Friday, September 30, 2011

Silencing the Truth about the Drug Luvox and Homicidal Thoughts

Mark Taylor was only a high school student when he had sustained terrible injuries during the violent shooting spree at the Columbine school. Mark had suffered incredible blood loss resulting from 7 - 13 bullets as he laid on the ground at Columbine for almost 2 hours help could arrive. That traumatic memory will always remain with Mark Taylor, the memories of the shooting and lying there helpless for two hours with bullets whizzing around him while bleeding from nearly a dozen bullet wounds. Some bullets still even now remain embedded in his spine and near his aorta. Because of the way the bullets ravaged Mark’s body, it was even impossible for the surgeons to count the wounds. The estimated bullet count ranges from 8 to 13. Miraculously, Mark showed courage, strength and resiliency and eventually went on to a full medical recovery. Mark even wrote a book about his experience and went on a book tour, and even was brave enough to testify before the FDA. Because of the notoriety of the case, Mark Taylor was interviewed on numerous television broadcasts and his story in public eye . - -

- -

Because of his horrendous experience, Mark Taylor became a truth teller regarding the dangers of antidepressants and SSRI medications and how those medications cause patients to have violent thoughts,homicidal ideations and thoughts of suicide. These drugs have long been known to have these severe side effects and there is a black box warning about this required by the FDA to be put on these medications. But doctors ignore these warnings and give these medications to patients anyway. One of these patients receiving this kind of medication was Eric Harris, the student who decided that fateful day to shoot and kill his fellow students at Columbine. This antidepressant, Luvox is still on the market and now has "homicidal ideation" listed as a side effect. Homicidal ideation is not just one thought of homicide, but constant ruminating thoughts of killing and how to accomplish that. This warning about tendencies to violence, based on pre-marketing research data - before the drug ever hit the market or was approved by the FDA, was kept from an unsuspecting public and the drug marketed to patients for years. Eric Harris, one of the Columbine shooters, was taking the anti-depressant Luvox when he decided to kill his fellow students. The first antidepressant Eric Harris was given was Zoloft. Within six weeks of taking the drug Eric reported he was having homicidal and suicidal thoughts. Clearly doctors suspected the antidepressant of causing these violent thoughts because they took him off the drug immediately. Eric Harris was taken off that drug but then was put on Luvox. The drug Luvox also caused him to have violent thoughts and with homicidal intent Eric Harris killed students at Columbine. The Columbine families filed a legal law suit against Solvay, the maker of the antidepressant Luvox for continuing to market and sell the drug even after multiple cases of violent behavior of persons taking their product. The drug companies threatened to counter sue to Columbine victims so as a result all the victims retracted their law suits except Mark Allen Taylor. Mark stood up to the pressure and intimidation by the big drug company which had much to loose by the publicity brought by Mark's tragic victims story. Solvay already had bad press about their drug hitting the news because a patient, Matthew Beck, who was also on Luvox, went on a shooting spree at the Connecticut Lottery killing four co-workers before taking his own life. In another Luvox case, a decorated police officer from New Jersey was prescribed Luvox and while on this medication he shot six persons – killing them. This police officer, Edward L. Lutes along with Mark Allen Taylor filed a lawsuit against Luvox. This lawsuit caused the drug manufacturer to pull the drug off the market in the U.S.A. Mark Taylor had survived more gunshot wounds during the shooting rampage than anyone else. Mark's courage and that of a decorated police officer in New Jersey, Edward L. Lutes, stopped the sale of this dangerous drug, Luvox.

- - - -

But this stop on the marketing and sale of this dangerous drug, Luvox, which had already caused these violent deaths was short lived. Mark Taylor was subsequently legally ill advised by an attorney who encouraged him to sign a settlement agreement anyway even though he was clearly emotionally suffering PTSD as a result of the shooting trauma. Mark was that day in negotiations with the opposing attorneys for hours and was lead to believe that he was himself in legal trouble. Mark Taylor was deceived and coerced into signing a settlement with the drug maker Solvay. This attorney, it was later determined, had formerly worked for the drug giant GlaxoSmithKline and was on friendly terms with the pharmaceutical industry and was urging Mark Taylor to sign settlement papers so as to rapidly close the case. Then after the settlement was signed the judge decided to seal the evidence on the case. This made the evidence of the homicidal effects of this drug Luvox unavailable to public scrutiny. Then Solvay sold the market rights to Luvox in the USA to Jazz Pharmaceuticals. The pharmaceutical industry has great political and financial power over what happens in mental health care. Now years later, to silence Mark Taylor's efforts to expose the dangers of antidepressants and how they cause patients to have homicidal thoughts, Mark Taylor is now being treated with the very class of drugs that he warned the public about and he is also threatened with permanent imprisonment by mental health authorities. After many public appearances about the dangers of psychiatric medications like Luvox, Mark and his mother, Donna Taylor were traveling in Arizona when suddenly he seemed to be having seizures. Going immediately to the emergency hospital, Mark and his mother were ill prepared for the actions of the mental health professionals who then unexpectedly decided to keep him hospitalized on a long term basis. Mark then ended up in a hospital while his family was prevented from communicating with him and he was ultimately held without his family's consent for over a year, while being force drugged. While hospitalized the Arizona, Mental Health Officials choose to put Mark on a psychiatric drug that is considered a “last resort” medication: Clozapine.



