “rapid and sustained antidepressant effects.”
Comparisons of images of patients’ brains before and after treatment with psilocybin showed reduced blood flow in areas of the brain responsible for processing emotional responses like stress and fear. Researchers found increased stability in another brain network that has been previously linked to psilocybin’s immediate effects, as well as to depression itself.
The small study of 19 people was led by Head of Psychedelic Research at Imperial College London Dr. Robin Carhart-Harris, who said:
“We have shown for the first time clear changes in brain activity in depressed people treated with psilocybin after failing to respond to conventional treatments.
“Several of our patients described feeling ‘reset’ after the treatment and often used computer analogies. For example, one said he felt like his brain had been ‘defragged’ like a computer hard drive, and another said he felt ‘rebooted.’
“Psilocybin may be giving these individuals the temporary ‘kick start’ they need to break out of their depressive states and these imaging results do tentatively support a ‘reset’ analogy. Similar brain effects to these have been seen with electroconvulsive therapy.”
In addition, the trials revealed that patients scoring highest on “peak” or “mystical” experience showed a more significant change. This is consistent with findings from previous studies that have shown that such experiences can lead to long-term changes in the behaviors, attitudes, and values of patients treated with psilocybin.
Psychiatrists disputed the latest findings, made by researchers at McMaster University, Canada, arguing that the drugs have been safely used for years and offer a lifeline for depressed people.
By Ben Spencer
Sept 14, 2017
- The drugs do more harm than good, researchers say, and their use should be cut
- Psychiatrists disputed this and argued that they have been safely used for years
- McMaster University in Canada analysed the impact on nearly 380,000 people
Taking antidepressants could increase the risk of an early death, a major study suggests.
Experts found depressed people without heart disease were 33 per cent more likely to die over any set period, for any reason, if they took antidepressants compared to those who did not.
The authors of the controversial paper said antidepressants do more harm than good – and their use should be severely curtailed.
But psychiatrists disputed the findings, arguing antidepressants have been safely used for years and offer a vital lifeline for people with no other options.
Antidepressants are one of the most commonly prescribed drugs in the UK, with one in 11 of all British adults thought to have recently used the pills.
Their use is dramatically increasing, with 64.7million prescriptions given out in England last year, double the number of a decade ago.
Critics are increasingly concerned that many of these patients may not actually need the drugs, with doctors prescribing the pills as a stop-gap because of long waiting lists for therapy.
The new analysis suggests people who take the pills may be at greater risk than previously thought.
How was the study carried out?
Scientists at McMaster Universty in Canada combined the results from 17 previous studies, analysing the impact on a pool of nearly 380,000 people.
Their initial analysis suggested just a 9 per cent increased risk of death among those who took antidepressants – a result they admitted was not statistically significant.
But they then removed the people suffering from cardiovascular disease from the findings, and found the chance of death among the remaining patients who took antidepressants jumped up to 33 per cent when compared to those who did not take the drugs.
The scientists think this is because antidepressants are also a blood thinner – which actually protects the health of people with heart disease because it stops blood clotting.
But among people without heart disease, this is dangerous because it increases the risk of a major haemmorage or internal bleed.
The researchers found that among people without cardiovascular disease, taking antidepressants increased the risk of heart attacks and strokes by 14 per cent.
With permission from
By Caroline Scott
(‘The Daily Mail’)
Abridged by Lasha Darkmoon
with additional notes and comments
Antidepressants can lead to brain damage, suicide and murder, yet they are being prescribed to 120 million people worldwide, including 1-year-old babies. Has the world gone mad?
HAS THE WORLD GONE MAD?
David Carmichael, 59, calmly and methodically describes the events leading up to the day he killed his 11‑year-old son Ian. He maintains his composure right up to the point when he describes his boy: “Oh man, he was the most loving child.” His face clouds and he rocks with pain. “We spent so much time together and we got along great. He was a beautiful boy, a beautiful gift. I miss him so much.”
Ian had epilepsy and very mild dyslexia, but had no problems other than being a little behind with his reading. David was a nurturing and devoted dad, a sports coach from Toronto, Canada, who’d spent his entire professional life working with children.
But when David took Ian’s life during a psychotic episode, he was convinced that his wife Beth and daughter Gillian would thank him for getting rid of the “intolerable” burden Ian had become. David was tried for first-degree murder, but the judge ruled he was “not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder”. Two forensic psychiatrists diagnosed him as being in a “major depression with psychotic episodes” when he killed Ian.
