WSiB Ontario - a criminal/ terror Agency!
WORNING TO ALL THOSE WHO ARE THERE TO SUPPORT CLAIMS OF INJURED WORKERS.
DOCTORS, HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONERS TERRORIZED BY WSiB WITH LEGISLATED
CONSEQUENCES FOR SUPPORTING INJURED WORKERS.
WSiB HAS THE POWER TO RE- INTERPRET/ QUESTOION DOCTORS AND HEALTH PROVIDERS
DIAGNOSIS AND OCUSE ANY ONE OF Fraud and non-compliance. No wonder 99% of my
Doctors refused to generate any records of my injuries or sabotaged them or
strait forward falsified them.
"Fraud and non-compliance: definitions, penalties, and reporting.
What can I do if I suspect that a patient, an employer, a supplier, or
another health care practitioner is not dealing honestly with the WSIB?
You can use our toll-free action line or e-mail address to report suspected
cases of non-compliance and fraud.
In 1997 the WSIB announced a Zero Tolerance Strategy to ensure compliance
and combat fraud. The Strategy included increased resources, a "tips "Action
Line, and the authority to conduct surveillance. The WSIB will identify
non-compliance, fraud and irregularities by workers, employers, providers
and suppliers and take appropriate action. This may result in charges under
Sec.149 (4) (submitting false or misleading statements) of the Workplace
Safety and Insurance Act, or Sec.380 (fraud) of the Criminal Code.
"When reporting fraud or non-compliant behaviour you are not required to
provide your name, address, or any other information that may identify you".
What constitutes an offence in dealing with WSIB?
It is an offence when a health care provider or supplier intentionally does
any of the following.
What is the penalty for submitting false or misleading statements?
Conviction can result in the following penalties:
For an individual: A fine not to exceed $25,000 and/or a jail term of up to
For a corporation: A fine not to exceed $100,000.
(Sec.158 (1) of the Act)
The court may also order restitution of the full amount of money obtained by
commission of the offence (Sec.149 (5) of the Act).
Would a conviction under the Workplace Safety Insurance Act or the Criminal
Code affect my licence to practice?
In cases where a health care practitioner is convicted, the WSIB notifies
the appropriate regulatory body and provides a factual summary. The
regulatory body will take whatever action it deems necessary.
Want to get involved in preventing fraud in Canada's healthcare system?
The Canadian Health Care Anti-Fraud Association acts on behalf of public and
private sector healthcare organizations interested in preventing fraud in
the Canadian healthcare environment."
In Ontario WSiB commits crimes against INJURED WORKERS!
Despite fact, that Government Agencies (and politicians ) were aware of the
situation for many years did not do any thing to rehabilitate the system
(provided cover up for those activities).
People in position of power are promoting (become accessory) to Domestic
terrorism by WSiB!!!.
Government Agencies refused to report crimes by WSiB and other Agencies
against General Public to Police.
Many key Government Agencies are dysfunctional and criminal.
"Who does Not Know the Truth, is simply a Fool.
Yet who Knows the Truth and Calls it a Lie, is a Criminal."
WSiB by its incompetence, luck of education / professionalism / expertise
and criminal orientation as a Policy, totally ignores / is oblivious about
side effects of treatments and medications they forcibly subject injured
workers to undergo, additionally deteriorates injured workers condition and
it is imposed on "victims" in criminally sadistic manner etc. A number of
medications intended to treat psychiatric disorders are themselves capable
of causing psychiatric adverse effects. Unfortunately,
these medication-induced adverse effects can be mistaken for a lack of
therapeutic efficacy, leading to increased dose prescribing, leading to even
more adverse effects. In addition, a number of medications not intended to
treat psychiatric disorders are capable of causing psychiatric adverse
WSiB forcibly (by many means of coercions/ CRIMINAL MEANS etc.) forces
injured workers to undergo unnecessary medical treatments (surgical
proceedings, pharmacological treatments etc.) which often tremendously
deteriorate injured workers conditions -often causing additional and
irreversible damage. WSiB a criminal / terror Agency tormenting injured
workers of Ontario and does it in legalized manner.