Clozapine (sold as Clozaril, Azaleptin, Leponex, Fazaclo, Froidir; Denzapine, Zaponex in the UK; Klozapol in Poland, Clopine in NZ/Aus) is an antipsychotic medication used in the treatment of schizophrenia, and is also used off-label in the treatment of bipolar disorder. There are three pharmaceutical companies that market this drug at present: Novartis Pharmaceuticals (manufacturer), Mylan Laboratories and Ivax Pharmaceuticals (market generic clozapine). Clozapine was the first of the atypical antipsychotics to be developed. It was first introduced in Europe in 1971, but was voluntarily withdrawn by the manufacturer in 1975 after it was shown to cause agranulocytosis, a condition involving a dangerous decrease in the number of white blood cells, that led to death in some patients. In 1989, after studies demonstrated that it was more effective than any other antipsychotic for treating schizophrenia, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved clozapine’s use but only for treatment-resistant schizophrenia. The FDA requires blood testing for patients taking clozapine. The FDA also requires clozapine to carry five black box warnings for agranulocytosis, seizures, myocarditis, for “other adverse cardiovascular and respiratory effects”, and for “increased mortality in elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis.” In 2002 the FDA approved clozapine for reducing the risk of suicidal behavior for patients with schizophrenia.Clozapine is usually used as a last resort in patients that have not responded to other anti-psychotic treatments due to its danger of causing agranulocytosis as well as the costs of having to have blood tests continually during treatment. The withdrawal effects Clozapine are severe and life-threatening.

Mark, the courageous Columbine miracle boy, who survived what many did not, and who lived to be an advocate for others, is now hospitalized long term with doctors forcing on him the very type of drug that he advocated should be removed off the market. This drugging regime has left Mark unable to communicate and to care for himself. His mother, Donna Taylor, has been appointed as his legal guardian. Now, under the best of circumstances, Mark Taylor faces one to two years of recovery. Mark has been victimized again by the pharmaceutical industry and the medical professionals who support this forced drugging with anti-depressants and SSRI's and he may never fully recover from this continued misuse and abuse of psychiatric medications.


See these videos of the Columbine Shooting:
1. http://youtu.be/4u2j7hM8MPo
2. http://youtu.be/sHo8vK9CY8E
3. http://youtu.be/nwFw0feUpxI
4. http://youtu.be/l853KaRheqw
5. http://youtu.be/juPWiyciE7U

Mass Violence caused by Anti-depressants and SSRI drugs

---------

Recent cases of mass violence such as the Joseph Wesbecker in Virginia that shot his co-workers, the Virginia Tech murders, the Columbine Shootings, and the shootings at Fort Hood, all point to the fact that anti-depressant and SSRI medication are dangerous to the public. These medications can cause homicidal thinking which results in public violence and also in suicides. The pharmaceutical industry wants to use the returning veterans as a huge potential pharmaceutical drug customer base. All veterans are trained to use weapons and often have weapons easily at hand. With Post Traumatic Stress a major problem in the returning troops, we have a social problem to deal with their mental health needs. With the US government picking up the tab, the pharmaceutical companies are lobbying heavily to increase their expected profits from the sales of drugs for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) sufferers. The huge numbers of returning veterans are a prime target of their sales efforts. Big Pharma pours lots of money into the political campaigns of those who support their agenda. These huge pharmaceutical companies have persons on the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health that are pushing to do wholesale marketing of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI's) and other mind altering drugs to veterans with PTSD. The constantly expanding prison population is another target for the SSRI drug marketing and especially those prisoners facing re-entry and who will soon have Medicaid/Medicare to pay their pharmaceutical bills. -

