A major study, that is certainly going to have the pharmaceutical industry squirming, was published this month in the journal PLOS ONE and claims that antidepressants don't do much to "anti depress." In fact, according to researchers, antidepressants are no better at making people feel happier than taking no medication at all.
"The real-world effect of using antidepressant medications does not continue to improve patients’ overall well-being and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) over time," according to the study.
The HRQoL score is a measure used by the scientific community to indicate the quality of life, both mentally and physically, and is determined by patients answering survey questions about their wellbeing.
Researchers looked 17.5 million adults in the United States who have been diagnosed with depression over 10 years, with around half on medication and half not. What they found was startling.
Over the 10 year period, results showed a slight improvement in mental health in both groups — regardless of whether they were on antidepressants.
Dr. Omar Almohammed, a clinical pharmacist at the Saudi university that carried out the study, said there was no statistical difference between those taking the medication and those who didn't.
Researchers on Almohammed's team called for future studies that should not only focus on the short-term effect of pharmacotherapy, but rather investigate the long-term impact of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions on these patients’ HRQoL.
Hopefully this serves as a wake up call to the millions of Americans and others who are currently taking these mind-altering substances with a list of side-effects a mile long. While antidepressants may not make you happier, they certainly can make you do a bunch of other things that you don't want to happen.
There have been 150 studies in 17 countries on these antidepressant-induced side effects. There have been 134 drug regulatory agency warnings from 11 countries and the EU warning about the dangerous side effects of antidepressants.
Despite this deadly laundry list of potential reactions to these medications, their use has skyrocketed by 400% since 1988. Coincidentally, as antidepressant use went up, so did mass shootings.
The website SSRIstories.org has been documenting the link between selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and violence. On the website is a collection of over 6,000 stories that have appeared in local media (newspapers, TV, scientific journals) in which prescription drugs were mentioned and in which the drugs may be linked to a variety of adverse outcomes including most of the mass shootings which have taken place on US soil.
As the Citizens Commission on Human Rights notes, before the late nineteen-eighties, mass shootings and acts of senseless violence were relatively unheard of. Prozac, the most well known SSRI (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor) antidepressant, was not yet on the market. When Prozac did arrive, it was marketed as a panacea for depression which resulted in huge profits for its manufacturer Eli Lilly. Of course other drug companies had to create their own cash cow and followed suit by marketing their own SSRI antidepressants.
Subsequently, mass shootings and other violent incidents started to be reported. More often than not, the common denominator was that the shooters were on an antidepressant, or withdrawing from one. This is not about an isolated incident or two but numerous shootings.
The issue of psychotropic medication playing a role in mass shootings is not some conspiracy theory. It is very real and the drug manufacturers list these potentially deadly side effects on the very inserts of every one of these drugs. In fact, these drug manufactures have paid out hundreds of millions in secret lawsuits to folks who have successfully linked the deaths of their loved ones to these drugs.
Eli Lilly Paid Secret Settlements to Survivors After Man on Prozac Went on Shooting Rampage in 1989
Joseph T. Wesbecker, 47, carried out a mass shooting in which he shot 20 workers at Standard Gravure Corp. in Kentucky, in September 1989. Eight of the victims were fatally wounded, and Wesbecker ended the rampage by shooting and killing himself.
Recommended for You
Just one month earlier, Wesbecker had started taking the antidepressant Prozac, which included side effects such as “obsession with suicide and dangerously violent behavior,” according to an article in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
When the survivors of the shooting filed a lawsuit against Eli Lilly arguing that it had known about the propensity of Prozac to cause violent outbursts and suicidal tendencies, the company convinced the victims to agree to secret settlements outside of court.
GlaxoSmithKline Paid $6.4 Million to the Family of a Man Who Murdered Three Family Members Hours After Taking Paxil in 1998
Donald Schell, 60, was prescribed the antidepressant Paxil to treat depression in Wyoming in February 1998. Within hours of taking the first dosage, he burst into a fit of rage and fatally shot his wife, Rita; their daughter, Deborah Tobin; and their 9-month-old granddaughter, Alyssa.
Schell then shot and killed himself. His remaining family members filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the pharmaceutical company behind Paxil, and they were awarded $6.4 million based on “the company's failure to sufficiently warn doctors and patients that the effects of the drug could include agitation and violence.”
GlaxoSmithKline Also Paid $3 Million to the Widow of a Man Who Committed Suicide After Taking Paxil in 2010
Stewart Dolin, 57, was working as a corporate attorney in Illinois when he was prescribed the generic version of the antidepressant Paxil for depression and anxiety. While taking the drug, he committed suicide by jumping in front of a Chicago Transit Authority train.
His widow, Wendy Dolin, filed a lawsuit against GlaxoSmithKline, arguing that the company failed to warn her husband's doctor that the drug he was being prescribed would increase his risk of suicidal behavior, which led to his death.
"This for me has not just been about the money. This has always been about awareness to a health issue, and the public has to be aware of this," Wendy Dolin told the Chicago Tribune after she was awarded $3 million in compensation.
While the cases mentioned above are notable because they received significant media attention, there is still an overwhelming number of lawsuits that stemmed from cases in which pharmaceutical companies paid millions of dollars for failing to warn doctors that the antidepressants they were prescribing could drive patients to kill themselves and others.
Despite all this, the mainstream media and the government continue to ignore or suppress this information. Why is that? Try to share a post about the number of adverse reactions reported to VAERS from the different COVID-19 vaccines and you will find out. Try to question the safety of the vaccines, or point out that there have been no long term studies, and you will see why that is.
It is no secret that the pharmaceutical industry wields immense control over the government and the media. It is their control which keeps any negative press about their dangerous products from airing. However, most people likely do not know the scope of this control.
As Mike Papantonio, attorney and host of the international television show America's Lawyer, explains, with the exception of CBS, every major media outlet in the United States shares at least one board member with at least one pharmaceutical company. To put that into perspective: These board members wake up, go to a meeting at Merck or Pfizer, then they have their driver take them over to a meeting with NBC to decide what kind of programming that network is going to air.
We have even reported incidents in which reporters have been cut off by the network for mentioning the connection on air. In a clear example of how beholden mainstream media is to the pharmaceutical industries who manufacture and market these drugs, FOX News' Sean Hannity was recorded last year, blatantly cutting off a reporter who dared mention Nikolas Cruz's reported association with antidepressants.
In the report below, Papantonio explains how the billions of dollars big pharma gives to mainstream media outlets every year is used to keep them subservient and complicit in covering up the slew of deadly side effects from their products.
As we can see with the current censorship and narrative control in regard to those questioning the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines, big pharma wields massive control over the information you are allowed to talk about and consume.