Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Sixty years ago, studies were done comparing antidepressants with what is called “active placebos,” drugs that mimic the side effects of antidepressants. The conclusion? Almost no difference in outcome. Reading about the results of these 1960s studies was a lightbulb moment for British psychiatrist Dr Joanna Moncrieff. She was...

JanJekielek's profile picture

Jan Jekielek

216,484 subscribers

12,372 views • 8 months ago •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

7 Comments

Jan Jekielek's profile picture
Jan Jekielek8 months ago

“So instead of questioning why we were prescribing these drugs so widely and trying to rein in the prescribing, leading psychiatric researchers found ways to present the evidence that made it look a little bit better,” she said. 🔴 WATCH FULL:

SavvyOldNurse's profile picture
SavvyOldNurse8 months ago

Without the drugs, psychiatrists have little to offer. The psychotherapy they formerly offered has been farmed out to therapists (many of which are unhinged leftists), and it takes far too much time to be able to treat all those who are seeking mental health treatment now.

Janmar Kaczynski's profile picture
Janmar Kaczynski8 months ago

Antidepressants and the myth of "it's just a chemical imbalance" . As ubiquitous and impact full as "just Google it" has been . "Settled science" by media messaging .

Aine's profile picture
Aine8 months ago

Except SSRIs are more than placebo. They are potentially very harmful. @joannamoncrieff @PTMFramework @DrDavidHealy @DrTerryLynch

Lex's profile picture
Lex8 months ago

I was told using active placebos was unethical. I had no idea this had been done. Who made it unethical? Simple vitamins can be used.

Bipolar Point of View's profile picture
Bipolar Point of View8 months ago

And yet, the *right* antidepressants worked very well for me: imipramine, then later, mirtazapine.

Sandiz's profile picture
Sandiz8 months ago

This is a selective and misleading framing. Early “active placebo” studies were small, methodologically weak, and predate modern diagnostic criteria. More recent large meta-analyses show antidepressants outperform placebo, particularly in moderate–severe depression. Small average effect sizes ≠ no real benefit for individuals. That’s a statistical misunderstanding. Side effects and withdrawal risks are real and should be handled transparently, but presenting antidepressants as broadly ineffective or placebo-only is not supported by the totality of evidence. Precision matters. Oversimplification helps no one.

Related Videos

A study of over a thousand patients found that 59% of people on antidepressants experience sexual dysfunction. Doctors are prescribing these drugs to seven-year-olds. A peer-reviewed study of over 1,000 outpatients found that 59.1% of patients on antidepressants experienced sexual dysfunction when all antidepressants were considered together. Men came in at 62.4%, women at 56.9%, with women reporting higher severity. Those are the numbers attached to a class of drugs now being prescribed to children as young as seven. The European Medicines Agency took that seriously enough in 2019 that it updated the official product labeling for SSRIs and SNRIs after petitioners, researchers, and people harmed by these drugs forced their hand. The new language states that these drugs may cause symptoms of sexual dysfunction, and that there have been reports of long-lasting sexual dysfunction where the symptoms continued even after the drug was discontinued. A parent putting a seven-year-old on an SSRI may be thinking their child is not sexually active yet, so the risk feels abstract. What that framing misses is that most children put on these medications do not come off them. They carry the drug into adulthood, into relationships, and into marriage, along with a 50 to 60 percent likelihood of sexual dysfunction that the label now acknowledges may not resolve even after they stop taking it. 👇
1:49

A study of over a thousand patients found that 59% of people on antidepressants experience sexual dysfunction. Doctors are prescribing these drugs to seven-year-olds. A peer-reviewed study of over 1,000 outpatients found that 59.1% of patients on antidepressants experienced sexual dysfunction when all antidepressants were considered together. Men came in at 62.4%, women at 56.9%, with women reporting higher severity. Those are the numbers attached to a class of drugs now being prescribed to children as young as seven. The European Medicines Agency took that seriously enough in 2019 that it updated the official product labeling for SSRIs and SNRIs after petitioners, researchers, and people harmed by these drugs forced their hand. The new language states that these drugs may cause symptoms of sexual dysfunction, and that there have been reports of long-lasting sexual dysfunction where the symptoms continued even after the drug was discontinued. A parent putting a seven-year-old on an SSRI may be thinking their child is not sexually active yet, so the risk feels abstract. What that framing misses is that most children put on these medications do not come off them. They carry the drug into adulthood, into relationships, and into marriage, along with a 50 to 60 percent likelihood of sexual dysfunction that the label now acknowledges may not resolve even after they stop taking it. 👇

