In my last article, I discussed Lindsay Clancy, mental health, and the law. The primary question was one that has gripped the nation, as mental health diagnoses seem to be a convenient excuse for crime. Does a plea of insanity render one incapable of assuming responsibility for murder, or any other violent act? This is a very subjective question as the answer varies widely depending upon the circumstances, the crime in question, and the demographic. For example, nearly all mass shooters are allegedly suffering from some sort of mental illness and taking numerous psychiatric medicines. However, there has never been an instance where the public rallies behind the shooter in the name of bringing awareness to mental health issues. While the political right may argue the mental health angle, and the left clamors for gun control, no one on either side would accept a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity for a mass shooter. What is different in the Clancy case? The feminist movement is backing Clancy as a way to show solidarity with her Postpartum Psychosis, which, as noted in my last article, is a diagnosis similar to bipolar disorder. It is highly likely that the women supporting Clancy would not be doing so absent a mental health diagnosis. Like mass shooters, Clancy was prescribed several psychiatric drugs, which some would argue contributed to her violent behavior. Interestingly, a book dealing with the Covid-19 psyop asks a fundamental question that we need to consider. The author asks to what extent the routine prescription of antidepressants is meant to treat mental illness, or are they meant to be a means of social control? Is mental illness deliberately “being inculcated” so that the use of mental health meds will be accepted as the solution? While these questions may seem conspiratorial to some, there is evidence that suggests the mental health epidemic is being fueled by the rampant prescribing of psychiatric meds.
According to an article entitled Anatomy of an Epidemic: Psychiatric Drugs and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America, rates of psychiatric illness skyrocketed in 1955 with the introduction of Chlorpromazine. This drug was seen as a major breakthrough for the psychiatric profession. It was compared to the introduction of penicillin in the sense it was believed mental disorders could be treated with drugs, like biological diseases. Chlorpromazine set the stage for other drugs like Haldol and the antidepressants we are familiar with today. According to the same article, the number of patient care mental health episodes in 1955 was roughly 1020 per 100,000 citizens. By the year 2000, that number had increased dramatically to 3800 per 100,000, or 10,700,000 cases. This increase is in direct correlation to the introduction of psych meds into the population. The same thing happened in 1987 with the introduction of Prozac. The number of people considered to be disabled due to mental illness jumped dramatically as did the amount of dollar sales. We have all seen the commercials for these types of drugs. Major side effects include increased anxiety, serotonin syndrome, and suicidal thoughts and/or behaviors. The bigger question remains here. Why are drugs meant to treat symptoms like anxiety or depression causing more of the same?
Read Full Article: https://thewashingtonstandard.com/psychiatric-meds-the-rise-of-mental-illness/
