Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Big Brother / Microchipping / Problem-Reaction-Solution

Thread Tools
Old 10-09-2017, 01:43 PM   #81
st jimmy
Senior Member
st jimmy's Avatar
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 965
Likes: 753 (403 Posts)
Default Peter Breggin – Electroshock...

I’ve found a real book on the internet by one of the most respected psychiatrists in the anti-psychiatry movement. Peter Breggin – Electroshock it’s brain-disabling effects (1979) - 16.5 MB, 215 pages: http://www.ectresources.org/ECTscien...buse__Etc_.pdf
This book is mostly about electroshock treatment (Electro Convulsive Therapy - ECT).

In his book Breggin debunks the so-called “scientific evidence” that electroshocks have beneficial effects and its adverse effects are only temporary (these are myths). In reality electroshocks have only adverse effects on the physical and mental state of the victim.
The most frequent disabilities caused by ECT are memory loss (retrograde amnesia) and inability to learn (anterograde mental dysfunction). There is evidence of structural damage in the cortex of the left frontal lobe caused by electroshocks.

The short-term effects are even more drastic.
On awakening, the victim suffers from an acute brain syndrome: a severe headache, nausea, and physical exhaustion.
Typically the victim feels "out of touch" with reality and helpless and frightened. Victims suffer from extreme confusion, bewilderment, emotional labiality, and hallucinations (delirium).
If ECT is given intensively, neurologic collapse occurs. Some victims cannot take care of their daily needs anymore, have to be spoon fed for days, and become incontinent.

The experiments on lab animals confirm the destructive effects of electroshocks.
Animals showed vessel wall changes, gliosis, and irreversible damage to nerve cells. They showed signs of dead and dying cells throughout the brain.
Virtually all brain biochemistry is disrupted by ECT.
Some human victims became brain death from electroshocks, autopsies showed that the brain damage in these humans was comparable to the effects in lab animals.

For me the most interesting topic in this book is the explanation that ECT is used to torture victims of psychiatry into a nice and docile state.
Psychiatry has a history of terror and intimidation to make the victims easier to handle. Before the 1930s the victims were whipped, strapped into spinning chairs, dunked into cold water, poisoned with toxic agents, bled, confined in straitjackets, or kept in solitary confinement.

In the 1930s cleaner approaches were sought that wouldn’t be so evidently damaging.
In the 1930s, psychiatrists experimented with insulin coma and concluded that the brain-damage made the victims “better” patients. In this period surgical destruction of the highest centres of the brain became popular (lobotomy). Also in the 1930s convulsive therapies were developed.
In the 1950s, major tranquilizers were developed with even “better” results.
Another technique tried by the “humanitarian” psychiatrists was refrigerating the lower body temperatures with 10 to 20 degrees, producing deep coma. One victim died, but the therapy was highly recommended: they became pacified and calm.

Electroshock torture was recommended for patients who "cannot be controlled by such means as restraint and sedation”. After being tortured with ECT they became "better": more cooperative and manageable on the ward.
When the victim looses the ability to take care of their daily needs, he asks for help (and becomes more accessible).

Peter Breggin specifically describes the torture by Michigan psychiatrist H.C. Tien that used electroshock in the late 1970’s and early 80’s to give women a new personality in what he called “family counselling”.
ECT to erase memory and personality, thereby eradicating the woman’s identity; in order to reprogram it according to a “blueprint” worked out with the interested parties prior to the electroshock torture.

Breggin estimates that in 1977, 32,000 patients per year were tortured with ECT in the USA alone. In 1972, ECT was at its peak popularity, around double of 1977.
While originally electroshocks were used to torture patients of schizophrenia; from the end of the 1970s it’s officially only used for severe psychotic depressions.
Strangely ECT is mostly used on women (more than twice the percentage of men). Maybe this is because men like their women nice and docile and in help of need.
In 2017, the practise of ECT is steadily rising.

In 1974, an incident was described where a new ECT-machine had been used for 2 years before they discovered that it was non-functional. The medical personnel didn’t notice anything unusual.
These patients were the lucky ones.
Likes: (1)
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-09-2017, 09:12 PM   #82
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 119
Likes: 47 (29 Posts)

It was Morris Fishbein with his AMA who was responsible for squashing cancer cures and many inventions that were treating many diseases cheaply.
356dhg222 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-09-2017, 02:25 PM   #83
st jimmy
Senior Member
st jimmy's Avatar
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 965
Likes: 753 (403 Posts)
Default Catch-22

In this post I will try to describe psychiatry from a legal perspective...