The HighWire

10,690 views • 4 months ago

A professor of clinical psychiatry wrote that RFK is suggesting "without credible evidence" that antidepressants may be linked to violent behavior. As a psychiatrist who studies these side effects, I have to be honest: the evidence exists, and it's been sitting in the drug labels for years. Irritability and aggression are listed adverse reactions. In rare cases, mania and psychosis. This is not a common side effect, and I want to be clear about that. But rare is not the same as nonexistent, and the whole country just watched the Lindsay Clancy trial, where the defense argued exactly this. Dismissing it as baseless doesn't protect patients. It just guarantees the next family won't see it coming. The other argument is that questioning antidepressant prescribing stigmatizes depressed people as weak rather than medically ill. I'd flip that completely. Seventeen percent of Americans are on antidepressants. That number is not proof of an epidemic of broken brains. It's a reflection of how we handle sadness, anxiety, and struggle as a country: we medicate it. The people on these drugs have real, painful problems. They deserve better than a prescription and a follow-up in six months. In my experience, most depression traces to a mix you can actually address. Physical: 60% of our calories now come from ultra-processed food, the average American takes 4,000 steps a day when we need around 7,000, and drugs and alcohol are in the mix more than we admit. Psychological: social isolation and a lack of meaning and purpose. Fix those, connect people with therapists who can coach them through the rest, and a great deal of depression resolves without a pill. Wanting fewer Americans on antidepressants isn't stigma. It's ambition for their actual recovery.
2:41

A professor of clinical psychiatry wrote that RFK is suggesting "without credible evidence" that antidepressants may be linked to violent behavior. As a psychiatrist who studies these side effects, I have to be honest: the evidence exists, and it's been sitting in the drug labels for years. Irritability and aggression are listed adverse reactions. In rare cases, mania and psychosis. This is not a common side effect, and I want to be clear about that. But rare is not the same as nonexistent, and the whole country just watched the Lindsay Clancy trial, where the defense argued exactly this. Dismissing it as baseless doesn't protect patients. It just guarantees the next family won't see it coming. The other argument is that questioning antidepressant prescribing stigmatizes depressed people as weak rather than medically ill. I'd flip that completely. Seventeen percent of Americans are on antidepressants. That number is not proof of an epidemic of broken brains. It's a reflection of how we handle sadness, anxiety, and struggle as a country: we medicate it. The people on these drugs have real, painful problems. They deserve better than a prescription and a follow-up in six months. In my experience, most depression traces to a mix you can actually address. Physical: 60% of our calories now come from ultra-processed food, the average American takes 4,000 steps a day when we need around 7,000, and drugs and alcohol are in the mix more than we admit. Psychological: social isolation and a lack of meaning and purpose. Fix those, connect people with therapists who can coach them through the rest, and a great deal of depression resolves without a pill. Wanting fewer Americans on antidepressants isn't stigma. It's ambition for their actual recovery.

Dr. Josef

22,152 views • 24 days ago

British psychiatrist Dr Joanna Moncrieff is the author of “Chemically Imbalanced: The Making and Unmaking of the Serotonin Myth.” She challenges the long-held belief that depression is caused by a lack of the hormone serotonin in the brain. “The serotonin myth… was first put out there in the 1960s, then picked up by the pharmaceutical industry in the 1990s, and widely propagated by them as part of their campaign to sell SSRIs—their new generation of antidepressants,” Moncrieff argues. "In the textbooks, we were being told we had these amazing new drugs… In reality, I saw hospitals where there were wards full of people who were zombified… heavily sedated, shuffling around." In our interview, she recounts how the serotonin myth took hold.
1:20

British psychiatrist Dr Joanna Moncrieff is the author of “Chemically Imbalanced: The Making and Unmaking of the Serotonin Myth.” She challenges the long-held belief that depression is caused by a lack of the hormone serotonin in the brain. “The serotonin myth… was first put out there in the 1960s, then picked up by the pharmaceutical industry in the 1990s, and widely propagated by them as part of their campaign to sell SSRIs—their new generation of antidepressants,” Moncrieff argues. "In the textbooks, we were being told we had these amazing new drugs… In reality, I saw hospitals where there were wards full of people who were zombified… heavily sedated, shuffling around." In our interview, she recounts how the serotonin myth took hold.

Jan Jekielek

33,770 views • 8 months ago

Three things about antidepressants that almost nobody knows, and each one should bother you more than the last. First: when your doctor says Prozac, Lexapro, or Zoloft is "safe and effective," the honest version of that sentence is "safe and effective for the year it was studied." The FDA's own chief medical and scientific officer, Vinay Prasad, looked at the ten most prescribed antidepressants in America. Not one has a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial longer than a year. Seventeen percent of the population takes these drugs, many for decades, and beyond year one, nobody actually knows whether the benefits outweigh the risks. The public believes these are among the most-studied drugs in history. Long term, they barely qualify as studied at all. Second: the FDA requires no studies on how to get people off these medications after long-term use. None. Millions of people have been on them for years, and the science of safely discontinuing them is a black hole that no drug company has ever been required to fill. Third, and this is the one I want you to sit with: they aren't even required to make doses you can taper from. Coming off safely means small reductions, far smaller than the tablets that exist. So when people ask me why antidepressant use keeps climbing every year, "the world is more stressful" is only part of the answer. Some of it is simpler and worse: people get on, discover there's no off-ramp built, and stay stuck. We built a system with an entrance and no exit. That's not a mental health epidemic. That's a design flaw.
2:13

