DID JAMES HOLMES HAVE A DOCTOR?
By Jon Rappoport
July 22, 2012
UPDATE: To hear Jon talk about the issues raised in this article, click here.
When people throw around words like “deranged,” “insane,” “psychotic,” let’s go to the source. Let’s get a professional opinion. Where can we find one?
Did Holmes have a doctor?
The profilers taking up air time on the networks are offering their puerile assessments of Holmes’ character, uttering such profundities as: “He must have been a lonely child”; “This was his way of being recognized.”
Let’s go to the doctor, because that’s where the drugs are.
You know, the ones that really matter. The antidepressants, the anti-psychotics, the amphetamine-like compounds that tear away brain cells. The drugs that can turn a nice boy into a raving lunatic.
Take the case described by psychiatrist, Peter Breggin, in his landmark 1991 classic, “Toxic Psychiatry: Why Therapy, Empathy and Love Must Replace the Drugs, Electroshock, and Biochemical Theories of the ‘New Psychiatry'” (St. Martin’s Press, 1991). A young patient, Roberta, had been treated with a host of so-called major tranquilizers [AKA neuroleptics]. Peer-reviewed published studies support the use of these drugs: Haldol, Mellaril, Prolixin, Thorazine.
“Roberta was a college student, getting good grades, mostly A’s, when she first became depressed and sought psychiatric help at the recommendation of her university health service. She was eighteen at the time, bright and well motivated, and a very good candidate for psychotherapy. She was going through a sophomore-year identity crisis about dating men, succeeding in school, and planning a future. She could have thrived with a sensitive therapist who had an awareness of women’s issues.
“Instead of moral support and insight, her doctor gave her Haldol. Over the next four years, six different physicians watched her deteriorate neurologically without warning her or her family about tardive dyskinesia [motor brain damage] and without making the [tardive dyskinesia] diagnosis, even when she was overtly twitching in her arms and legs. Instead they switched her from one neuroleptic to another, including Navane, Stelazine, and Thorazine. Eventually a rehabilitation therapist became concerned enough to send her to a general physician, who made the diagnosis [of medical drug damage]. By then she was permanently physically disabled, with a loss of 30 percent of her IQ.
“…my medical evaluation described her condition: Roberta is a grossly disfigured and severely disabled human being who can no longer control her body. She suffers from extreme writhing movements and spasms involving the face, head, neck, shoulders, limbs, extremities, torso, and back-nearly the entire body. She had difficulty standing, sitting, or lying down, and the difficulties worsen as she attempts to carry out voluntary actions. At one point she could not prevent her head from banging against nearby furniture. She could hold a cup to her lip only with great difficulty. Even her respiratory movements are seriously afflicted so that her speech comes out in grunts and gasps amid spasms of her respiratory muscles…Roberta may improve somewhat after several months off the neuroleptic drugs, but she will never again have anything remotely resembling a normal life.”
Yes, let’s see if James Holmes had a doctor, possibly a psychiatrist, and let’s have a list of the drugs he was prescribed. Let’s go all the way back to the first appointment, perhaps when Holmes was a child.
Wouldn’t this be relevant evidence? If it’s there, let’s have it.
I can tell you that, right now, somebody in law enforcement knows whether Holmes ever had psychiatric treatment.
If you were Holmes’ psychiatrist right now, sitting in your house, having a drink, your fingers shaking around the glass, going over your treatment and the drugs you gave him, wouldn’t you want the greatest degree of anonymity possible? Wouldn’t you want the protection of the American Psychiatric Association and the companies who make the drugs that drive people crazy? Wouldn’t you want to pull yourself together and rehearse a statement you’ll hopefully never have to deliver?
“The boy was schizophrenic when he came to me. I could see that immediately. I did everything possible to bring him back from the brink, but he was too far gone to help, as it turned out. I mean, he was functional at first, but then the progression of the DISEASE accelerated rapidly, as it sometimes does, and then he was missing appointments, and we couldn’t locate him. Mental illness is a terrible thing. We’re making progress in research all the time, but we’re still not there. Some people are born with chemical imbalances, and they live with them, and then suddenly the operation of the brain goes haywire.”
The psychiatrist sits there with the ice clinking in his drink. He needs more rehearsal. He hopes the day will never come when his name is known, when he has to stand before cameras and say something to a billion people about his former patient.
Here is another case history, described by Dr. Peter Breggin, who was an expert witness at the murder trial of Robert Heinrichs, who stabbed his friend to death two years ago:
“This was the first criminal case in North America where a judge has specifically found that an antidepressant was the cause of a murder. The case involved a teenage high school student with no prior history of violence who, while chatting in his home with two friends, abruptly stabbed one of them to death with a single wound to the chest. The boy had been taking Prozac for three months, during which time his behavior deteriorated. He became impulsive and unpredictable, and suicidal. He also began to talk at times as if fantasizing about violence. He seemed to become a different person to his distraught parents. [I] testified that his primary care physician and his parents alerted the prescribing psychiatric clinic to the boy’s deteriorating condition, but the clinic continued the Prozac and then doubled it. Seventeen days after the increase in dosage, the teen committed the violence.”
Do you think the clinic doctors are having doubts about their Prozac regimen? Do you think they remember the boy who was killed by their patient? Or are they steadfast in maintaining that it was “the mental disorder” that caused their patient to stab his friend?
