DON’T MISS THE PREMIERE OF
PRESCRIPTION FOR VIOLENCE
ON 9 DECEMBER 2025!
Factors like sex, race or foster care status didn’t explain the fivefold jump in psychotropic stacking. The results expose a system primed to drug children rather than help them.
The physician assistant who wrote the prescription failed to mention that the FDA had never approved guanfacine—whose side effects include blurred vision, confusion, dizziness, severe weakness and depression—for toddlers like Easton.
The drug made Easton “like a zombie,” according to his aunt and adoptive mother, Kymberly Stacks. Yet each time she raised her concerns with the physician assistant, the answer was to increase the dose.
Up and up the doses went, until Stacks switched to a psychiatrist who promptly put him on the antipsychotic Abilify.
Then the stimulant Evekeo.
Followed by Concerta, ProCentra and Ritalin.
None “cured” him.
“We have made a mess and it’s dangerous.”
Now age 6 and a veteran of six psychiatric drugs, he’s presently on his seventh, Quelbree, another ADHD drug.
Its side effects include insomnia, blood-pressure problems, depression and suicide.
How will Easton’s story end? More drugs until the symptoms suppressing his symptoms are more palatable to society at large, or until he’s too drugged out to function at all?
“I constantly think he was put on medication way too young, but no doctor ever said anything,” said Stacks.
The doctors may not be talking, but the Medicaid stats speak loud and clear: Of roughly 166,000 children ages 3 to 14 who started ADHD drugs in 2019, over 39,000—more than 23 percent—were taking two or more psychiatric drugs at the same time by 2023. More than 4,400 of these children were on four psychotropics simultaneously. Children who were started on ADHD drugs at younger ages were considerably more likely to be prescribed additional psychiatric drugs over the ensuing four years.
“There are concerns about safety, because there can be additive adverse effects of different types of medications,” said Dr. Javeed Sukhera, of the Institute of Living at Hartford Hospital in Connecticut.
“We have made a mess and it’s dangerous,” said Jennifer Havens of the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. “If a kid is on five, six, seven medications, that’s just wrong.”
Yet it continues.
A landmark reform shuts down deceptive drug ads that fueled overprescribing, misinformation and billions in profits for Big Pharma.
Because he said it in a statement, we have no way of knowing if his fingers were crossed or if he was stifling a smirk.
Schriver made the statement in response to a historic raft of reforms coming down from the FDA and Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) requiring pharmaceutical companies to include full safety warnings in DTC ads—with an emphasis on the word “full.” The reforms close a 1997 “adequate provision” loophole that allowed companies to minimize risk disclosures, referring the viewer interested in learning all the risks to a tiny print website address or phone number, while lulling them with images of delighted people doing joyous things.
DTC ads work just fine the way they are now—for drug companies.
PhRMA is a trade and lobby group that has worked tirelessly for the good of Big Pharma since 1958—lobbying against lower drug prices, price limits and price negotiations, and levying lawsuits while donating vast sums of dark money to groups that oppose reform. It wants no changes in the status quo, which is why it insists that DTC ads are “truthful and non-misleading.”
The evidence, of course, tells a different story.
Doctors themselves admit that when patients request drugs they’ve seen advertised, the doctor often feels pressured to prescribe—even when it isn’t medically appropriate. In fact, studies show physicians are 17 times more likely to write a prescription if a patient specifically asks for the drug, sometimes just to protect their own satisfaction scores. The results are predictable: unnecessary prescriptions for powerful, dangerous psychotropics like Adderall, along with an overall surge in inappropriate drug use.
A 2021 review likewise confirmed what doctors and patients already knew: DTC ads result in more prescription requests, more prescriptions written and more inappropriate prescribing. Even a brief exposure to a statin commercial made low-risk patients 16–20 percent more likely to be diagnosed with high cholesterol, and 16–22 percent more likely to walk away with a prescription.
And the ads themselves? A 2024 review found that nearly two-thirds were of poor scientific quality. Almost half were outright misleading, and more than a third were judged potentially harmful. Content analyses show why: Only about a quarter even bother to explain the disease or its mechanisms. A tiny fraction mention risk factors. But almost all—94 percent—lean on emotional manipulation (that syrupy music with the happy slow-motion people).