Three things about antidepressants that almost nobody knows, and each one should bother you more than the last. First: when your doctor says Prozac, Lexapro, or Zoloft is "safe and effective," the honest version of that sentence is "safe and effective for the year it was studied." The FDA's own chief medical and scientific officer, Vinay Prasad, looked at the ten most prescribed antidepressants in America. Not one has a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial longer than a year. Seventeen percent of the population takes these drugs, many for decades, and beyond year one, nobody actually knows whether the benefits outweigh the risks. The public believes these are among the most-studied drugs in history. Long term, they barely qualify as studied at all. Second: the FDA requires no studies on how to get people off these medications after long-term use. None. Millions of people have been on them for years, and the science of safely discontinuing them is a black hole that no drug company has ever been required to fill. Third, and this is the one I want you to sit with: they aren't even required to make doses you can taper from. Coming off safely means small reductions, far smaller than the tablets that exist. So when people ask me why antidepressant use keeps climbing every year, "the world is more stressful" is only part of the answer. Some of it is simpler and worse: people get on, discover there's no off-ramp built, and stay stuck. We built a system with an entrance and no exit. That's not a mental health epidemic. That's a design flaw.

Dr. Josef

17,473 views • 22 days ago

Tom Cruise went off on Matt Lauer in that 2005 TODAY interview: psychiatry is pseudoscience, antidepressants just mask problems, no such thing as a chemical imbalance, and Ritalin/Adderall are dangerous mind-altering drugs pushed on kids. He pushed back hard on Brooke Shields’ postpartum depression treatment and called out the lack of real medical tests for these diagnoses. Whether you agree or not, that clip still sparks debate 20 years later.
1:53

Tom Cruise went off on Matt Lauer in that 2005 TODAY interview: psychiatry is pseudoscience, antidepressants just mask problems, no such thing as a chemical imbalance, and Ritalin/Adderall are dangerous mind-altering drugs pushed on kids. He pushed back hard on Brooke Shields’ postpartum depression treatment and called out the lack of real medical tests for these diagnoses. Whether you agree or not, that clip still sparks debate 20 years later.

Camus

138,023 views • 2 months ago

🚨 The biggest myth around mental health today is that mental illnesses are caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain that can be fixed by drugs—just like insulin fixes diabetes, says journalist Robert Whitaker, publisher of Mad In America That was the metaphor promoted by the American Psychiatry Association (APA) and others. The only problem: No evidence could be found of such imbalances in the brains of people with mental disorders. Scientists looked for years. In the 1980s, NIMH did major research on this question, and they found nothing. But the public in the United States was not told. The myth continued to this day—and now we’re seeing the terrible results of long-term consumption of psychiatric medications like antipsychotics and antidepressants. U.S. spending on treating mental disorders has risen substantially over the past decades, from tens of billions in the late 1980s to over one hundred billion dollars per year today. Yet mental disorders keep rising. “We have this story that we're making great progress in diagnosing and treating mental disorders,” he told me. But it is just a story, a narrative that is told to the public to sell psychiatric drugs, he says.
6:24

🚨 The biggest myth around mental health today is that mental illnesses are caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain that can be fixed by drugs—just like insulin fixes diabetes, says journalist Robert Whitaker, publisher of Mad In America That was the metaphor promoted by the American Psychiatry Association (APA) and others. The only problem: No evidence could be found of such imbalances in the brains of people with mental disorders. Scientists looked for years. In the 1980s, NIMH did major research on this question, and they found nothing. But the public in the United States was not told. The myth continued to this day—and now we’re seeing the terrible results of long-term consumption of psychiatric medications like antipsychotics and antidepressants. U.S. spending on treating mental disorders has risen substantially over the past decades, from tens of billions in the late 1980s to over one hundred billion dollars per year today. Yet mental disorders keep rising. “We have this story that we're making great progress in diagnosing and treating mental disorders,” he told me. But it is just a story, a narrative that is told to the public to sell psychiatric drugs, he says.