-

When SSRI antidepressants such as Prozac, Paxil and Zoloft were first introduced in the late 1980's and early 1990's there were reports of increasing violent behavior including suicide and homicide. There were in 2003 reports by British authorities and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration about unpublished studies showing an increased risk of suicide in children and teenagers taking Paxil. Prior reports of suicidal and homicidal acts in adults taking SSRIs have been minimized by the pharmaceutical company defenders and mainstream doctors, who claim that suicide is common in depression anyway. ---

---

The recent violence Nov. 5, 2009 at Fort Hood in Texas in which a military psychiatrist shot and killed 13 people and wounded 30 others gives us good reason to reconsider these psychiatric drug treatments for military personnel and veterans. This incident reminded me of the Northern Illinois University mass shootings where former grad student Stephen Kazmierczak killed 5 students and wounding dozens of others before committing suicide himself. This gunman had been taking the drug Paxil prior to his mass killings. The drug manufacturer had been deliberately withholding information about violent behavior as an adverse effect of the medication. Now the drug Paxil carries a black box warning about homicide and suicide. On Sept 14, 2004, an FDA panel voted 18 to 5 to require manufacturers of all antidepressants to add black box warnings to their product labeling. A month later, the FDA adopted the panel's recommendations. The warning reads in part: "Antidepressants increased the risk of suicidal thinking and behavior (suicidality) in short-term studies in children and adolescents with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and other psychiatric disorders. Anyone considering the use of [Drug Name] or any other antidepressant in a child or adolescent must balance this risk with the clinical need. Patients who are started on therapy should be observed closely for clinical worsening, suicidality, or unusual changes in behavior." The warning specifically links antidepressant use to suicidal behavior in four percent of kids on these drugs compared to two percent for kids on placebos. -

-

No type of antidepressant is helpful in every clinical case or even indicated. These drugs can actually make the situation worse. As a class of drugs SSRIs can create a unique combination of side effects that may severely impair judgment and impulse control in individual patients. Excessive doses of antidepressants can cause brain dysfunctions including disorientation, confusion, and cognitive disturbances. In combat veterans suffering PTSD, impulsive behavior, especially if coupled with impaired cognitive functioning, can be dangerous. Antidepressants can also trigger similar, manic-like symptoms in people whose depression is part of a manic-depressive syndrome, which often gets overlooked when people are given SSRIs. Is public safety enhanced when “patients” are given SSRI’s and are persons on SSRI’s less likely to do gun violence? The pharmaceutical corporations would lead you to believe that a person taking these drugs is less likely to commit suicide and less likely to do gun violence to others. But is that really true? --

---

The use of secret settlements to withhold information about a known harm of a pharmaceutical drug was very evident in the Fentress case, in which the Kentucky Supreme Court found that lawyers who engaged in an ongoing trial after a secret settlement had already been reached. Judge Potter said their conduct showed "a serious lack of candor with the trial court, and there may have been deception, bad faith conduct, abuse of the judicial process or perhaps even fraud." [Potter v. Eli Lilly & Co., 926 S.W.2d 449, 454 (Ky. 1996).] In summary the Fentress case was about a violent incident in September 1989. Joseph Wesbecker armed himself with an AK-47, walked into the Louisville printing plant where he had worked, and started shooting his former co-workers. After killing eight people, wounded twelve more, and the man finished matters by committing suicide with his gun. Only one month before, Wesbecker had begun taking Prozac. The known problems of violent behavior of patients on this medication had been withheld from the public, governmental regulators and even medical professionals. The lawyers for the shooting victims soon focused on the drug Prozac, manufactured by Eli Lilly, as the cause for Wesbecker's unexpected violence. With the sales of the drug Prozac at $1.7 billion in 1994 there was a lot at stake in this legal case. The Plaintiff's counsel had information about the withholding of research findings regarding another Eli Lilly drug Oraflex. In 1985, Lilly had pled guilty to twenty-five criminal counts of failing to report adverse reactions to Oraflex, including four deaths, to the Food & Drug Administration. But then suddenly during the trial the Oraflex evidence was no longer going to be presented to the court. There was an experienced and astute Judge on the case, John Potter, who suspected something was afoul despite the lawyers' denials and their references to a damages phase, Potter suspected that a deal had been made before closing argument. When the plaintiffs didn't file a notice of appeal, Judge Potter became suspicious and thus called in the lawyers from both sides for consultation. But the lawyers continued to deny that a settlement had been reached. When the appeals court ruled against Judge Potter saying he no longer had jurisdiction, Potter was not satisfied and appealed the case to the Kentucky Supreme Court. Finally in a Supreme Court hearing, lawyers for both sides finally acknowledged that they had indeed settled all money issues and had agreed to go through only the liability phase of the trial no matter what the result. Judge John Potter took the "high road," acting consistently with the judiciary's responsibility, and protecting the public interest. Thus the role of the judiciary in deciding matters of privacy and sealed records is an important balancing act of sometimes competing interests but which must also take into account the public's right to know especially when there is a compelling public interest. But in most cases the judge opts for sealing the court record and hiding the evidence of wrongdoing by pharmaceutical companies from the public scrutiny. Many cases are settled secretly out of court with a gag order against the plaintiff and an exemption from discovery. Thus even when hundreds of cases of death and injury result, the public is rarely informed. Pharmaceutical companies pay a lot in legal fees to do "risk management" and this often involves counter suits against the victims of the pharmaceutical fraud. In addition, the pharmaceutical companies also use intimidation tactics against witnesses, especially against medical professionals who might act as expert witnesses in court. So when it comes to psychiatric drugs our court system and our regulatory agencies are not protecting the American public.