Gottstein is a lawyer connected to Psychrights.org, where I found interesting “scientific” papers on the damage of psychiatric drugs.
His article addresses the force of law (court orders) to compel people to submit to psychiatric treatments they do not want. Legal force is used to lock patients into psychiatric hospitals and force brain damaging drugs and Electroshock upon them.

The legal system is a Catch-22 for the patients where only the "professional" opinion of the psychiatrists is needed to take away the constitutional rights of psychiatric victims.
This disregard of “the law” is done in the name of "we know what is right for the person".

A psychiatric victim can only be forced to psychiatric “treatment” (or torture) if according to a court of law the person is both: 1) Mentally ill and 2) Dangerous.
In a court of law, the psychiatrist is an “independent” expert witness who makes a professional judgment. If the psychiatrist decides that the person is mentally ill, this is a fact.
If the person disagrees on having a mental illness, according to the psychiatrist, that just shows the person lacks "insight" and is in itself proof of the mental illness – Catch-22.
As for the criterion “dangerousness”, a psychiatrist isn’t qualified to determine this, especially not if the victim in question has not done anything “dangerous”. But according to the courts, psychiatrists have the (psychic?) ability to predict that because of the mental disorder the “patient” is dangerous, and present the refusal for voluntary treatment as evidence…

Psychiatrists, with the permission of the trial judges, regularly lie in court to obtain involuntary commitment and forced medication orders…
According to E. Fuller Torrey, M.D., an important proponent of forced psychiatric treatment:
It would probably be difficult to find any American Psychiatrist working with the mentally ill who has not, at a minimum, exaggerated the dangerousness of a mentally ill person's behavior to obtain a judicial order for commitment.
According to Dr. Torrey, lying to the courts (perjury) is a good thing...

Dr. Torrey also quotes psychiatrist Paul Appelbaum:
confronted with psychotic persons who might well benefit from treatment, and who would certainly suffer without it, mental health professionals and judges alike were reluctant to comply with the law (…) 'the dominance of the commonsense model,' the laws are sometimes simply disregarded.
Professor Michael L. Perlin has described that the legal protections for people diagnosed as mentally ill are illusory and the court proceedings are a sham:
Its toxin infects all participants in the judicial system, breeds cynicism and disrespect for the law, demeans participants, and reinforces shoddy lawyering, blasé judging, and, at times, perjurious and/or corrupt testifying.
Because psychiatrists are experts, and giving psychiatric victims psychiatric drugs is "accepted practice", from a legal point of view it is irrelevant that they do more harm than good – Catch-22: http://psychrights.org/force_of_law.htm

The O’Connor - Donaldson case in front of the US Supreme Court is named as important jurisprudence. It shows that in psychiatric trial the rule “guilty until proven innocent” applies.
Kenneth Donaldson was first institutionalised in 1943, at age 34. He was hospitalised and received “treatment”, before resuming life with his family.
In 1956, Donaldson travelled to Florida to visit his elderly parents. Donaldson told his father that one of his neighbours in Philadelphia might be poisoning his food. In a nice Orwellian twist, his father petitioned the court for a sanity hearing.

Donaldson was evaluated, sentenced to “paranoid schizophrenia” and locked up in the Florida State mental health system (Florida State Hospital and Chattahoochee) for 15 years, for "care, maintenance, and treatment". Donaldson refused the “treatment”.
The Supreme Court upheld the trial court's conclusion of February 1971, that psychiatrist O’Connor had violated Donaldson’s “right to liberty”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Connor_v._Donaldson

The Supreme Court ruled that a state cannot constitutionally confine a non-dangerous individual, who is capable of surviving in freedom by themselves or with the help of family or friends:
a State cannot constitutionally confine without more a nondangerous individual who is capable of surviving safely in freedom by himself or with the help of willing and responsible family members or friends.
At the trial, O'Connor stated that Donaldson would have been unable to make a "successful adjustment outside the institution", but could not recall what this conclusion was based on.
After Donaldson “escaped” after being locked up for 15 years, he didn’t experience major problems...
Donaldson, was awarded damages of $38,500, including $10,000 in punitive damages, for being illegally locked up for 15 years. That’s $2567 per year, $7 per day, or $0.29 per hour of being locked up...