Jan Jekielek

176,147 views • 10 months ago

Antidepressants: The Lifelong Sentence? How SSRIs Are Linked to Heart Disease, Suicidal Thoughts, and a Debunked Science—While Withdrawal Leaves Patients with ‘Brain Zaps’ and Permanent Sexual Dysfunction A new report in The Lancet confirms what many have feared: the pandemic didn’t just disrupt lives—it shattered mental health. Depression and anxiety in young people surged by over 50% from 2010–2019, and COVID-19 added 53 million new cases of major depressive disorder and 76 million anxiety disorders globally. In the U.S., nearly 1 in 3 adults reported symptoms of anxiety or depression last summer. The response? A 64% spike in antidepressant prescriptions for young people since 2020, with girls aged 12–17 seeing a 130% increase. But here’s the catch: Antidepressants, especially SSRIs, are now a lifelong sentence for millions. A UK study of 220,000 patients linked long-term use to higher risks of coronary heart disease, stroke, and all-cause mortality. Even the FDA’s black-box warning on drugs like Zoloft admits they can increase suicidal thoughts in young adults—the very outcome they’re meant to prevent. The serotonin theory of depression? Debunked. A landmark Nature review found no convincing evidence that depression is caused by low serotonin. Yet, Big Pharma’s marketing machine keeps pushing these drugs as the first-line solution, despite decades of questionable efficacy and mounting side effects. Withdrawal is a nightmare. Patients report "brain zaps"—electric shocks in the brain—alongside cognitive impairment and crippling anxiety. And now, a hidden epidemic: post-SSRI sexual dysfunction, where genital numbness, loss of attraction, and emotional flatlining persist even after stopping the drugs. Some never recover. Doctors dismissed these symptoms for years, blaming depression itself. Now, the European Medicines Agency has issued a black-box warning for permanent sexual dysfunction after SSRI use. Yet, in a move that defies logic, regulators are now pushing for over-the-counter antidepressants. No new clinical trials. No reckoning with the addiction, withdrawal horrors, or long-term brain changes. Just a green light to dole out mind-altering drugs like candy—echoing Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, where SOMA kept the masses docile and compliant. School shootings? Gender dysphoria in teens? Sexual dysfunction ruining marriages? The data demands we ask: Are SSRIs fueling these crises? Many mass shooters were on—or withdrawing from—these drugs. Detransitioners describe how antidepressants warped their sense of self. And sex offenders are prescribed SSRIs to kill their libido—so why are we surprised when patients lose their sexuality forever? This isn’t about denying help to those in pain. It’s about demanding transparency, alternatives, and real science. If the serotonin theory is dead, why are we still gambling with millions of lives? Why are regulators fast-tracking OTC access while ignoring the withdrawal nightmares, the permanent damage, the lack of long-term safety data? The system is broken. Pharma profits. Patients suffer. And now, they want to make it easier than ever to get hooked. We can’t stay silent.
16:49

Antidepressants: The Lifelong Sentence? How SSRIs Are Linked to Heart Disease, Suicidal Thoughts, and a Debunked Science—While Withdrawal Leaves Patients with ‘Brain Zaps’ and Permanent Sexual Dysfunction A new report in The Lancet confirms what many have feared: the pandemic didn’t just disrupt lives—it shattered mental health. Depression and anxiety in young people surged by over 50% from 2010–2019, and COVID-19 added 53 million new cases of major depressive disorder and 76 million anxiety disorders globally. In the U.S., nearly 1 in 3 adults reported symptoms of anxiety or depression last summer. The response? A 64% spike in antidepressant prescriptions for young people since 2020, with girls aged 12–17 seeing a 130% increase. But here’s the catch: Antidepressants, especially SSRIs, are now a lifelong sentence for millions. A UK study of 220,000 patients linked long-term use to higher risks of coronary heart disease, stroke, and all-cause mortality. Even the FDA’s black-box warning on drugs like Zoloft admits they can increase suicidal thoughts in young adults—the very outcome they’re meant to prevent. The serotonin theory of depression? Debunked. A landmark Nature review found no convincing evidence that depression is caused by low serotonin. Yet, Big Pharma’s marketing machine keeps pushing these drugs as the first-line solution, despite decades of questionable efficacy and mounting side effects. Withdrawal is a nightmare. Patients report "brain zaps"—electric shocks in the brain—alongside cognitive impairment and crippling anxiety. And now, a hidden epidemic: post-SSRI sexual dysfunction, where genital numbness, loss of attraction, and emotional flatlining persist even after stopping the drugs. Some never recover. Doctors dismissed these symptoms for years, blaming depression itself. Now, the European Medicines Agency has issued a black-box warning for permanent sexual dysfunction after SSRI use. Yet, in a move that defies logic, regulators are now pushing for over-the-counter antidepressants. No new clinical trials. No reckoning with the addiction, withdrawal horrors, or long-term brain changes. Just a green light to dole out mind-altering drugs like candy—echoing Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, where SOMA kept the masses docile and compliant. School shootings? Gender dysphoria in teens? Sexual dysfunction ruining marriages? The data demands we ask: Are SSRIs fueling these crises? Many mass shooters were on—or withdrawing from—these drugs. Detransitioners describe how antidepressants warped their sense of self. And sex offenders are prescribed SSRIs to kill their libido—so why are we surprised when patients lose their sexuality forever? This isn’t about denying help to those in pain. It’s about demanding transparency, alternatives, and real science. If the serotonin theory is dead, why are we still gambling with millions of lives? Why are regulators fast-tracking OTC access while ignoring the withdrawal nightmares, the permanent damage, the lack of long-term safety data? The system is broken. Pharma profits. Patients suffer. And now, they want to make it easier than ever to get hooked. We can’t stay silent.