How come WSiB ( "INSURANCE AGENCY" ) MANAGED TO LEGISLATE CRIMINAL IMMUNITY
AND MANY OTHER FAR REACHEING LEGISLATIVES ALLOWING AGENCY TO DO SURVELIANCE,
TO INPOSE RULES ON INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESSES, TO FORCE INJURED WORKERS TO
BE SUBJECTED TO UNNECESSARY MEDICAL / PHARMACOLOGICAL TREATMENTS etc.
ORGANIZED AND LEGALIZED CRIME!!!!!!!!!
1. "We're often your doctor's biggest source of information."
It's comforting to imagine your physician sitting behind his desk after
hours, carefully perusing reports on the latest drugs. While some still do
their research the old-fashioned way, many doctors today get the bulk of
their information from drug reps who are pushing specific medicines. To make
sure physicians are paying attention, pharmaceutical companies spend more
than $50 billion a year on promotional activities, according to a 2008
report, the most recent available.
Typically, says Allen F. Shaughnessy, doctor of pharmacology and professor
of family medicine at Tufts University, a drug rep gives a 90-second spiel
that hits three or four salient points, followed by the classic sales pitch.
And often doctors will bite. Reps "are very effective in changing physician
behavior," says Shaughnessy. That interaction is necessary says a spokesman
for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), an
industry group, because the companies have the most knowledge about the
treatments that took them years to develop.
To gauge how seriously your physician relies on drug reps, Shaughnessy
suggests that you press for details: "Ask why you are taking the drug he is
prescribing, and make sure you understand what they explain." This approach
will either get you the information you need, "or else you'll see a
physician who blusters and carries on about why you are questioning him,"
says Shaughnessy. The latter scenario "will show you that they don't have a
2. "Hype is our favorite medicine."
Choosing a medication shouldn't be like choosing Pepsi over Coke. But that's
very much what's happening, thanks to the drug companies and their ad
agencies. With famous faces like Sally Field, NBA star Alonzo Mourning and
Lance Armstrong all playing spokesperson for various brands of medication,
the companies marketing prescription drugs have learned to harness celebrity
star power to help boost their brands.
Blame it on the Food and Drug Administration. In the late 1990s, the agency's
decision to liberalize drug advertising allowed direct-to-consumer, or DTC,
campaigns, and pharmaceutical ad budgets skyrocketed. From 1996 to 2005,
spending on DTC campaigns increased 330 percent, according to a 2007 study
by The New England Journal of Medicine, the most recent study available.
"It's horrendous," says Brian L. Strom, M.D., chairman of biostatistics and
epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania. "It's directly in conflict
with proper therapeutics. But the manufacturers use patients as arms of
their marketing departments." It can be dangerous, too. When Olympian
Dorothy Hamill appeared promoting Vioxx for her arthritis pain,
prescriptions were filled before the drug's heart risks became known. Strom
says the drugs advertised are exactly the ones patients should not use. "If
you needed them, I would have given them to you already," he says.
3. "There's no such thing as a free sample."
Patients love getting free trial-size medications from their doctors,
doctors like giving them away, and drug companies rely on samples to filter
new treatments into the pharmaceutical mainstream. In pushing free samples,
drug companies hope that physicians will continue to prescribe the new-and
often pricier-medication long after the honeymoon period is over. If the
sample drug works and is tolerated, the physician will often continue to
prescribe it instead of alternatives. The small outlay for free samples will
eventually be compensated by large profits when physicians start prescribing
the drug at full price, says Allan S. Brett, a professor of medicine and
director of the Division of General Internal Medicine at the University of
While some believe that free samples are an important source of medication
for uninsured patients who can't afford to pay, studies have shown that most
free samples are actually given to insured, says Brett. A bigger issue is
safety, says Joel Lexchin, an emergency medicine doctor and professor at the
School of Health Policy and Management at York University in Toronto. "What
is being sampled is usually the newest product that has less known about its
overall safety profile," says Lexchin.