Worst of all, the ads drive patients toward pills at the expense of effective—and far safer—lifestyle changes.
So, yes, DTC ads work just fine the way they are now—for drug companies. They work so well, in fact, that prescription drug use among Americans increased from 39 percent (1988–1994) to 49.9 percent (2017–2020) in the last 30 years.
That means if you’re a six-year-old boy today, you can expect to spend 47.1 percent of the rest of your life on prescription drugs, while if you’re a baby girl, you can expect to spend 58.2 percent of your life popping pills.
Small wonder, then, that “drug makers spent a whopping $5.15 billion on national TV ads in 2024,” CNN reported. “They continued to open their wallets in 2025, spending just shy of $3 billion on national TV ads during the first half of the year, a 12.2 percent year-on-year increase.”
It’s to the point now where Big Pharma is currently fourth in terms of total TV ad spending by industry, accounting for 11.1 percent of the market. If you’re binge-watching “The Great British Baking Show” or Netflix’s “Wednesday” right now, chances are you’ll see a drug commercial or six within the next hour or two.
Those of you who are old enough: Remember all those TV ads for prescription drugs before 1997?
You would be excused if you can’t. That’s because there were virtually none. In those days, pharmaceutical ads had to give full disclosure and report all risks. Some of those lists of side effects and dangers run to pages of small print. It would just take too long to read them out loud (the commercials would be the length of the TV shows they sponsored).
Thousands of sponsors will receive warning letters, while dozens of companies will be hit with actions for false and misleading promotion.
That all changed in 1997, with the FDA’s introduction of the “adequate provision” loophole. “Adequate provision” is an important-sounding term that describes permitting pharmaceutical advertisements to hide safety information by placing it in another format or location. As long as they recite a vague “major-risk statement” and then point viewers to a website, toll-free number or print insert for more complete information on how their drug can make you sicker, more miserable or suicidal, we’re cool.
The result: a 24/7 tsunami of pharmaceutical lies inundating America’s airwaves and assaulting our senses.
As HHS indicated in announcing the reform: “This loophole—which denies patients vital safety information required for them to make an informed decision—has had a clear negative impact on public health.”
The reform, HHS goes on to say, “simply returns to the status quo policy pre-1997. It requires the presentation of factual and uncontroversial statements which are already legally required to be communicated in drug advertising; goes directly to the core government interests of protecting the public from deception and protecting public health—as supported by voluminous evidence of public harm under the current system; and does not unduly burden advertisers, by preserving their right to engage in commercial speech under the standards that existed prior to 1997.”
But this time, with teeth.
The FDA is putting the drug industry on notice: Remove deceptive ads or face enforcement. Thousands of sponsors will receive warning letters, while dozens of companies will be hit with actions for false and misleading promotion. “No longer asleep at the wheel,” the FDA will wield its authority aggressively to crack down on misbranding.
This is welcome news. The FDA? Doing its job?? Hooray! And they’ve already begun. On the day of the announcement, the FDA issued approximately 100 cease-and-desist letters and thousands of warning letters directly to pharmaceutical companies.
Swedish research finds involuntary psychiatric commitment deadly, confirming patterns seen in the US.
What’s missing is the “care” part.
There is nothing caring about being abducted, locked away and subjected to abuse so violent, so dehumanizing, that some begin to see death as the only way to end the suffering.
That’s right: According to the shocking study by the nation’s Karolinska Institutet, IPCs are causing individuals to kill themselves.
The Karolinska study looked at 72,275 patients discharged after being forcibly institutionalized in 134,514 incidents of IPC from 2010 to 2020.
The study’s findings demonstrate that involuntary psychiatric treatment causes death.
To their horror, researchers found that one out of every 64 discharges ended with a patient dying by suicide.
The door to mental institutions, therefore, functions all too often like a chute leading straight to the killing floor. In fact, 38 of those deceased patients didn’t wait for their release before killing themselves—they died while still being confined in “treatment” centers.
The suicides ultimately add up to a rate that is nearly four times higher than voluntary psychiatric outpatients and a whopping 56 times higher than the general population.