Thursday, September 29, 2011

Aerotoxic Syndrome - Caused by Dangerous Chemical in Airplane Cabin Air

Aerotoxic Syndrome - Caused by Dangerous Chemicals in Airplane Cabin Air Cranfield University will be hosting a seminar on Tuesday 11th October 2011 10.00 - 17.00 (Registration from 09.30)

----

The Cranfield University final circular is now available on the website:
http://www.aerotoxic.org/download/docs/news_and_articles/Final_Circular.pdf

**Attendees are reminded that they must register prior to the seminar**

What is Aerotoxic Syndrome?

Aerotoxic Syndrome is the term given to the illness caused by breathing contaminated air in jet aircraft. It was introduced on 20th October 1999 by Dr Harry Hoffman, Professor Chris Winder and Jean Christophe Balouet, Ph.D. Why does the cabin air get contaminated? In order to have a comfortable environment and sufficient air pressure to breathe at the altitudes at which jet airliners fly, a supply of warm compressed air is required. This is supplied direct from the jet engines and is known as "bleed air". It is mixed inside the aircraft with recirculated cabin air at a ratio of 50/50. Although some of the air is recirculated, all of the air originates from the jet engines. Bleed air comes from the compressor section of the jet engine that has to be lubricated. Jet engines have "wet seals" which are designed to keep the oil and air apart. However these seals, like any mechanical component, are subject to wear. They cannot be 100% effective, may fail and will then let a certain amount of oil into the bleed air."

What are the symptoms?

Symptoms may be acute, i.e. for a short time or chronic, i.e. long-lasting. Any combination of the following may be experienced: Fatigue – feeling exhausted, even after sleep Blurred or tunnel vision Shaking and tremors Loss of balance and vertigo Seizures Loss of consciousness Memory impairment Headache Tinnitus Light-headedness, dizziness Confusion / cognitive problems Feeling intoxicated Nausea Diarrhoea Vomiting Coughs Breathing difficulties (shortness of breath) Tightness in chest Respiratory failure requiring oxygen Increased heart rate and palpitations Irritation of eyes, nose and upper airways. As the term “Aerotoxic Syndrome” has yet to be officially recognized, many medical practitioners are unaware of the condition and misdiagnose sufferers. --

---

Conference now scheduled in London on this issue at Cranfield University which will be hosting a seminar on Tuesday 11th October 2011 10.00 - 17.00.

'Inhalable toxic chemicals on board aircraft: priorities for research and action'

Following a published Department of Transport report on 10th May 2011 which concluded that: ‘There was no evidence of pollutants occurring in cabin air levels at levels exceeding available health and safety standards’, it has been decided to review evidence which was not previously considered. This meeting will be a “think tank” event, with the aim of strengthening the scientific foundations. Individuals and organizations with an interest or contrary evidence to offer are invited to attend in an effort to fill the gap of knowledge and discuss priorities for further research and technical solutions. If speakers wish to submit a written version of their talks, the entire proceedings can be published in a special number of The Journal of Biological Physics and Chemistry before the end of the year. If you wish to take part in the seminar, either as a speaker or a delegate please contact: Professor Jeremy Ramsden, Department of Nanotechnology, Cranfield University, B-70, Bedfordshire, MK43 0AL. United Kingdom or email him: J.Ramsden@cranfield.ac.uk and the Aerotoxic Association christine@aerotoxic.org who will be undertaking the registration process