In a recent statement about free samples, PhRMA said: "Clearly, the most
important components of a prescribing decision are the physician's clinical
knowledge and the patient's unique situation. Free samples can provide a
useful tool in the prescribing decision."
4. "Your doctor is our bounty hunter."
Facing mounting pressure to bring new medicines to market, drug companies
often pay doctors who refer patients for their studies. And depending on the
drug being tested, the payments will often be in thousands of dollars per
patient. It should be noted, these aren't payments for referring a patient.
The physician is receiving payment to enroll a patient in a study, but he or
she is involved in the research as well, says Daniel Carlat, a psychiatrist
in Newburyport, Mass., who writes about the pharmaceutical industry on his
"Because there are such large financial incentives to enroll patients in
studies, there's the possibility that the patient might be enrolled
inappropriately," says Carlat. The problem is that patients who might be
better served by getting standard medical treatment might instead be
enrolled in a trial - and end up getting a placebo or another medication
that they shouldn't.
The American Medical Association says it provides guidelines for physicians
to manage potential conflicts of interest, and advises doctors to "be
mindful of the conflicting roles of investigator and clinician and of the
financial conflicts of interest that arise from incentives to conduct trials
and to recruit subjects."
5. "You'll find out about side effects the hard way."
The arthritis painkiller Vioxx, a blockbuster drug after it was introduced
in 1999, was taken off the market in 2004 when a study linked the drug to an
increased risk of stroke and heart attack. Bextra, another painkiller, was
also removed from the market in 2005 after it was found to pose heart risks.
The problem is that after a drug is approved, there's not a real systematic
way for identifying side effects, and making sure those are captured and
detected in a reliable way, says James G. Stevenson, associate dean for
clinical sciences at the University of Michigan Health System's College of
Pharmacy. There is a post-marketing surveillance process in the U.S., but it's
voluntary. It relies on physicians and health-care providers to report
possible problems with a drug to the FDA or the manufacturer. "It's their
choice to do something with the information," Stevenson says.
Critics point to the drug industry's funding of the FDA through so-called
user fees - in the range of hundreds of millions of dollars a year. A
company pays user fees when it submits the research that the FDA reviews
before deciding to approve a reject a new drug. (These fees were legislated
in 1992, under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, with the aim of helping
drugs get FDA review quicker.) Groups like Public Citizen, a consumer
advocacy organization, say there's an inherent conflict of interest. An
agency cannot effectively regulate an industry that pays the salary of so
many of its employees, says Dr. Sydney Wolfe, director of Public Citizen's
Health Research Group.
Concerns about a conflict of interest are misplaced, according to the PhRMA,
which says that the legislation has done much to advance public health and
that safety is a big focus of the FDA drug review process.
6. "With all these complicated drug names, it's no wonder you're confused!"
The FDA reviews over 500 proprietary (or "brand") name drugs a year, through
the Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology. Before a drug's final moniker
is settled on, it has to pass an expert panel review, handwriting and verbal
analyses, a computer analysis, and overall risk evaluation, collectively
aimed at minimizing the risk of soundalike and look-a-like names. But
problems persist: Medication errors result in more than 7,000 deaths a year,
according to the Institute of Medicine. How to avoid getting the wrong
medication? Check your pills against those represented in an up-to-date
illustrated reference book, such as "The Pill Book" by Harold Silverman
(14th edition is set for release in April).
With so many drug names floating around, it's not surprising that there are
mix-ups. Each drug has a brand name and most have a generic name. Names can
potentially look or sound similar. "There are only have so many letters in
the alphabet," says Stevenson of the University of Michigan. PhRMA says it
has worked with and continues to work with the FDA and other groups to
prevent medication errors.
