With the exception of conservative talk radio, most of the discussions I’ve heard on this recent Charleston, South Carolina church shooting, in which Dylan Storm Roof killed 9 innocents, have centered on Roof’s racial ignorance and hatred, and on guns. The incident was yet another excuse for Obama and the gun control crowd to show how ignorant they are, how they argue on the basis of their own immediate emotional reactions to these stories without even thinking. For example, sensible people have pointed out that if others in the church had been armed, once it is clear that a psychopath is shooting people, the psychopath would immediately be shot, saving the rest of the 9 people from getting hurt. But, as I heard a fool on the news say just this morning, the emotional, unthinking reaction is that if people in the church were armed there would be a “shootout” and many more people would be killed. Only a fool would actually believe that, in my view.
The other more important factor, as this article today on LewRockwell.com pointed out (and this one and this one as well), is that most if not all of these recent mass shootings have involved shooters having been taking psychiatric drugs, or withdrawing from them. And those particular drugs have been mainly the SSRI antidepressants, which include Zoloft and Prozak. Prescription pain killers, anti-psychotics and the anti-anxiety drugs have also played a role in mass killers, such as the Santa Barbara college shooter last year, Elliot Rodger, who had been taking the anti-anxiety drug Xanax and the pain killer Vicodin.
What do you know, it just so happens that this week’s South Carolina church shooter had been taking Xanax and the pain killer Suboxone. According to this article, Suboxone has been shown to cause aggression and violent outbursts. So, regardless of the shooter’s ignorant and racist views, had he not been taking these brain-chemical-altering drugs he probably would have continued to remain in control of his hatred and his emotions. I have previously written this post and this post on the relationship between psychiatric drugs and violence (and other problems such as ADHD).
But we are not hearing about any of this, or in discussions about Adam Lanza the Sandy Hook shooter, or on the Aurora, Colorado theater shooter James Holmes, who is currently on trial, who was taking the SSRI antidepressant Zoloft and the anti-anxiety drug Clonazepam. Will those drug names come up during this trial? Probably not.
One big reason why we do not hear about these connections between the psychiatric drugs and the violence and murders from mainstream news outlets and networks is because the pharmaceutical industry advertises their dangerous drugs and vaccines on those same mainstream news outlets and networks. And it’s not just the psychiatric drugs, but whatever crap the pharmaceutical industry (a.k.a. “Big Pharma”) pays the media outlets to shill for them, such as the terrible statin drugs.
To get an idea of how beholden the news media and networks are to the drug makers rather than reporting the truth, here is what former CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson stated regarding her reporting on the Swine Flu non-epidemic and vaccine issue from 2009, in an interview with Jon Rappoport:
In 2009, you spearheaded coverage of the so-called Swine Flu pandemic. You discovered that, in the summer of 2009, the Centers for Disease Control, ignoring their federal mandate, stopped counting Swine Flu cases in America. Yet they continued to stir up fear about the “pandemic,” without having any real measure of its impact. Wasn’t that another investigation of yours that was shut down? Wasn’t there more to find out?
The implications of the story were even worse than that. We discovered through our FOI efforts that before the CDC mysteriously stopped counting Swine Flu cases, they had learned that almost none of the cases they had counted as Swine Flu was, in fact, Swine Flu or any sort of flu at all! The interest in the story from one executive was very enthusiastic. He said it was “the most original story” he’d seen on the whole Swine Flu epidemic. But others pushed to stop it and, in the end, no broadcast wanted to touch it. We aired numerous stories pumping up the idea of an epidemic, but not the one that would shed original, new light on all the hype. It was fair, accurate, legally approved and a heck of a story. With the CDC keeping the true Swine Flu stats secret, it meant that many in the public took and gave their children an experimental vaccine that may not have been necessary.
You’ve revealed serious problems caused by vaccines. Have you run into opposition as a result of covering these stories?
This is a long discussion but yes, it is one of the most well funded, well orchestrated efforts I’ve ever seen on a story. Many reporters, if not all, who have tried to factually cover this topic have experienced the same opposition as have researchers who dared to uncover vaccine side effects. Those who don’t want the stories explored want to censor the information from the public entirely, lest the public draw the “wrong” conclusions about the facts. The media has largely bought into the conflicted government, political and medical complex propaganda on the topic that marginalizes researchers, journalists and parents who dare to speak to the scientific facts they’ve uncovered or to their own experiences. It’s a giant scandal of its own.
Hmm, for some reason, Sharyl Attkisson’s website is down now, but she recently had this lengthy analysis (that I was able to get from the Wayback Machine) of a study attempting to distance any linkage between vaccines and autism. (I know, there are many people now who believed the mainstream media’s propaganda campaign against that Dr. Wakefield, but it turned out that the actual fraudsters were those who had smeared him, not the other way around.) But I digress. In the new analysis by Attkisson, she also uncovers the spin that the mainstream media give on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry.
So people have long known how biased CBS News is, as well as the other networks. It isn’t just bias, but a lack of judgment and appropriate decision-making. For instance, NBC has decided to relocate Brian Williams to MSNBC rather than just firing him outright. And ABC continues to keep George Snuffleupagus despite his corrupt connections to Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. Can we possibly trust any of these people to report honestly? Given the aforementioned issues, the Iraq War and other important stories, I am not too sure.
But the networks’ reflexive loyalty to corporate sponsors isn’t just of the commercial networks, but PBS as well, as I wrote in this piece on the deadly Gardsil vaccine, and NPR as well, as could be heard regarding the “importance” of the flu vaccine.
Whether it’s vaccines, psychiatric drugs, statins, and other scams and gimmicks to get people to consume poisonous chemicals for the sake of corporate profits, the truth-hiding mainstream news media have shown that they will not tell the whole story behind the story.
But rather than disclose to the public the connections between the psychiatric drugs and these mass murders, the news deliverers, analysts and pundits, and scribblers want to continue their emotion-centered fascist desires to disarm innocent, law-abiding people. And yes, policies of gun control are fascist, they are anything but “liberal,” as when governments make the people defenseless, that is one major point where liberalism becomes overtaken by fascism.
UPDATE: I changed my original title for this post. The original title “Psychiatric Drugs Responsible for Yet Another Mass Shooting” was not what I really intended, as the actual shooter was “responsible” for his own acts, but was apparently greatly influenced by the psychiatric drugs.