David was sent to a psychiatric hospital where he spent four years. On December 4, 2009, he received an absolute discharge: a finding of guilt, but with no criminal record.
It is a truly shocking and bitterly tragic story, and one that will divide opinion. David has always believed that his psychosis was caused by a type of antidepressant known as a selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitor (SSRI). But it has not yet been proven that SSRIs were to blame.
David was taking paroxetine (sold as Paxil in the U.S. and called Seroxat in the UK). While the drugs appear to work for some people, SSRIs, like all medicines, can cause side-effects. Drowsiness, nausea, insomnia and loss of libido are some of the recognised ones. However, there is growing concern about other SSRI side-effects such as anxiety, agitation, hallucinations and paranoid delusions, which, although more rare, can have a devastating impact.
David Carmichael: he killed the son he loved
after they put him on seroxat
— § —
In these pages [‘The Pill That Steals Lives‘] filmmaker Katinka Blackford Newman, a previously super-fit mother of two, has described her terrifying experiences. Hours after taking her first SSRI dose she became psychotic.
“I didn’t harm my kids, Lily, now 15, and Oscar, now 14, but it still terrifies me that I might have done,” she says.
Katinka has since investigated other adverse reactions, meeting David Carmichael and others affected, “who made me realise it was pure luck I didn’t kill my children. I was determined to make this issue public, and so took my research to BBC Panorama.”
Panorama then takes up the story, asking: is it possible that a pill prescribed by your doctor can turn you into a killer?
More than 60 million prescriptions for anti-depressants were written in the UK in 2015.
LD : In the US the problem is even worse. One in six Americans is known to be on antidepressants or similar psychiatric drugs, with depression hitting more than twice the number of white Americans as it does Hispanics or African Americans. Depression is becoming a massive problem among teenagers, especially girls, with large numbers committing suicide every year. (See here).
All these drugs tend to be highly addictive and withdrawing from them is not easy, one of the results of withdrawal being a sharp increase in depression, with other unpleasant side effects. There is a wide variety of pretty pills to choose from: Citalopram (Celexa), Escitalopram (Lexapro or Cipralex), Paroxetine (Paxil or Seroxat), Fluoxetine (Prozac), Fluvoxamine (Luvox), and Sertraline (Zoloft or Lustral). These are known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Other frequently prescribed drugs with equally exotic names are Cymbalta, Desyrel, Effexor, Oleptro, Pexeva, Symbyax, and Viibryd.
Recent research has shown that prozac, one of the most popular antidepressants, is no better than a placebo. Moreover, antidepressants can cause brain damage and lead to suicide. [LD]
According to David Healy, a professor of psychiatry at Bangor University and a leading critic of SSRIs, as many as one in 1,000 people taking the medication is severely affected.
“There are probably up to an extra 2,500 suicides in Europe triggered by an SSRI antidepressant,” claims Professor Healy, who founded rxisk.org, a website that helps identify potential drug risks. Chillingly, he believes the figures are similar for episodes of violence, including mass killings.
In March 2012, 28 Belgian and Dutch schoolchildren and teachers were killed when the coach they were travelling in drove into the wall of a tunnel.
Investigators hired by the parents found that the driver was withdrawing from Paxil/Seroxat. They believe he killed himself while suffering delirium caused by fluctuating levels of the drug.
In the same year, at the premiere of a Batman film in Aurora, Colorado, James Holmes, a 24-year-old PhD student with no record of violence, murdered 12 people and injured 70.
He is serving multiple life sentences in jail, but questions have been asked as to whether the SSRI he’d been prescribed played a part.
Andreas Lubitz, the German pilot who on March 24, 2015, deliberately crashed a Germanwings flight into the French Alps, killing all 150 people on board, was taking antidepressants, including the SSRI mirtazapine.
While no one knows for sure why SSRIs may adversely affect some people and not others, Professor Healy believes David Carmichael was “almost certainly” in the grip of SSRI psychosis when he killed Ian.
At the time, David was running sports camps while his wife stayed at home to look after their children.
“I wanted to be the best worker, the best provider, the best father, and I stressed myself out to provide for my family,’ he tells me. “I got into the shower one morning and I started to shake. Over the next few weeks, I was conscious that my heart was racing and I lost confidence in things I’d always been able to do.”
His doctor diagnosed depression and prescribed 40mg of Paxil. “Right from the outset, I experienced akathisia — a compulsion to be in constant motion.’
This is a recognised side-effect of antidepressants and antipsychotics: statistics from clinical trials suggest that as many as one in 20 patients stops taking SSRI drugs because of agitation, with one in 100 experiencing hallucinations.