7. "Don't trust anything you read about our drugs online . . ."
If you're searching the Internet for information on, say, arthritis, what
better place than a site like Arthritis.com, right? Not necessarily. While
you will certainly get information there, it will come from Pfizer, maker of
arthritis drug Celebrex - not exactly an unbiased source. Similarly, if you're
looking to read up on depression, you'll find the site Depression.com is run
by GlaxoSmithKline, maker of antidepressants Wellbutrin and Paxil. The
problem with these drug-sponsored medical-information sites is that they can
easily be mistaken for noncommercial information sources.
Even when such affiliations are made clear, the fine line between editorial
and advertorial-which can be as subtle as the exclusion of seemingly minor
details-becomes even finer when viewed on a computer screen. Nevertheless,
Robert Rosa, professor of medicine and dean of regulatory affairs at
Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine, doesn't think it is
an issue for most readers of these sites. They are sophisticated enough to
realize that the company is sponsoring the information, he says.
The most egregious misinformation online comes from companies peddling
non-FDA-regulated products such as vitamins, minerals, and supplements,
according to Brooks Edwards, M.D., the founding medical editor-in-chief of
MayoClinic.com. "The most important thing in evaluating information is
knowing where it's coming from," Edwards says. "Sometimes you can tell on
the Internet, and sometimes you can't."
8. ". . . and be extra careful when ordering meds over the Internet."
Given that Americans spent more than $300 billion on prescription drugs in
2009, the temptation to shop around online for the cheapest prices can be
alluring, especially for those who value privacy. But like with most things
in life, cheaper doesn't necessarily mean better. In fact, when it comes to
buying prescription drugs over the Internet, big discounts might mean
The World Health Organization says counterfeit medicines pose huge health
risks and that the growth in international trade of pharmaceutical
ingredients and medicines adds further complexity to the issue. In over 50%
of cases, drugs purchased online from illegal sites that conceal their
physical address have been found to be counterfeit, according to the WHO.
Since web site content is unregulated, the FDA's only recourse is to issue
warnings to the public about unreliable online purveyors of pharmaceuticals.
It recommends that when buying medication online, you do so only from
licensed pharmacies located in the United States; also, make sure the site
requires a prescription and has a pharmacist available to answer questions
by phone. You can find a list of state-licensed pharmacies on the National
Association of Boards of Pharmacy web site.
9. "We know your medication history-because we bought it."
When a prescription is billed to a third party - any HMO or pharmacy
benefits-management company - that third party can sell the data back to the
drug manufacturer. This allows drug companies to know - in a particular zip
code, for example - which medications are being prescribed and in what
amounts, says Stevenson. And manufacturers can use that information to
better target their sales efforts. "It's like market research," Stevenson
In 2006 the American Medical Association made it an option for doctors to
keep their prescribing information inaccessible to reps. As of 2010, about
25,000 had opted out (out of more than 700,000 patient-care physicians).
Such information is extremely valuable to pharmaceutical companies, which
use it to gauge the degree to which individual doctors are prescribing one
medication over another in the same class. Then, in order to stimulate
sales, drug companies offer a range of perks to groups of physicians plucked
from the drugstores' sales info. Their swag arsenal includes everything from
dinners out to trips for medical conferences-all of which ultimately
contribute to the rocketing costs of medication. "Doctors think of
themselves as totally rational," says Tufts' Allen Shaughnessy."They get
offended when I tell them that they are human and cannot be wined and dined
without being influenced." PhRMA says prescription data help companies
properly educate doctors about drugs in a targeted manner. And in the event
of a drug shortage, a suspected drug counterfeiting or drug recall, "the
federal system relies on the manufacturer to communicate directly and
promptly with prescribing physicians," a PhRMA spokesman said in a
The just-passed health-care reform also has a provision requiring drug and
device companies, starting in 2013, to publicly report payments and gifts
made to doctors. Some companies already do disclose such payments. However,
there's nothing in the provision that actually prevents doctors from giving
these paid speeches, notes Allan Coukell, director of the Pew Prescription
Project, a drug safety initiative of the Pew Charitable Trusts.