Camus

41,855 views • 11 months ago

‼️The Drug They're Giving Seven-Year-Olds Has a 59% Rate of Permanent Sexual Dysfunction Danielle Gansky was seven years old when she was first prescribed psychiatric medication. The side effects were misread as worsening mental illness, so more drugs were added to treat the symptoms the first drugs had caused. By the time she decided to come off them, the withdrawal felt, in her words, like being dropped into a living nightmare of nonstop physical and psychological torment. Being alive simply felt unbearable. And then there was Lauren, who stood up and testified about something indescribable - Post-SSRI Sexual Dysfunction. She suffers from complete genital numbness. She has ZERO sensation. At 23, she described it as a form of chemical castration. It is permanent and caused by medications prescribed to children who had no idea what they were agreeing to. She cannot feel love for her own mother. She cannot feel a connection to her friends. She was neurologically severed by drugs given to her before she was old enough to understand what was being taken from her. 50% to 70% of SSRI patients experience sexual side effects. There is no black box warning, and no requirement to tell parents that the medication they are giving their seven-year-old carries a greater than 50% chance of permanent sexual dysfunction. It is absolutely horrific. Del walked out of that conversation and called Aaron Siri. A new lawsuit is being filed. That is what this community makes possible: the moment a story becomes this outrageous, the resources exist to do something about it. Though we walk through the valley of the shadow of death, we fear no evil here at The HighWire. And neither do you.
2:07

‼️The Drug They're Giving Seven-Year-Olds Has a 59% Rate of Permanent Sexual Dysfunction Danielle Gansky was seven years old when she was first prescribed psychiatric medication. The side effects were misread as worsening mental illness, so more drugs were added to treat the symptoms the first drugs had caused. By the time she decided to come off them, the withdrawal felt, in her words, like being dropped into a living nightmare of nonstop physical and psychological torment. Being alive simply felt unbearable. And then there was Lauren, who stood up and testified about something indescribable - Post-SSRI Sexual Dysfunction. She suffers from complete genital numbness. She has ZERO sensation. At 23, she described it as a form of chemical castration. It is permanent and caused by medications prescribed to children who had no idea what they were agreeing to. She cannot feel love for her own mother. She cannot feel a connection to her friends. She was neurologically severed by drugs given to her before she was old enough to understand what was being taken from her. 50% to 70% of SSRI patients experience sexual side effects. There is no black box warning, and no requirement to tell parents that the medication they are giving their seven-year-old carries a greater than 50% chance of permanent sexual dysfunction. It is absolutely horrific. Del walked out of that conversation and called Aaron Siri. A new lawsuit is being filed. That is what this community makes possible: the moment a story becomes this outrageous, the resources exist to do something about it. Though we walk through the valley of the shadow of death, we fear no evil here at The HighWire. And neither do you.

The HighWire

15,074 views • 4 months ago

RFK Jr. is not going to ban antidepressants. What he is doing is opening up a conversation that our culture has avoided for far too long. A conversation about informed choice. That means honest discussions around side effects, long term outcomes, and what happens when someone decides they no longer want to take these medications and needs support getting off of them safely. Last week, a video of Ella Emhoff speaking about her experience with antidepressants went viral. She described spending much of her life on these medications while never being given a clear path off of them. Her story resonated with people across the political spectrum because this issue reaches far beyond partisan politics. Many of us grew up believing that the way to feel seen and understood in our pain was through diagnosis and medication. Now more and more people are beginning to step back and ask whether this framework has truly helped us in the long term. Carl Higbie
0:54

RFK Jr. is not going to ban antidepressants. What he is doing is opening up a conversation that our culture has avoided for far too long. A conversation about informed choice. That means honest discussions around side effects, long term outcomes, and what happens when someone decides they no longer want to take these medications and needs support getting off of them safely. Last week, a video of Ella Emhoff speaking about her experience with antidepressants went viral. She described spending much of her life on these medications while never being given a clear path off of them. Her story resonated with people across the political spectrum because this issue reaches far beyond partisan politics. Many of us grew up believing that the way to feel seen and understood in our pain was through diagnosis and medication. Now more and more people are beginning to step back and ask whether this framework has truly helped us in the long term. Carl Higbie

Laura Delano

23,572 views • 5 months ago

WATCH: Kennedy is asked a tough question about why “looking at firearms” wasn’t included in the MAHA report. He answered her question with class and grace, and you could hear a pin drop as the room hung on Kennedy’s every word: “We had comparably the same number of guns [when I was a kid]. Nobody was doing that [walking into buildings and shooting strangers]. We had gun clubs at my school. Kids brought guns to school and were encouraged to do so. And nobody was walking into schools and shooting people. “And this is not happening in other countries. Switzerland has a comparable number of guns as we do. And the last mass shooting they had was 23 years ago. We’re having mass shootings every 23 hours. So, there are many, many things that happened in the 1990s that could explain these. “One is the dependence on psychiatric drugs, which in our country is unlike any other country in the world… “And we are looking at that at NIH. So we are doing studies now. We’re initiating studies to look at the correlation and the potential connection between over-medicating our kids and this violence.”
2:05