Here’s the full text of the Supreme Court ruling: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed.../563/case.html

Here’s the related story (by the daughter) of the legal counsel for Kenneth Donaldson, Dr. Morton Birnbaum: http://jaapl.org/content/38/1/115

The first thing to realise is that there has never been any wonder treatment to solve mental problems. There isn’t anybody that’s always happy and confident, (nearly) everybody has some troubles.
Using (too much) drugs or alcohol is not good for your mental health. When you’re an addict, this can cause mental health problems. Unfortunately there is also no wonder treatment to solve a serious addiction...

There are a couple of things you can do, to minimise your chances of becoming the victim of psychiatry.
In psychiatric trials the rule “anything you say, can and will be used against you” applies, so better “censor” what you say to the psychiatric “health care” workers. Maybe even more important (than what you say) is how you look. Try to look as good and “normal” as you can. Do not go to a meeting with a health care worker stoned or drunk.
When psychiatric health “care” workers insist on making a house visit: clean your house first.

Do not explicitly refuse psychiatric treatment (or this “will be used against you”). There isn’t any treatment that works, so demand that the psychiatrist explains the proposed treatment...
Ask critical questions to the psychiatrist (you can even prepare questions before an appointment). Take a piece of paper and pen to take notes; you probably get a somewhat paranoid reaction - What are you doing?!? - of the psychiatrist when you do...

If you handle psychiatrists in this way, you can beat them at their own game.
If you learn to speak to a psychiatrist with confidence, while the psychiatrist is insecure, they can’t play you around so easily. In this way you can hopefully even improve your communication skills, which will benefit you in your life...
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-11-2017, 04:30 PM   #84
st jimmy
Senior Member
st jimmy's Avatar
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 965
Likes: 753 (403 Posts)

The last days, I've been checking if the links in my posts are still working...
The following 3 links have disappeared.

Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
In 1943 Ezra Pound was sentenced for treason for his support of fascism in the 1930’s and 1940’s while living in fascist Italy. Instead of standing trial, he was declared insane and locked up in St Elizabeth’s hospital from 1945 until 1958.
Pound was called a terrible traitor to the USA (“worse than Hitler” according to Arthur Miller), fascist, anti-Semite and insane (he wanted the usurping banks stopped). Judge two of his papers for yourself: http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres8/PoundCausesofWar.pdf

Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
Some of the effects of Benzodiazepines are: sedation (tranquillity), cognitive impairment, extreme agitation, homicidal, psychosis, paranoia, depression, aggression, and addiction. But the withdrawal effects are possibly even worse: anxiety, insomnia, psychosis, agitation, aggression, and even seizures.
One study showed that Triazolam has even worse adverse effects than other Benzodiazepines (temazapam/Restoril and flurazepam/Dalmane). See the following chapter from a book of Peter Breggin: http://breggin.com/index.php?option=...ask=view&id=85
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
The following meta-analysis shows that benzodiazepines results in cognitive impairment - Barker et al, Cognitive Effects of Long-Term Benzodiazepine Use (2004): http://www.academia.edu/24712569/Cog...odiazepine_Use
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2017, 04:11 PM   #85
st jimmy
Senior Member
st jimmy's Avatar
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 965
Likes: 753 (403 Posts)

I’ve found an interesting literature review by a professor and 3 students on 70 “placebo-controlled” trials of antidepressants with 18,526 patients. They tried to determine the quantity of suicidal, homicidal and akhatisia effects.
Gøtzsche et al - “Suicidality and aggression during antidepressant treatment: systematic review and meta-analyses based on clinical study reports” (2016): http://www.bmj.com/content/352/bmj.i65
(archived here: http://archive.is/QveS4)

They got sort of caught up in a web of manipulated (pseudo)science, and the evidence on manipulation of these “scientific” trials is arguably more interesting than the result that “in children and adolescents the risk of suicidality and aggression doubled”.

Anybody that knows how the pharmaceutical industry works and its control over the “scientific” trials can’t be surprised that a pre-trial was done to carefully select the psychiatric victims that could be expected to improve on the drugs, but worsen on placebo. Some people probably won’t believe how easy it is to manipulate “scientific” studies...

Step 1 - ask a random group of depressed psychiatric victims to participate in a “scientific” trial.
Step 2 – stop giving them psychiatric drugs (in an unreported pre-trial).
Step 3 – exclude the psychiatric victims from the study that improve without drugs.
That is what they did in 86% of the “scientific” trials...:
Sixty trials (86%) had a placebo lead-in period (4 to 14 days, median 7 days) and all of them excluded from randomisation those who improved while receiving placebo, as judged by their Hamilton scores or similar. Rarely was there any information about the numbers excluded.
See the following excerpts that shows that deaths and suicide attempts in the group on drugs, were simply mislabelled:
Four deaths were misreported by the company, in all cases favouring the active drug.
One death in a participant receiving paroxetine (trial 31) was called a post-study event, taking place 21 days after the patient had admitted to taking the last dose, but this was on day 63 out of the 84 days of randomised treatment. Moreover, the patient had detectable paroxetine in the blood at the time of death.