Perhaps the following article opens the door a little further. It involves the infamous Glaxo-Smith-Kline (GSK), the drug giant that has just been fined three billion dollars for, among other crimes, promoting antidepressant drugs for unapproved uses. Here is an excerpt from a bukisa summary:
In 1992, pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) released a medicine known as paroxetine, sold under such names as Paxil, Seroxat and Aropax. Paroxetine is an anti-depressant which belongs to a group of medicines known as selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors [SSRI]. Since its release, paroxetine has risen to be one of the biggest selling medications worldwide. Within 8 years of its release, paroxetine prescriptions had risen to 100 million worldwide, netting 2 billion dollars a year for GSK. Although this drug is consumed by millions of people each year, data obtained in clinical trials before and after its release were kept under lock and key for 15 years. This information was only released after court orders instructed GSK to allow independent medical experts to review the hundreds of cartons of files contained in GSK’s sealed record room. These files contained information relating to clinical trials of paroxetine, correspondence between GSK and various regulatory agencies, and adverse drug reports for paroxetine. This information, reviewed by experts on psychiatric drugs revealed fraudulent claims by GSK relating to the efficacy and safety of paroxetine.
One event that sparked investigations into GSK’s activities regarding paroxetine occurred in 1998. In February of that year, a 60 year old man named Donald Schell from Wyoming, USA put several bullets from two different guns through his wife’s, daughters, grand-daughters heads before shooting himself through the head. Donald Schell began taking paroxetine 2 days before this horrific event. It is possible that paroxetine was not to blame for this tragic event, and in turn this was a stance GSK was going to take when a year later, Tim Tobin, son-in-law to Donald Schell, began legal action against GSK regarding paroxetine. In the Tobin Vs GSK case, it was argued that paroxetine was to blame. To gain more clarity and insight into how these can drugs affect people’s minds, the judge in this case ordered GSK to allow an expert on these medications, psychiatrist Dr. David Healy, to review all the information held by GSK, information that had never before been released publicly. In Healy’s review of the records he discovered clinical trial data which showed healthy people (people not suffering from depression), had experienced suicidal behaviour in the clinical trials. Additionally, in this review, Healy became puzzled as to why some documentation relating to paroxetine’s trials in healthy people had gone missing. GSK had possibly been hiding clinical trial information that suggested that paroxetine was linked to suicidality in adults, information perhaps they did not want made public. After a revision of all the available data, Healy concluded that Paroxetine was the killer, not depression in this case. After all the evidence was considered in the case, a unanimous decision of a guilty verdict was reached, finding GSK to have been negligent and liable, causing them to pay out $6 million in damages. GSK continued to deny the links between paroxetine and suicidal thinking, but changed the paroxetine information leaflet to include the possibility of these adverse events. The information regarding the clinical trials was to be continued to be kept out of the public realm.
The links between paroxetine and suicidal behaviour were going to continue to cause GSK more problems than they had bargained for, as another tragedy had been linked to paroxetine. In 1999, Reynaldo Lacuzong, a machine operator was prescribed paroxetine. Almost immediately after beginning his treatment with paroxetine, Lacuzong began to develop akathisia, which is known in the medical feild as ‘an inner agitation accompanied by a compulsive hyperactivity’ with ‘manic-like signs of irritability and anxiety’. This antidepressant-induced akathisia is known to be associated with violence, suicide and psychosis. On his third day of taking paroxetine, Lacuzong, a man of no prior history of serious mental illness, violence or suicidality drowned himself and his two small children in a bathtub. Following this event, the family of Reynaldo Lacuzong were to bring a case against the manufacturer of paroxetine, GSK.
In this separate liability case, another expert, Dr Peter R Breggin was empowered by a separate court to examine GSK’s internal files concerning how paroxetine was researched, developed and marketed. In 2001, Breggin’s report on his findings was delivered in the form of an affidavit to the judicial arbitrator in the Lacuzong case. This case was eventually resolved [to] the satisfaction of GSK, allegedly with a substantial amount of money, an amount which was never disclosed. After this case, GSK continued to refuse to unseal their records and disallowed Dr Breggin to make public his findings, regardless of their significance for drug regulatory agencies, the medical profession and public health.
In 2006, only after another paroxetine case was bought before the courts in the United States, were Dr Breggin’s findings made public. These findings, relating to the development and marketing of paroxetine were astounding. Dr Breggin’s report found that GSK had been withholding and manipulating information about the dangers of paroxetine. One finding was that GSK had manipulated data regarding suicidality in the clinical trials, effectively reducing the number of attempted suicides of those on paroxetine and increasing the number of placebo-attempted suicides. Dr Breggin additionally commented in his report that ‘these manipulations of course favour the interest of the drug company’. The actual, corrected results from the trials indicate that suicide on paroxetine was 8.2 times higher than the rate of placebo. Another finding was GSK had eliminated ‘akathisia’ as a preferred term in the studies of paroxetine. This meant akathisia would not be coded as akathisia, but something else, clearly indicating that GSK preferred not to let medicine regulators and medical professionals know paroxetine caused akathisia. Dr Breggin noted how GSK made it impossible for anyone ‘…to accurately determine the total number of patients who suffered from akathisia’ and that this behaviour was ‘extremely fraudulent’. The release of this information would have obviously been damaging for GSK, but the real damage would have already been caused to individuals and families years after the drug trials were conducted while this information was suppressed…
end of excerpt
Does James Holmes have a psychiatrist? If so, what was Holmes treated with? What drugs?
Shouldn’t we find out?
Don’t you think those officials investigating the Batman murders have already looked into medical/psychiatric history of James Holmes? Don’t you think they’ve gone beyond the absurd statements of profilers?
And if they’ve discovered Holmes indeed has received psychiatric drug treatment, don’t you think they’re sitting on this information? In which case, wouldn’t they be protecting the treating psychiatrist and the drug company(ies) who make the drugs?
If luminaries like Hillary Clinton have told us there is no stigma that should be attached to a diagnosis of a “mental disorder,” shouldn’t we be told about the past diagnoses of Holmes, if they exist?
The author of an explosive new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.