“I felt like I was coming out of my skin,” David says. “I was so agitated, I’d be pacing the floor in the middle of the night.” But the agitation died down after ten days and David began to feel better within six weeks. “I started to feel great. I thought I was recovered.”
But there were side-effects David didn’t like: excessive sweating, weight gain and sexual dysfunction. “These got me down, so I began to wean myself off them,” he says.
He doesn’t know why he didn’t go back to the doctor. Nor does he know why he didn’t consult his doctor before taking them again a year later. “I felt the symptoms coming on again: I was anxious and I could feel my confidence drain away. I had a full three-month prescription left over from the year before, so on July 8, 2004, I put myself back on 40mg a day.”
Almost immediately, David began to feel agitated again. “I started to feel incredibly negative, and suicidal thoughts raced through my mind,” he says. Thinking his depression was getting worse, he increased the dose to 60mg. “I believed it would help me recover more quickly, like taking two aspirin instead of one for a headache,” he says.
Over the next few days the akathisia subsided and, outwardly, David appeared to be functioning normally. “I’d get up, go to work. But inside, I was disintegrating. I became detached, unemotional and fixated on ending my life.’
David became convinced that he should end Ian’s life, too. “I felt strongly that it was my role as his dad to send him to a better place with me,” he says.
David’s 11-year-old son Ian (pictured right)
David describes a chilling state of calm as he worked his plan through. He decided to take Ian to the family’s weekend cottage where he would drown them both by going out in the family boat.
But when he found he’d forgotten to pack his own bathing shorts, he changed his mind.
David decided to kill Ian with medication he bought specifically for that purpose from a chemist. The day after buying it, he calmly researched how much time he’d spend in prison for murder, and what jail would be like.
David arranged to take Ian on a trip to an indoor BMX park he knew his son would love, followed by a night in their favourite hotel in London, Ontario.
Three days after buying the medication, David told Ian to kiss his mother goodbye and they headed off. “I wasn’t worried,” David recalls. “I knew in my wildly distorted mind that killing Ian was the right thing to do.”
The pair checked into the hotel on Saturday, July 30, ordering room service of all Ian’s favourite food and watching a superhero movie. All the while, David was fixated with the idea that he would sacrifice his freedom and go to prison for 25 years so Ian could go to a better place.
“Nothing kicked in, no innate sense that I was doing the wrong thing,” he says.
Just after 10pm, he poured the medication into a glass of orange juice for Ian. But, instead of becoming sleepy, his son became agitated and began to hallucinate. At 3am David “very calmly” strangled him.
When David was sure Ian was dead, he kissed him, told him he loved him and folded his hands over his chest. Then he watched TV “without any tears” for six hours before calling emergency services.
For two weeks, David remained in a psychotic state, with no comprehension of what he had done. CCTV from the police station shows him calmly shaking the hand of the pathologist who had attended the scene, as if nothing untoward had happened.
“I didn’t feel anything,” he says. “I thought that everyone would understand why I had to do what I’d done.”
When Beth was told that her son was dead and her husband was in custody, she collapsed, screaming. “A former boss came to see me and he said: ‘She will never forgive you.’ I remember saying: ‘What? Of course she will! I did this for all of us,’” says David.
Three days after this, reality finally filtered through. The pain was so excruciating David cried for “whole days. I’d shut my eyes, praying I’d die in my sleep.”
David’s daughter Gillian has never blamed him. He says her unconditional love and forgiveness gave him the motivation to carry on living. Alone in his cell he’d repeat the mantra: “I’m a good dad. I’m going to be a good dad again.”
The question now, says David, is: “What caused my psychosis? That’s what we’re dealing with now.” David believes akathisia is the key to recognising a potential risk. “Anyone who has been prescribed SSRIs who becomes agitated and restless should be monitored closely and, if necessary, taken off the drug,” he says.
He has taken out a $20 million lawsuit against GlaxoSmithKline, the maker of Seroxat, on the grounds of personal injury and product liability. “I believe there have been many, many deaths associated with Seroxat and I want to see the data on the table,’ says David.
When he was discharged from the psychiatric institution, the community and some family shunned David.
David and Beth now live in a different part of Canada, with Ian’s treasured BMX bike sitting in the hall. “Gillian and I have talked about Ian a lot, but Beth and I have only started talking about him,” he says. “Sometimes, we don’t even talk, we just hug.”
David says he has forgiven himself for Ian’s death. “I stopped beating myself up a long time ago. I recognise it was the drug and not me that killed my son.”