“The results … show that involuntary treatment is a risk marker for suicide,” said John Wallert, associate professor at the institute and main investigator in the study. “It is important to point out that our observational study cannot be interpreted as meaning that involuntary treatment causes suicide.”
Really? Sure it can.
In fact, that is the only way to sensibly interpret the stats: The study’s findings demonstrate that involuntary psychiatric treatment causes death.
A study published in Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology backs this up: “A recent longitudinal study found that patients who reported perceived coercion during hospitalization admission were at greater likelihood of making a suicide attempt in the year following discharge.”
The United Nations Human Rights Office, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) advocate for banning involuntary psychiatric treatment.
With Wyoming among the nation’s highest in suicide rates, lawmakers opted out of mandating psychiatric drug screening—even as a public safety crisis looms.
A proposal to bring greater transparency to toxicology reporting in suicides and violent deaths was sidelined last month in the Wyoming Legislature after what a renowned mental health watchdog group called a “shocking amount of disinformation.”
Supported by the Citizens Commission on Human Rights International (CCHR), the Death Data Collection and Toxicology Transparency Act would have required coroners to test for prescription psychiatric drugs—ranging from antidepressants and antipsychotics to stimulants and mood stabilizers—in all violent deaths, including suicides and homicides.
Advocates argue the measure, modeled partly on Tennessee’s 2025 transparency law, could help lawmakers understand the role that psychiatric drugs play in violent deaths or suicides—data that could guide future public safety and prevention policy.
The bill’s significance extends far beyond Wyoming: Psychiatric drugs are among the most common prescriptions in the US—more than one in eight adults take antidepressants—yet most state death investigations do not routinely screen for them post-mortem.
CCHR and other supporters of the measure say it balances civic transparency with privacy, noting that no names or medical records would ever be disclosed. “Evidence-based transparency is essential to protect families and save lives,” CCHR International President Jan Eastgate wrote in a statement.
Despite its narrow scope—strictly anonymous data collection—the committee declined to sponsor the measure as a full-committee bill, leaving individual legislators to reintroduce it next session.
The controversy came to a head during the committee’s autumn hearing, where a coroner, a psychiatrist and a watchdog group squared off over the bill’s intent and implications.
There, on October 17, 2025, the committee heard testimony from multiple stakeholders. Opposition came primarily from Laramie County Coroner Rebecca Reid, who argued that psychiatric drugs are so widely prescribed that their detection would not prove causation and that mandated reporting could stigmatize “treatment” or delay investigations.
CCHR argues that these claims misled lawmakers and diverted attention from empirical data. The watchdog cites studies from Britain and the US, which have found that the use of antidepressants increases the risk of suicide, violence and homicide—with the FDA requiring black box warnings on all antidepressants for increased suicide risk. International experts, CCHR points out, have documented cases in which selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) provoked suicidal or aggressive behavior even among healthy volunteers.
Since 2015, Wyoming has ranked among America’s top three states for self-inflicted deaths—30.4 per 100,000 residents in 2021–2022. From 2018 through 2021, the Equality State—so nicknamed for granting women the right to vote in 1869—led the nation outright. Within that grim tally were six child suicides aged 10 to 14 and 13 homicides under age 29.
A state-licensed youth psychiatric facility is under fire after a three-year study found repeated abuses, high restraint rates and a string of broken promises to reform.
“Let me out. I didn’t know it was this bad.” —Youth Resident, Southern Peaks Regional Treatment Center
What exactly that “treatment” consists of was laid bare in a report by Disability Law Colorado (DLC), a nonprofit advocacy organization.
“Unsafe” is one of the delicate adjectives used in the report to describe conditions at SPRTC. “Often unkind” is the phrase used to characterize the staff, who, according to various children, will say things to them like, “you suck” and “you’re a piece of crap.”
One child said he was told to “go kill myself.”
Name-calling is one thing, but physical abuse in the form of excessive restraints and coercive “therapy” is another.
“SPRTC continues to be more broadly known for their use of restraints rather than treatment.”
