Fwd: [SSRI-Research] DRUGS, DRUGS, AND MORE DRUGS

[Guest guest]

Of course most people take drugs out of ignorance as to the real side effects

associated with them. Very few people who really understand usually want to take

them. (Just relying on your doctor's word can get you into a lot of trouble.)

That combined with a huge massive campaign to assure that they are good for you

by the whole medical/pharmacuetical industry as well as major media,

governments, etc.

 

Understanding on a deep level is why a lot of doctors don't take the ones used

in their specialty, ie. oncologists refusing cancer drugs, cardiologists

refusing heart drugs etc. The head researcher who refused heart drugs, etc. It

depends on how well and on what level they understand them. An understanding of

the true nature and facts surrounding any particular drug are sometimes very

hard to come by and may not become public knowledge for many years if ever.

 

Frank

 

 

JustSayNo

Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:39:46 -0500

[sSRI-Research] DRUGS, DRUGS, AND MORE DRUGS

 

DRUGS, DRUGS, AND MORE DRUGS

 

2003-11-25

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

Article Text

NOVEMBER 25. As I approach another appearance on Coast to Coast AM, December

3---and this is going to be a big one---I'm reprinting here an article from

January that is relevant to the whole med drugs versus natural health

debate...it has to do with freedom in a coercive society.

 

January 9. I have been getting so many emails about my recent articles on

the dangers of pharmaceutical drugs, I wanted to point out several relevant

issues.

 

One, we of course need a level playing field. That means any adult can

choose to take or not take a drug. There should be an irreversible right to

refuse medication or take it.

 

So whether you personally agree with a negative assessment of, say, Prozac,

you can choose to take it. Or not take it. That is up to you.

 

However, the next issue is truth in advertising. And truth in research. If

Prozac, for example, was initially approved for public use on the basis of

fraudulent science and/or compromised evaluations at the FDA, then your

choice about whether or not to take it is tainted by misinformation.

 

You THINK that all is well, but in fact you were not informed about the true

dangers. And THAT issue branches over into a related area, SELLING POISION

TO THE PUBLIC.

 

Selling poison is a crime. A very serious one. If the initial research, or

the post-marketing research, or the FDA evaluation of a new drug is

fraudulent and covers up toxicity and severe adverse effects, then people

are guilty of PUSHING POISON on the public. Not just 3scientific

misconduct.2

 

Of course, no one in memory has been prosecuted to the full extent of the

law for selling poison in the form of a pharmaceutical drug.

 

Otherwise, we would see the CEO of every drug company in the world behind

bars doing long and hard time.

 

So now let me take this to an extreme question: Do you have the right to

ingest a poison if you choose to do so? If you know you are ingesting

poison?

 

The answer to that is yes.

 

Society does not have, as its mission, the protection of adult citizens who

wish to harm themselves.

 

Therefore, even in the most egregious case, if a reader says to me, 3I have

made my own study of Prozac and I don1t like the fact that you1re trying to

convince me not to take it, my answer is: I1M NOT TRYING TO MAKE YOU FLUSH

IT DOWN THE TOILET. THAT IS UP TO YOU.

 

It is not my goal to stop a person from taking a medical drug. Convince,

yes. Stop, no. Because if I wanted to stop someone, I would drive to his

house, break in, force my way to the medicine cabinet and destroy the supply

of a medicine on his shelf. I would tie him to a chair and talk to him for

hundreds of hours until he gave in.

 

However, when it comes to society itself, there are proper laws against

pushing poison. And they should be enforced.

 

It is absurd to imagine that only doctors have the right to engage in a

public debate about the merits and toxicity of medical drugs. The government

has made illegal laws that yield to medical doctors the EXCLUSIVE right to

treat disease.

 

The implication of that, as seen in some quarters, is: only doctors have the

right to DISCUSS AND DEBATE these drugs.

 

That is bald fascism.

 

Now, if you choose to listen only to what doctors say, that is your

business. That is your right. That is up to you.

 

I hope this begins to put some clarity into this arena.

 

When it comes to children, the situation gets even worse. Because they are

not free agents. They are bound by what their parents and doctors and

governments tell them. So if medical drugs which are really poisons are

being foisted on them in a consistent way---AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IS

HAPPENING---then we are looking at RICO. RICO maiming and coercion and

murder.

 

Every president in my memory has been too stupid and shut down and unsavory

to really look at this issue and do something about it. Ditto for every

attorney general.

 

There are many reasons for this. I have commented on these reasons in past

articles. One reason is, politicians and law enforcement types tend to look

at issues in terms of generalized stereotypes: 3Doctors help. Medical

research is a good thing. The more medical treatment we give to people, the

better.2

 

People like Hillary Clinton live inside these clichés. They make themselves

dupes of the most efficient killing machine in the history of the planet.

 

Of course, you have the right to ignore what I1m saying. If you do ignore

it, I lose no sleep. It1s a level playing field.

 

You see, some people, from time to time, like to pick out a target to blame

for their own insecurity. They don1t really know whether they want to take

all the drugs their doctors recommend. They want to believe their doctors

know the score. But something nags at them. And then they come across this

news service and start reading a whole different point of view about medical

drugs. They poke around in the archive, and they come across a surprising

number of citations/ references for statements I1m making.

 

So, before they can really think about it, they try to lash out and blame me

for their own uncertainty, as if, by some extraordinary stretch of the

imagination, I1m blocking them from believing in the grand wisdom of their

doctors. Whereas, they themselves already have doubts about those doctors.

 

Anyway, a few of these people try to get on my case. After 20 years of

working as a reporter, I eat this stuff for breakfast. It makes my day.

 

Just so we have it straight, I don1t stand in for another person1s

conscience or his intelligence or his choices. I believe in letting other

people make their own choices, when it finally comes down to it. Believe

what I1m writing about medical drugs, don1t believe it, it1s your ballgame.

But if you go on Paxil and then later find out it1s doing very weird and

nasty things to you, don1t expect me to take the blame.

 

At that point, you have it all backwards. I was the one saying it was a bad

and dangerous drug. Get it?

 

And if you just love Paxil, and think I was the one who was trying to keep

you from it, think again. Paxil, heroin, cocaine, chemo, draino---it was

always up to you. Your life. Your decisions. Nobody else is pouring out the

glass of water and placing the tablets in his hand and swallowing them.

 

It1s called freedom. With it comes a strong measure of responsibility. If

holding that basic position makes me anything, it makes me a realist. That1s

all.

 

Every once in awhile, I have to make these things clear.