Thursday, September 8, 2011

Remembering the tragedy of 9/11

This September 11th will mark the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attack that inflicted so much tragedy on so many. The tragic events of September 11, 2001 were like nothing this country has experienced before and hopefully will not experience again. The sheer magnitude of the tragedy and the loss of American life on American soil stunned us. We grieve now the lives lost at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and in the four planes that were hijacked and crashed. But the United States as a nation was not alone in this great loss. The World Trade Center housed employees from countries from all around the world and they also lost loved ones in this disaster, as well as the international passengers on the planes. So this event united the world in grief, as we struggled to try to explain the unexplainable.

For the families who lost loved ones this September 11th this will be a day of sad remembrance. For many it marks a day that they will never forget, one that changed their life forever. For those who lost someone in the towers that day, there was initially such shock that it was hard to grasp the finality of the event or even conceive what outcome might lie ahead. The sorrow we felt in our hearts was our memory’s way of holding on to things we never wanted to lose. We also wished we could deny that fellow human beings were capable of such atrocities and such hatred. There are things that we didn't want to happen but in the finality of these events we had to accept, things we didn't want to know but had to learn, and people we cherished and lost.

There also was an incalculable loss of our sense of safety and security as individuals and as a nation. Prior to these tragic events, we took for granted our safety and security but also our freedoms. Much has changed since that fateful day; our lives will never be the same. There were many secondary victims--those who have been traumatized by watching and hearing of the events. We have also heard and watched the stories of courage and bravery of the firefighters, police officers and paramedics, and those who were evacuating the building. We have heard of the courage and bravery of "ordinary" people who responded to help others still trapped in the building. Many responded in an extraordinary ways, those who helped strangers down the many flights of stairs to safety, and the rescue workers who searched seemingly tirelessly for survivors. And there were also those in our national service jumped into action to try to protect the nation.

Because of the suddenness of the attacks we questioned the capabilities of our government intelligence to detect terrorist acts and we were also left wondering about the safety procedures of airlines, the effectiveness of our disaster preparedness and our general defense systems. Those who struggled with the chaos and confusion following the attacks were trying to piece together the pieces, trying to comprehend how this could possibly happen, and attempting to plan for our continued defense and even our diplomatic policy. There were many who served honorably and valiantly in our national security and intelligence services.

Now, ten years after the 9/11 attack there are still many questions about why and how this happened; questions that were not answered by the 9/11 commission or our governmental officials. Some suspect a deeper problem within our national security system – one that is not related to the external enemy we faced; some believe we were not defeated that day by a superior opponent, but rather succumbed to an enemy within. Many whistleblowers had warned about the terrorism threat and also warned about other internal weaknesses within our national security system. There were courageous whistleblowers who dared to speak the truth, they were mostly ignored.

There were many qualified and dedicated professionals who sought to protect the nation and rose in service that day and in the weeks and months to follow. In the aftermath of the 9/11 event, we did not improve our ability to see through the political smokescreen of power, but instead bolstered its opacity by making scape goats of innocent Muslims and creating a reign of oppressed civil rights for our own people. We as a nation had lost our moral compass. Using hatred to fuel animosity, we, as a nation acted dishonorably. The government lawyers suspended moral and ethical values and authorized the use of abhorrent methods against our presumed enemies, only to find that we harmed ourselves by uniting the Muslim world against us. We lost the high moral ground and authorized the use of enhanced interrogation methods, including water boarding and other methods of torture. We arranged for extrajudicial sites to hold enemy combatants and sent persons to places of torture. We even authorized the curtailment of the civil rights and liberties of our own people through the Patriot Act. If we do not learn from the mistakes of the past, we are doomed to repeat them. We must hold those in government accountable to the American people. We must make take seriously the international standards of human rights and the Geneva Conventions and we must support peaceful means for our nation’s future.

This is a time for prayer, meditation and reflection in respect for those who perished. Hopefully by this process of remembrance, we have found a way to come to know who we are in new and unexpected ways. We have gained a more profound understanding of our past and our future. We are humbled by our mortality but more aware of how adversity has enriched our meaning and purpose of life. We journeyed inwardly to discover connections previously not understood or acknowledged and found ourselves again.