WATCH: Kennedy is asked a tough question about why “looking at firearms” wasn’t included in the MAHA report. He answered her question with class and grace, and you could hear a pin drop as the room hung on Kennedy’s every word: “We had comparably the same number of guns [when I was a kid]. Nobody was doing that [walking into buildings and shooting strangers]. We had gun clubs at my school. Kids brought guns to school and were encouraged to do so. And nobody was walking into schools and shooting people. “And this is not happening in other countries. Switzerland has a comparable number of guns as we do. And the last mass shooting they had was 23 years ago. We’re having mass shootings every 23 hours. So, there are many, many things that happened in the 1990s that could explain these. “One is the dependence on psychiatric drugs, which in our country is unlike any other country in the world… “And we are looking at that at NIH. So we are doing studies now. We’re initiating studies to look at the correlation and the potential connection between over-medicating our kids and this violence.”

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

640,310 views • 1 year ago

Antidepressants and SSRIs are fake & ghey. Why? When their “effects” wear off you still have the same problems and have to take another one. These BS pharmaceuticals are the last thing we should be concerned about and they should be removed from the market. If Sen. Tina Smith had such great impacts from these pharmaceuticals, then why is she reading her “testimony” on them instead of speaking it? All her other questions lead into it being a problem she’s faced. Not a problem that EVERY AMERICAN is facing! Robert F. Kennedy Jr knows the damage these drugs cause and how we can defeat the “diseases” they’re used to “treat” with our own will power. No one else’s. And damn sure not with the help of some BS company in it for PROFIT. It’s time to speak the Truth and MAKE AMERICA HEALTHY AGAIN!🇺🇸💪
2:34

Antidepressants and SSRIs are fake & ghey. Why? When their “effects” wear off you still have the same problems and have to take another one. These BS pharmaceuticals are the last thing we should be concerned about and they should be removed from the market. If Sen. Tina Smith had such great impacts from these pharmaceuticals, then why is she reading her “testimony” on them instead of speaking it? All her other questions lead into it being a problem she’s faced. Not a problem that EVERY AMERICAN is facing! Robert F. Kennedy Jr knows the damage these drugs cause and how we can defeat the “diseases” they’re used to “treat” with our own will power. No one else’s. And damn sure not with the help of some BS company in it for PROFIT. It’s time to speak the Truth and MAKE AMERICA HEALTHY AGAIN!🇺🇸💪

Colton Sroka (Ca🅿🅿)

50,840 views • 1 year ago

Some people come off SSRIs and the sexual side effects never leave. Chris Williamson played a clip of Lauren Friedman talking about post-SSRI sexual dysfunction. While you’re on the drugs, sexual problems show up for a big chunk of people, numbers often cited are 50 to 70 percent. What doesn’t get said enough is that for some, those problems stick around long after the last pill. She described total genital numbness, no ability to orgasm, and libido that just vanished overnight. She was 23. Isabel Brown pointed out how little this gets covered in the mainstream even though people are talking about it online and in hearings. When anyone claims the science is settled, that’s usually the moment to look closer. A side effect that still sits mostly outside the usual conversation.
2:37

Some people come off SSRIs and the sexual side effects never leave. Chris Williamson played a clip of Lauren Friedman talking about post-SSRI sexual dysfunction. While you’re on the drugs, sexual problems show up for a big chunk of people, numbers often cited are 50 to 70 percent. What doesn’t get said enough is that for some, those problems stick around long after the last pill. She described total genital numbness, no ability to orgasm, and libido that just vanished overnight. She was 23. Isabel Brown pointed out how little this gets covered in the mainstream even though people are talking about it online and in hearings. When anyone claims the science is settled, that’s usually the moment to look closer. A side effect that still sits mostly outside the usual conversation.

Camus

132,793 views • 2 months ago

Lindsey Clancy is on trial for murder. Court records show she was on 13 medications at the time, including SSRIs and benzodiazepines. Jefferey sat down with Dr. David Healy, an expert witness in pharmaceutical trials who has reviewed internal company documents that have never been shown to the public. Healy says the link between these drugs and homicidal ideation is clear, not just suicidal ideation. These drugs numb people, he says, to the point where they do things they'd never otherwise contemplate. Some patients experience psychosis severe enough to hear voices commanding violence. Healy says this risk shows up in clinical trials, including trials done in teenagers. Jefferey argues that pharmaceutical companies should also be on trial, given the sheer number of drugs Clancy was prescribed simultaneously.
1:58

Lindsey Clancy is on trial for murder. Court records show she was on 13 medications at the time, including SSRIs and benzodiazepines. Jefferey sat down with Dr. David Healy, an expert witness in pharmaceutical trials who has reviewed internal company documents that have never been shown to the public. Healy says the link between these drugs and homicidal ideation is clear, not just suicidal ideation. These drugs numb people, he says, to the point where they do things they'd never otherwise contemplate. Some patients experience psychosis severe enough to hear voices commanding violence. Healy says this risk shows up in clinical trials, including trials done in teenagers. Jefferey argues that pharmaceutical companies should also be on trial, given the sheer number of drugs Clancy was prescribed simultaneously.