10. "We're in cahoots with your insurer."
Stephen Fried was in the midst of writing "Bitter Pills," an exposé of the
pharmaceutical industry, when a doctor suddenly switched his uncle from
Procardia XL to a similar high-blood pressure drug called Norvasc. Fried
says he found out that "drug companies offer substantial discounts [to
health care managers] if they put all their [appropriate] patients on a
particular drug." Insurers, of course, are trying to cut costs amid a
continued rise in health care expenditures, and doctors typically do what
the HMO requests. The problem? "You can have seizures, heart problems,
dementia," Fried says. "The only reason to switch drugs should be to enhance
your health. But most drug switches are made for dollars and cents."
A drug company providing financial incentive to a pharmacy benefits manager
to switch a patient from one drug to another without good reason is
obviously problematic, says Carlat, the Newburyport, Mass., psychiatrist.
Even when drugs are in the same class and are designed to treat the same
symptoms, they are not necessarily identical. One drug may not work as well
as the other, and could have a different set of side effects, he says.
AND GOVERNMENT OF ONTERIO IS SILENT / SLIPING ( MAYBE DOES NOT CARE?) SO
What needs to be done to make Government acting according to its Policies
/promises and LAW ???
Injured workers of Ontario await Government's support / action!!!!!
ELECTIONS ARE COMING. IT IS TIME FOR INJURED WORKERS AND ONTARIANS AS WHOLE
TO MAKE ELECTIONS ISSUE OUT OF THAT CRIMINAL WSiB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!WSiB
Ontario - a criminal/ terror Agency!
Criminal Corporations have substantial influence over WSiB's
activities/processing of claims.
WSiB acts from position of power (criminal immunity) and further victimizes
already suffering people.
Through out duration of processing it does infringe on criminal and sadistic
It is paradoxical, that diagnoses /conclusions are being made by some of
WSiB's personnel with out any medical / investigative knowledge /skills.
Victim's evidence submissions, Reports of WSiB's qualified and professional
investigators are not enough to adjudicate obvious cases.
This is very serious systemic problem and needs to be addressed immediately.
Injured workers are always forced by WSiB TO BE WITH THEIR PANTS DOWN AND
PREDATORY WSiB does suffering workers right from the behind where it hearts
Sadists , deviants , psychopaths, criminals do at their will injured workers
due to criminal immunity and many other far reaching Legislatives granting
criminal Agency power / rights to RAPE suffering people!!!
Agency established to assist General Public and protect / assist it in time
of desperation /suffer and misfortune, become criminal/ terror, profit
placing well being of victims on back burner of its activity / objectives.
Through out duration of processing it does infringe on criminal and sadistic
WORKER ADVISER- A TWIN WITH WSiB CRIMINAL AGENCY FINANCED BY WSiB ( from
Worker Adviser communicated to me - " WE ARE RETAINED TO REPRESENT YOU ON
ESTABILISHED / APROVED BY WSiB YOUR MEDICAL CONDITIONS , NOT TO REPRESENT
YOUR BEST INTEREWST". SCANDAL, CRIME, DECIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!! FAIR PRACTICES
COMMISSION ALSO IS FINANCED BY WSiB and plays WSiB's tune, not working for
ALL THOSE AGENCIES ARE SUSTAINED BY WORKERS OF ONTARIO! AL THOSE
ADJUDICATORS, "ADVISERS", REPRESENTATIVES ARE BEING PAIED BY WORKERS OF
ONTARIO AND ALL OF THEM ARE ENEMIES OF WORKERS OF ONTARIO. PARASITES AND
ADVISE TO INJURED WORKERS:
The Burden of Proof in Personal Injury Claims
The Plaintiff (you) bears the burden of proving your case.