A patient receiving venlafaxine (trial 69) attempted suicide by strangulation without forewarning and died five days later in hospital. Although the suicide attempt occurred on day 21 out of the 56 days of randomised treatment, the death was called a post-study event as it occurred in hospital and treatment had been discontinued because of the suicide attempt.

Conversely, a patient receiving placebo (trial 62) died on day 404, 26 days after the randomised phase ended, but the death was not listed as a post-study event as the patient had allegedly taken treatment until the previous day.
Finally, a death in a participant receiving venlafaxine (trial 70) that occurred three months after treatment was only noted in the patient narratives and nowhere else in the clinical study report.
Of the remaining 62 suicide attempts (in 59 patients), 40 occurred in 39 patients receiving the study drug, 20 in 18 patients receiving placebo, and two in two patients receiving imipramine. Four of these events were only listed in the individual patient listings and three others only noted in adverse events tables (no further information was available as there was no narrative).

Twenty seven events were coded as emotional lability or worsening depression, although in patient narratives or individual patient listings they were clearly suicide attempts. Conversely, several cases of suicidal ideation were called suicide attempts in the adverse events tables.
One suicide attempt (intentional overdose with paracetamol (acetaminophen)) in a patient receiving fluoxetine was described as “elevated liver enzymes” in the adverse events tables, in contrast with the narrative (see supplementary data C).
Children suffered more from adverse effects from the drugs than adults:
Aggressive behaviour occurred more often in the drug group compared with placebo group (odds ratio 1.93, 95% confidence interval 1.26 to 2.95). The odds ratio for adults was 1.09 (0.55 to 2.14) and for children and adolescents was 2.79 (1.62 to 4.81, figure 4?).

Fig 4 Aggressive behaviour in patients receiving selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) compared with placebo
We found that the risk of aggressive behaviour was doubled with use of antidepressants (all ages), which was a statistically significant result, but when we restricted our analysis to adults, there was no such effect. However, we did find a doubling of risk for children and adolescents, which is consistent with the increased incidence in hostility noted by the MHRA.16 We found that akathisia was much under-reported.

Akathisia occurred more often in participants receiving drugs than receiving placebo, both in children and adolescents and in adults, but the difference was not significant (all ages, odds ratio 2.04, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 4.48).
We also found similar results in a systematic review of trials in healthy adult volunteers that included data from 10 published trials and two unpublished trials (clinical study reports obtained from EMA). Compared with placebo (n=226), antidepressants (n=318) were associated with an increased rate of activation or other precursor events for aggression and suicidality (odds ratio 1.81, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 3.12).37

Fig 5 Akathisia in participants receiving selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) compared with placebo
Earlier in this thread I wrote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
Here´s some scientific looking evidence to proof that psychiatric drugs cause violence. The following report shows that from 484 evaluable drugs, 31 cause violence, these 31 drugs accounted for 1527 out of 1937 cases of violence (79%): Varenicline (place 1), Fluoxetine (Prozac, place 2), Paroxetine (3), Amphetamines, Mefloquine, Atomoxetine, Triazolam, Fluvoxamine, Venlafaxine, Desvenlafaxine, Montelukast, Sertraline, Zolpidem, Escitalopram, Sodium oxybate, Citalopram, Aripiprazole, Oxycodone, Bupropion, Ziprasidone, Methylphenidate (Ritalin), Mirtazapine, Gabapentin, Levetiracetam, Diazepam, Alprazolam, Duloxetine, Clonazepam, Interferon alfa, Risperidone (Risperdal), Quetiapine (place 31).
See Moore et al, Prescription Drugs Associated with Reports of Violence Towards Others (2010): http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0015337
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-12-2017, 12:27 PM   #86
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: London
Posts: 386
Likes: 66 (52 Posts)

Ask someone who suffers from epilepsy I cannot see my drugs there which is a relief. If you would check on epilim tegretol and clobozam I would be grateful. People do exercise mind control. Ordinary people but I think those in positions of authority also. Doctors nurses in short anyone with some medical training
mannybash is offline   Reply With Quote


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 11:58 PM.

Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.