Based on The Pill That Steals Lives, by Katinka Blackford Newman
LD: Few people realize the gravity of the situation in America vis-à-vis antidepressants.
Not only are one in six Americans on antidepressants, antipsychotics, and anti-anxiety drugs, which is roughly 50 million Americans experiencing toxic side effects which in some instances drive them to suicide or else make them crazy enough to kill someone, but in addition over a million American children under six years old have been prescribed psychiatric drugs. Alarmingly, 274,000 babies under one year old are also on constant medication for anxiety.
Doctors have a wide variety of pills to choose from, and the pharmaceutical companies have been raking in a veritable bonanza of profits, thanks to an epidemic of artificially manufactured miseries — ranging from mass unemployment to job insecurity, and from huge increases in crime and social anarchy to the escalation of all types of systematically created vices and addictions. Obviously an outbreak of happiness would be extremely bad for business. [LD]
The link between the increased use of Glyphosate in our food and the rising tide of dementia cannot be simply dismissed. To do so is criminal.
With permission from
Barbara H. Peterson
Aug 28, 2017
Recently, the Lancet sent me an article on its Dementia Commission:
“After decades of neglect, dementia was thrust into the international spotlight in 2013 with the G8 Dementia Summit in London, UK, followed 2 years later by the First WHO Ministerial Conference on Global Action Against Dementia. Against this background, The Lancet launched a Commission to review the available evidence and produce recommendations about how best to manage—or even prevent—dementia. “
Tell you what, Lancet, since your article emphasizes “leaving no one behind,” I would suggest that since this commission appears to not address the fact that the wholesale use of pesticides, Glyphosate in particular, is most likely one of the main causes of the disease, then your “leaving no one behind” statement really means to leave no one behind in actually getting the disease, not eradicating it.
Here is the interesting part of the article:
“Although the symptoms of dementia generally occur in later life, the underlying brain pathology develops many years earlier. As outlined in the Lancet Commission, dementia is likely to be a clinically silent disorder that begins at midlife (about age 40–65 years) and the terminal stage manifests as symptoms of dementia. This hypothesis suggests a window of opportunity to intervene by addressing dementia risk factors in middle age. The Commission adopts a life-course approach and identifies nine potentially modifiable risk factors at different stages of life that, if eliminated, might prevent more than a third of cases of dementia: low educational level in childhood, hearing loss, hypertension, obesity, smoking, depression, physical inactivity, social isolation, and diabetes.”
Seriously? Consumption of pesticides doesn’t even rate a mention? Dementia is not a socioeconomic or psychological condition, but a physical one, with a physical causation, and the commission does not even address this adequately in the article. What it appears to be doing is substituting a lot of symptoms for cause.
Dr. B.J. Hardick gives us a realistic look at the dementia epidemic:
“Every three seconds someone is diagnosed with dementia, which now affects 5.3 million Americans and more than half a million Canadians. Alzheimer’s steals more than just memories. It hijacks one’s personality, thoughts and emotions—the very essence of who you are. Early-onset dementia (before age 65) currently represents about five percent of cases, and rising, hitting many in their 40s and 50s.”
Instances of dementia have risen dramatically since the introduction of Glyphosate in our food supply since 1994.
Let that sink in.
NOTE: Alzheimer’s is the most common form of dementia.
The correlation between Glyphosate usage and dementia cannot be disregarded, as it is only basic logic: If a person is exposed to a toxic chemical that causes dementia early in life and it takes several years for the symptoms of the disease to manifest, guess what? The more that chemical is used, the greater the instances of the disease will occur. You can cry correlation does not equal causation until the cows come home, but if the correlation is strong enough, guess what? It cannot be ignored and must be addressed based on the preponderance of evidence linking it to causation. To not do so and list symptoms as cause is like throwing darts at everything but the bull’s-eye on a target and claiming to hit it.
Dr. Hardick continues:
“We know dementia starts in the brain 30 to 50 years before symptoms appear. Science is just beginning to wrap its head around the various factors contributing to the amyloid plaques so characteristic of those with Alzheimer’s disease. Research confirms that many of the chemicals we’re exposed to in our food, water and air have direct links with Alzheimer’s.”
The link between the increased use of Glyphosate in our food and the rising tide of dementia cannot be simply dismissed. To do so is criminal.
If the Lancet is any indication, it appears that the medical community is intent on making sure that dementia will be “leaving no one behind” as it fails to address this damning correlation.
©2017 Barbara H. Peterson