Most people have heard the term: "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". That is
NOT the burden that applies in civil claims for compensation; it is the
burden that applies to criminal prosecutions.
In a personal injury compensation claim you bear the burden of proof: "on
the balance of probabilities". In other words, is more likely than not that
Defendant was negligent and that the negligence caused your injuries.
The easiest way to think about this is to consider a pair of scales. All the
evidence FOR your claim is placed on one side of the scale. All the evidence
AGAINST your claim is placed on the other side of the scale.
As long as the scales tip to the side FOR your claim, even a little bit,
then you have met the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities.
What Do I Have to Prove to Win my Case?
There are three things that you have to prove in order to win your accident
Breach of Standard of Care:
You will need to prove that the person that caused the accident did not meet
the standard expected of a reasonably competent person. In other words, did
they do something that they should not have done, or did they fail to do
something that they should have done?
If you can prove that the negligent person / Company breached the standard
of care, you must also prove that the breach actually caused your injury (or
made a pre-existing injury worse). For example, if you had chronic low back
pain before the car accident, it may be difficult to prove that the car
accident caused your back pain. But you may be able to prove that the
accident made your pain worse.
You have to prove what the consequences of the injury have been so that the
court can award damages for pain and suffering, and any income loss and/or
medical expenses as a result of your injury.
*** Severe Body & Brain Damaging Side-Effects of Antidepressants ***
The Neurotransmitter "Serotonin" & Serotonin Acting Anti-depressants
Since 1988 the pharmaceutical companies (starting with Eli Lilly, the
manufacturer of "Prozac") have advertised to the people (direct to consumer)
as well as to their family doctors, that if you suffer from depressive
feelings, you must have a "biochemical imbalance" in your brain. The
advertising finger was pointed at the neurotransmitter "serotonin", and it
is used to explain nearly any emotional problem a person might have
nowadays. Many other pharmaceutical companies came out with so many variants
on the SSRI-antidepressant to try and capitalize on its popularity, by
spreading this theory even further amongst the people. Theory? Yes, only a
The Truth is that nobody in the medical field really knows if a "biochemical
imbalance" is the cause of any mental disorder, and they do not know how
even the hypothesized "biochemical imbalances" could produce the emotional,
cognitive, and behavioural symptoms that characterize any mental disorder.
Clever marketing tactics exercised on us by the pharmaceutical industry,
prevailed above scientifical evidence and research. Greed, dis-respect and
contempt of the population, prevailed above altruism, medical care and
responsibility. It's the greatest shame of of this era. More information:
The Invention of the Biochemical Imbalance Myth
Organic conditions that are commonly misdiagnosed as mental disease
Can Psychiatry Be Retrieved From a Biological Approach?
Neuroscientist Elliot S. Valenstein Says No to Drugs
Primary care doctors prescribe SSRI-antidepressants to millions of adults,
adolescents and children, certainly not only for treatment of depression
anymore. SSRI's are prescribed for school phobias, bed wetting, eating
disorders, sleep disturbances (insomnia), nail biting, hair pulling,
headache, gambling addiction, alcohol addiction, back pain, stomach upset,
premenstrual syndrome, etc., and even to "feel better then well". SSRI's
have become all purpose "feel good pills", nowadays, in the year 2000.
Unfortunately many doctors are unaware of the major consequences and some of
them don't even seem to care. They argue that the positive effects of SSRI's
far outweigh their negative effects. Nothing could be further from the
SSRI's may not be compared with regular medications, like insulin to treat
diabetics. SSRI's are psychoactive, blood-brain barrier passing drugs and
interact with the serotonergic system in the brain. Another example of drugs
interacting with the serotonergic system are LSD and Ecstasy (MDMA). The
serotonergic system is responsible for "how we perceive, experience and feel
the inside and outside world". YOU and only YOU created the neuropaths of
this serotonergic system through the years by learning new things over and
over again. And so it represents YOUR serotonergic system with it's own
unique structure, playing a big role in the composition of YOUR mind, YOUR
consciousness, YOUR emotions, YOUR thoughts. When these serotonergic brain
cells are artificially pushed (by SSRI's) to act beyond their capacity or
boundaries, this can result in the most disastrous serious adverse
reactions. People need to be informed about the risks especially when
children are involved.