The case of Brandy Fogle’s autistic 13-year-old son appears to be a typical one. Fogle, who has been at the facility since January, is restrained multiple times weekly, for up to one hour and 20 minutes. “I can’t imagine,” Ms. Fogle said, “being held down by four to five adults for a few minutes, let alone an hour and 20 minutes.”
The brutality inflicted on her son is among the roughly 75 documented restraint incidents per month at SPRTC as of May 2025—a rate significantly higher than other comparable facilities in Colorado.
The cruel use of restraints is mirrored in the facility’s unsafe conditions and its striking lack of care and compassion. “We have had numerous children report to us that they have received raw or undercooked food, including raw chicken,” says DLC. “Multiple children have reported getting food poisoning while in the care of SPRTC.”
And as for the housing, it “cannot be described as feeling homelike,” the report discloses. “Children have metal beds and dark rooms with breakable windows. Their common areas are filled with furniture that is often found in correctional settings like jails and prisons. This furniture is even less homelike and welcoming than the furniture in juvenile corrections facilities in Colorado.”
Or as one child expressed, “It’s like jail.”
SPRTC claimed to have set up a Youth Advisory Council to allow for feedback from residents about the facility, but when the DLC visited, there was no such council.
Behind the guise of “care,” psychiatry’s coercive system locks away 1.2 million people annually—fueling overdoses, suicides and billions in profit.
“History teaches us to beware of benefactors who deprive their beneficiaries of liberty.… There is neither justification nor need for involuntary psychiatric interventions.” —Professor Thomas Szasz
The problem they chose to use was rising homelessness in America. In the Sixties, the “solution” they came up with was to simply round them up, whether they like it or not, for “treatment” (read “powerful brain-numbing drugs”).
But why stop with the homeless? Surely, there are many others out there who should be off the streets “for their own good” and lovingly nurtured by those who know better what’s best for them.
And so, Judgment Day comes early for many of society’s innocents.
Each year, more people are locked away in psychiatric wards against their will than in state and federal prisons.
They’re not being judged as sinners or saints, nor by an impartial jury from above.
Instead, they’re judged on the basis of “sanity”—with the judges being those who profit most from a thumbs-down verdict: psychiatrists.
This “trial”—for that’s what it truly is—offers no jury, no defense attorney, no due process. It takes only minutes and hides behind the euphemism “involuntary psychiatric evaluation.” The word “involuntary” is particularly cynical in its use, implying something that couldn’t be controlled but was bound to happen—like a burp or a sneeze.
Take a community like New York City. Last year, nearly 7,800 of its citizens were taken against their will for psychiatric evaluation. Most were not homeless, although that was the “problem” supposedly being addressed.
A July 2025 Federal Reserve Bank of New York report analyzed 16,630 involuntary psychiatric evaluations in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, between 2014 and 2023. It found that 78 percent of these evaluations resulted in the next euphemism: “involuntary hospitalization” (read “coerced incarceration in violation of the victim’s human rights and the 14th Amendment requirement of due process”).
Each year, more people are locked away in psychiatric wards against their will than in state and federal prisons.
Since 2011, involuntary hospitalization rates have grown three times faster than the US population.
And today, an estimated 1.2 million people are detained against their will—often drugged and restrained—every 12 months. That’s more than double the mortality rate from cancer.
With numbers like these, you’d expect results—at least if “care” were the goal. So let’s crack open the ledger and see what passes for “results” in the psychiatric industry.
The July 2025 Federal Reserve Bank report found that those involuntarily hospitalized for psychiatric reasons were nearly twice as likely to die by suicide or overdose within three months of release. Earlier research paints an even darker picture: A 2014 study of 50,000 cases found psychiatric hospitalization raised suicide risk by 44 times, while a 2017 study put the figure at 100 times greater than average immediately after psychiatric discharge.
Harvard Public Health tracked 22 individuals after their involuntary hospitalization. All relapsed within a year. Two died.
Pim Welle, co-author of the July report, has stated that the findings establish conclusively a link between involuntary hospitalization and harm—be it suicide, overdose or violence—after discharge.