The HighWire

12,689 views • 1 month ago

‼️The antidepressant sexual dysfunction rate is 59%. The average starting age is getting younger. And the side effects can outlast the prescription permanently. A study on antidepressant use found that 59.1% of patients experience sexual dysfunction, and the European Medicines Agency updated the official product information for SSRIs and SNRIs in 2019 to acknowledge that these symptoms have continued in some patients even after stopping the drug entirely. The damage can be permanent. This is the medication being prescribed to seven-year-olds. A parent giving an SSRI to a child that young may rationalize that sexual side effects are not relevant yet. What that parent may not understand is that most children who start on these medications never come off them. The decision made at age seven follows that child into adulthood, and a 59% rate of sexual dysfunction is not a risk they are choosing for themselves. It is a risk being chosen for them before they are old enough to have any say in the matter. When adverse event rates in vaccine trials hit 5%, alarm bells go off. When one in two patients reports sexual dysfunction from a drug being prescribed to primary school children, it barely makes the news.
1:24

‼️The antidepressant sexual dysfunction rate is 59%. The average starting age is getting younger. And the side effects can outlast the prescription permanently. A study on antidepressant use found that 59.1% of patients experience sexual dysfunction, and the European Medicines Agency updated the official product information for SSRIs and SNRIs in 2019 to acknowledge that these symptoms have continued in some patients even after stopping the drug entirely. The damage can be permanent. This is the medication being prescribed to seven-year-olds. A parent giving an SSRI to a child that young may rationalize that sexual side effects are not relevant yet. What that parent may not understand is that most children who start on these medications never come off them. The decision made at age seven follows that child into adulthood, and a 59% rate of sexual dysfunction is not a risk they are choosing for themselves. It is a risk being chosen for them before they are old enough to have any say in the matter. When adverse event rates in vaccine trials hit 5%, alarm bells go off. When one in two patients reports sexual dysfunction from a drug being prescribed to primary school children, it barely makes the news.

The HighWire

14,358 views • 4 months ago

🚨Most Americans think depression is linked to a “chemical imbalance” in the brain, and that drugs can fix this imbalance—like a type one diabetic takes insulin. But that’s not true at all, says Dr. Josef. Exhaustive research has found zero evidence of a chemical imbalance. In fact, "there is no way to differentiate patients who are depressed from those who are not depressed using any objective markers," he says. So what do antidepressants really do then? Mask symptoms. And over time, your body builds tolerance and the effect wears off. Eventually you max out on the dose of the drug, and you're prescribed a second drug…a third…a fourth. But doctors often aren't explaining to patients why these drugs stop working. Instead they're told: You have treatment resistant depression. Your mental illness is evolving. Or you've developed a new condition.
1:14

🚨Most Americans think depression is linked to a “chemical imbalance” in the brain, and that drugs can fix this imbalance—like a type one diabetic takes insulin. But that’s not true at all, says Dr. Josef. Exhaustive research has found zero evidence of a chemical imbalance. In fact, "there is no way to differentiate patients who are depressed from those who are not depressed using any objective markers," he says. So what do antidepressants really do then? Mask symptoms. And over time, your body builds tolerance and the effect wears off. Eventually you max out on the dose of the drug, and you're prescribed a second drug…a third…a fourth. But doctors often aren't explaining to patients why these drugs stop working. Instead they're told: You have treatment resistant depression. Your mental illness is evolving. Or you've developed a new condition.

Jan Jekielek

148,624 views • 11 months ago

🚨Dr. Sherri Tenpenny just declared in no uncertain terms: The Covid-19 shots are the “biggest crime against humanity that’s ever been committed.” And she declared that sudden deaths from Covid-19 shots are an “epidemic.” “These shots are an absolute disaster.” “There was a big study that came out of South Korea that did an evaluation of 22 million people that lived in Seoul and Icheon … that had had at least one Covid shot.” “There was a huge uptick in dementia and in memory loss … and early onset Alzheimer’s.” “It was released as an Emergency Utilization Authorization, which means it came to market without any of the long-term studies … without knowing what the side effects and complications were.” “Pfizer wanted to maintain their records away from the American public for 75 years.” “It was taken to court and the judge said, ‘wait a minute, you wanna wait until everybody involved with this is dead before you bring forth the information that shows what the problems were?’” “Well, the first paper that they released was a 38-page paper.” “The last 8 pages of that paper listed more than 1,200 disease side effects and conditions that they knew that the Covid jab could be associated with.” Dr Sherri Tenpenny
3:16