Serotonin Re-Uptake Inhibitor = Impairing Body Serotonin Metabolism
SSRI's are "Selective Serotonin Re-Uptake Inhibitors." Neuronal re-uptake of
neurotransmitters is metabolism. What serotonin re-uptake inhibitor actually
means is that the SSRI-antidepressant interferes with ones ability to
metabolise serotonin, so that will build up. In other words, an
SSRI-antidepressant impairs the ability of cells to metabolise serotonin,
not only in the brain, but -since serotonin is widely distributed throughout
the body- in the body as well! The greatest concentration of serotonin,
around 90%, is not found in the brain, but is found in the gastrointestinal
or digestive tract (human gut, intestines, bowels).
Originally, the neurotransmitter serotonin -thought to be secreted by the
Pineal Gland- is called a neurohormone, because of it's specific regulatory
effect on the activity of the Endocrine Glands in the human body. (1),(2)
Affecting serotonin means affecting the Glandular Endocrine System. Next to
it, serotonin affects the Cardiovascular System and the Respiratory System,
under which, the lungs. Serotonin is also found in blood platelets and
stimulates platelet aggregation (blood clotting). Furthermore, serotonin is
known to affect contraction of smooth muscles (such as those of the gut) and
blood vessel elasticity (vasoconstriction and expansion). More information:
Serotonin & the Pineal Gland
Fraudulent Clinical Trials and the FDA
Many primary care doctors and most people believe, that SSRI's have
undergone independent tests controlled by the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) to insure safety. In fact the FDA does not "test" proposed new drugs.
It relies almost exclusively on safety and efficacy data provided by the
drug's sponsor. SSRI studies are constructed, financed, and supervised
entirely by pharmaceutical companies themselves. The testing process is
deeply flawed. The clinical tests of antidepressants (SSRI's) are remarkably
short. Although the FDA's guidelines for large-scale clinical tests
recommend they last at least 6 weeks, in some instances studies as short as
4 weeks are accepted. Typically, the studies last 6 to 8 weeks!
And how about the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)? Already in 1993,
28,623 reports of adverse reactions to "Prozac" -the Eli Lilly SSRI,
approved for the market since 1988- had been received by the FDA. These
included effects such as delirium, hallucinations, convulsions, violent
hostility, aggression, psychosis, 1,885 suicide attempts and 1,734 deaths -
1,089 by suicide. However, this didn't seem to be enough to provoke the FDA
to act against the SSRI manufacturer. As a major consequence from this lack
of action, other pharmaceutical companies were permitted to follow Eli
Lilly's example, resulting in more Prozac copy-cat SSRI's like Paxil,
Zoloft, Celexa, etc., nowadays, and probably more to come in the near
future. How many reports of adverse reactions to these SSRI's must the FDA
receive to pull them from the market? Or has this already gone too far?
Personality Structure and Out of Character Behaviour
We now have legal psychoactive, blood-brain barrier passing drugs, acting on
the serotonergic system (SSRI's), the dopaminergic system (SDRI's) and the
nor-adrenergic system (SNRI's) in the brain. The neurotransmitters dopamine,
epinephrine (adrenalin) and nor-epinephrine (nor-adrenalin) are called
"catecholamines" and control the adrenergic systems in the central nervous
system (CNS). They account for staying awake, mood, fight or flight
response, etc.. Serotonin is the primary inhibitory neurotransmitter
modulating the excitatory catecholamine systems in the CNS. Serotonin
neurons control memory, mood, sex drive, etc.. Serotonin, dopamine and
nor-epinephrine (nor-adrenalin) are the key-neurotransmitters involved with
the construction of YOUR personality structure, as stated by doctor C.