And as for that “homelessness problem”—the original pretext for mass psychiatric roundups—Jan Eastgate, president of mental health watchdog Citizens Commission on Human Rights, states: “Involuntary psychiatric commitment of the homeless is not a compassionate solution—it’s a costly, coercive and dangerous policy built on a system that has failed for decades. It compounds trauma, violates civil rights and channels billions into an industry that cannot cure, only control.”
In fact, homelessness went up with the growth of so-called “street psychiatry”—by 80,000 from 2015 to 2023.
“Forced treatment in psychiatry is a crime against humanity.”
These statistics are appalling. We find them appalling. You find them appalling. Anyone with a teaspoon of common sense finds them appalling.
Why don’t psychiatrists see what we see?
Because their noses are in a different ledger—one labeled “Profits.”
Involuntary psychiatric hospitalization puts up to $1.1 million per person annually into psychiatric coffers.
Drug regulatory agencies in Germany and Australia have added warnings that atomoxetine can trigger violent or suicidal thoughts—sparking urgent concern over its long‑term use in children and adults.
Why on God’s little green earth would you give your child a drug that experts say can make them homicidal or suicidal?
And why would you ever take such a drug yourself?
The answer is: You wouldn’t. But for well over 20 years, millions of Americans have been taking—and giving their kids—the psychiatric drug atomoxetine.
And now, drug regulatory agencies in both Germany and Australia have issued warnings that the drug can cause homicidal and suicidal behavior and thoughts.
That’s right—the drugs you’re giving your children on the advice of psychiatrists can make them want to kill you.
“The idea that a drug prescribed to millions of children and adults could induce homicidal behavior is nothing short of astonishing.”
Psychiatrist Joanna Moncrieff indicts her entire industry for falsely pushing deadly drugs as a “treatment” for depression. Her conclusion: They don’t work. And she’s got the evidence to prove it.
The psychiatric community awoke one morning in mid-January to find the foundations of their cash-cow alliance with Big Pharma yanked out from underneath them—and by one of their own.
A new history of antidepressants, authored by a psychiatrist, doesn’t so much make the case for the falsehood of the chemical treatment of depression as it does annihilate it.
Granularly researched with evidence as airtight as it is brutal, Chemically Imbalanced: The Making and Unmaking of the Serotonin Myth by Dr. Joanna Moncrieff, a professor of psychiatry at University College London, indicts and convicts her entire industry for knowingly hawking deadly drugs on the for-profit pretense of “treating” depression.
Dr. Moncrieff resolved to unmask the fraud after leading a team of five top UK and European specialists on a review of studies to determine if there was, in fact, a relationship between the chemical serotonin and depression. Since the 1960s, psychiatrists have insisted—in articles, papers, websites and every platform they could shout from—that a “below-normal” amount of the so-called “feel-good” chemical serotonin is the cause of misery. Then, with the advent of “Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor” (SSRI) antidepressants in the 1990s, “chemical imbalance” became the Golden Calf psychiatrists and pharmaceutical giants worshipped: Simply jack up the depressed person’s serotonin with antidepressant snake-oil drugs that enrich psychiatrists and Big Pharma and thus remedy that “chemical imbalance.”
But Dr. Moncrieff and her team have thrown cold water on the “you’re-depressed-because-you-need-your-chemicals-rebalanced” party. In findings published in the journal Molecular Psychiatry, she concluded that “there is no evidence of a connection between reduced serotonin levels of activity and depression.”
With profit as the most obvious motive, psychiatry is pushing dangerous psychedelic drugs at every turn. New research studies are pushing back.
Excited reports from “studies” praise the effects of the brain-scrambling drugs. Just hop on the hokum train, grab a bottle of whatever psychedelic mixture they’re peddling this week, take a big old swig and—they swear—overnight you’ll be right as rain. And, they claim, a growing body of clinical trials say it’s so. Scads of them are currently underway on various psychedelic drugs, from the date-rape drug ketamine to psilocybin and even LSD.
But a daring and concerned group of researchers at the University of Rennes in France has gone against the money-grubbing psychiatric trend, leading a new study of existing clinical trial reports. The researchers found that psychedelics have been wildly misrepresented, inaccurate claims of study results have been improperly exaggerated and the dangers of the drugs have been seriously minimized.