🚨Dr. Sherri Tenpenny just declared in no uncertain terms: The Covid-19 shots are the “biggest crime against humanity that’s ever been committed.” And she declared that sudden deaths from Covid-19 shots are an “epidemic.” “These shots are an absolute disaster.” “There was a big study that came out of South Korea that did an evaluation of 22 million people that lived in Seoul and Icheon … that had had at least one Covid shot.” “There was a huge uptick in dementia and in memory loss … and early onset Alzheimer’s.” “It was released as an Emergency Utilization Authorization, which means it came to market without any of the long-term studies … without knowing what the side effects and complications were.” “Pfizer wanted to maintain their records away from the American public for 75 years.” “It was taken to court and the judge said, ‘wait a minute, you wanna wait until everybody involved with this is dead before you bring forth the information that shows what the problems were?’” “Well, the first paper that they released was a 38-page paper.” “The last 8 pages of that paper listed more than 1,200 disease side effects and conditions that they knew that the Covid jab could be associated with.” Dr Sherri Tenpenny

Children’s Health Defense

66,905 views • 9 months ago

Modern psychiatry rests on a made up narrative, says Robert Whitaker, publisher of Mad In America. Here’s how two studies on schizophrenia made him realize things were amiss: “One was a study by Harvard researchers published in 1994 which looked at longer term outcomes for schizophrenia patients, and they said they had *declined* since the 1970s—not improved—and were now no better than they had been in the first third of the 20th century. Now we look back at the first third of the 20th century as these dark ages. So how can it be that with these modern drugs that fix chemical imbalances, we are no better [off]?” The second study was done by the World Health Organization that compared outcomes for patients in three developing countries - India, Colombia, Nigeria - to longer term outcomes in the US and five other developed countries: “The outcomes in the developing countries were much, much better than in the developed countries—so much so that they concluded that living in a developed country is a strong predictor that you won't have a good outcome if you're diagnosed with schizophrenia.” And here’s the big difference: In the developing countries, they used the antipsychotic drugs *short-term* instead of long-term like they do in America. Whitaker decided he needed to investigate further, and that’s when he realized there was no basis to the idea that these drugs are fixing chemical imbalances in the brain, contrary to what we’d been told for decades. “I started calling up people… who had told me that the drugs fixed the chemical imbalance in the brain. I said: ‘Can you just show me where you found that too much dopamine is the cause of schizophrenia? Or can you show me where you actually found that too little serotonin is the cause of depression?’ And I swear to God, here's what they said: ‘Oh, we didn't actually find that. That's a metaphor for explaining why they should take the drugs - like insulin for diabetes.’ And I said: ‘I understand that like insulin for diabetes is a metaphor, but, surely, you actually found these chemical imbalances. And I just want to read the research where you did.’ And the first person says: ‘No, we didn't really find it.’ Second person: ‘No, we didn't really find it.’ And then I went to the makers of Risperdal, which is a second generation atypical, and Risperdal was being marketed as fixing not only a dopamine imbalance in the brain, but as a serotonin imbalance in the brain. “And I actually managed at that time to get to the actual researchers, and you know what they said? ‘Yeah, that's just such nonsense…I'm sort of embarrassed that we say this,’” he told me.
5:40

Modern psychiatry rests on a made up narrative, says Robert Whitaker, publisher of Mad In America. Here’s how two studies on schizophrenia made him realize things were amiss: “One was a study by Harvard researchers published in 1994 which looked at longer term outcomes for schizophrenia patients, and they said they had *declined* since the 1970s—not improved—and were now no better than they had been in the first third of the 20th century. Now we look back at the first third of the 20th century as these dark ages. So how can it be that with these modern drugs that fix chemical imbalances, we are no better [off]?” The second study was done by the World Health Organization that compared outcomes for patients in three developing countries - India, Colombia, Nigeria - to longer term outcomes in the US and five other developed countries: “The outcomes in the developing countries were much, much better than in the developed countries—so much so that they concluded that living in a developed country is a strong predictor that you won't have a good outcome if you're diagnosed with schizophrenia.” And here’s the big difference: In the developing countries, they used the antipsychotic drugs *short-term* instead of long-term like they do in America. Whitaker decided he needed to investigate further, and that’s when he realized there was no basis to the idea that these drugs are fixing chemical imbalances in the brain, contrary to what we’d been told for decades. “I started calling up people… who had told me that the drugs fixed the chemical imbalance in the brain. I said: ‘Can you just show me where you found that too much dopamine is the cause of schizophrenia? Or can you show me where you actually found that too little serotonin is the cause of depression?’ And I swear to God, here's what they said: ‘Oh, we didn't actually find that. That's a metaphor for explaining why they should take the drugs - like insulin for diabetes.’ And I said: ‘I understand that like insulin for diabetes is a metaphor, but, surely, you actually found these chemical imbalances. And I just want to read the research where you did.’ And the first person says: ‘No, we didn't really find it.’ Second person: ‘No, we didn't really find it.’ And then I went to the makers of Risperdal, which is a second generation atypical, and Risperdal was being marketed as fixing not only a dopamine imbalance in the brain, but as a serotonin imbalance in the brain. “And I actually managed at that time to get to the actual researchers, and you know what they said? ‘Yeah, that's just such nonsense…I'm sort of embarrassed that we say this,’” he told me.

Jan Jekielek

62,889 views • 10 months ago