Robert Cloninger. Every drug that acts on the serotonergic system will
affect (indirectly) the other neurotransmitter systems (dopaminergic,
nor-adrenergic) in the brain (and visa-versa), thereby affecting YOUR
personality structure, YOUR temperament, YOUR character.
This must be exactly what happened to the antidepressant influenced home,
school- and workplace shooters/killers who have reached the attention of the
media since 1988. It's striking how every time, when involvement of an SSRI
comes to public attention, pharmaceutical companies defend their
serotonergic drugs by telling us over and over again that the fact that a
shooter was taking an SSRI, was purely a coincidence, that the shooter was
treated with an SSRI for "mental illness" and that the SSRI had nothing to
do with his/her violent behaviour, (remember that SSRI's are prescribed for
almost anything, not only for "mental illness"). The pharmaceutical
companies argue that there is no evidence that SSRI's cause suicide or
violence. They refer to the "scientific rigorous battery of independent
clinical trials" that the SSRI's have undergone under the auspices of the
American FDA to insure their efficacy and safety. A recent study tells us a
However, who needs "clinical trials" when there is so much and hard evidence
of violence related to SSRI's in the media... Isn't it striking how many
home, school- and workplace shooters have reached the attention of the media
since 1988? The first SSRI-antidepressant named "Luvox" was approved for the
market on 25 march 1987 and the SSRI "Prozac" on 29 December 1987! Do you
see the connection already? We now have several SSRI's all acting on the
same serotonergic system in the brain. Did these SSRI's help the shooters to
become more happy? Oh yes, so happy that the natural boundaries of their
personality structure were far exceeded! They lost their emotional
connection with their conscience, they became disconnected, they were pushed
over the edge, THEIR edge!!
Serious Adverse Reactions
After growing reports concerning withdrawal symptoms to
SSRI-antidepressants, pharmaceutical companies renamed these phenomena
"antidepressant discontinuation syndrome", avoiding the negative
connotations of the word "withdrawal". This creates the illusion that one is
familiar with the side-effects from SSRI's, that they are rarely reported
and that their products are safe. Ofcourse they want the people and doctors
to keep on believing that withdrawal only happens to a minority of people
and that the symptoms are mild and short-lived.
In fact the side effects from SSRI-antidepressants are far more serious than
just the addiction to it and withdrawal symptoms. Many individuals who took
an SSRI-antidepressant or tried to get off an SSRI-antidepressant
experienced the most horrible adverse reactions. Many individuals have
suffered for years or are still suffering because they experienced an
extremely negative reaction to one of these drugs!
What happened in the brains of these individuals? Scientists have recently
discovered that Prozac induces muscle contractions in the worm suggesting
that Prozac has other molecular targets in the brain. Researchers from
Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia have found changes in brain cells
in rats treated with SSRI's. The brain cells shrivelled or took on abnormal
corkscrew shapes. What happens to the serotonergic system in the brain? The
same system that's stimulated by administration of LSD (Lysergic Acid
Diethylamide), the system that's involved with our perception. Doctors
reported LSD flashbacks in adolescents -with a history of use of LSD- after
treatment with an SSRI-antidepressant.
We strongly suggest You think again before You decide to take any
anti-depressant. If you are currently taking an SSRI, never stop cold turkey
but slowly taper off. Don't go off medication without medical supervision.
The best way to minimize withdrawal side effects is to wean off the
medication, this process may take up to a year or longer.
all involved in sabotaging of my allegations must be INDICTED and convicted
on multiple offences / crime (Criminal Code, Constitutional provisions,
Bill - 45, Bill 107, Bill - 168 and other Law provisions ).
IN CANADA EVERY YEAR OVER 24000 PEOPLE UNNECESARY DIE DUE TO MEDICAL