The Patriots

by Alice Dreger and Ellen K. Feder

[A 2014 article that details the questionable practices of modern medicine which both involves fraud and an overt application of eugenics rather than health care.  It is offered as a public service information source along with the caveat to beware of scientific studies which are usually wrong. . [Emphasis - DNI] - ED]

Newly available documents show conflicts of interest for the FDA ethicist who investigated a fetal drug experiment.  

Pediatric endocrinologist Maria New, now at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, is an internationally-recognized specialist in congenital adrenal hyperplasia, a genetic condition that can cause female fetuses to develop intersex (in-between male and female) genitals. For over a decade, Dr. New has encouraged pregnant women at risk of having a child with congenital adrenal hyperplasia to take the steroid dexamethasone starting as early as 3 weeks of pregnancy to try to prevent intersex development.

Dr. New has consistently described this extremely controversial off-label (i.e., not government-approved) use as safe and effective. In truth, there has never been a placebo-controlled trial of this use, and the only long-term prospective trial ever conducted resulted in so many “severe” adverse events that, in 2010, that study’s research team (a Swedish group) went to their ethics board to say they were halting the use altogether.

Dr. New’s aggressive “safe and effective” promotion of this fetal intervention—an intervention designed to cross the placenta and change fetal development—would be shocking enough. But we were shaken in late 2009 when we discovered that, even while she was direct-to-consumer advertising the intervention as having been “found safe for mother and child,” she was taking NIH grant money to study retrospectively whether it was safe and effective.

 In February of 2010, we along with thirty colleagues in bioethics and allied fields sent letters of concern to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) asking them to investigate the actions of Dr. New. At the FDA, the investigation was assigned to Robert “Skip” Nelson, a pediatric ethicist. Documents obtained through a Freedom of Information request suggest that Nelson proposed to OHRP that he handle the main part of the prenatal dexamethasone investigation for that agency as well. Ultimately the OHRP findings relied largely on a memo provided to them by Nelson as an FDA official.

While the federal investigation was ongoing, in May of 2010 the American Journal of Bioethics (AJOB) circulated a manuscript (in advance of publication, inviting open peer commentaries) attacking our letters of concern, saying they represented an instance of “unethical transgressive bioethics.”

At the time, we were not aware of conflicts of interest in the federal investigation or the AJOB article, because none were disclosed. Here is what we now know, including from material obtained just this week through the Freedom of Information Act:

First, neither the original AJOB manuscript (May 2010) nor the final published article (September 2010) included a conflict of interest statement from the authors. The lead author, Larry McCullough, failed to disclose that he held paid positions with the two medical schools implicated in the investigation (Mount Sinai and Cornell). The second author, Frank Chervenak, failed specifically to disclose that he was (and still is) Chair of Obstetrics and head of the Maternal-Fetal Medicine unit at the medical school where New “treated” over 600 pregnancies with prenatal dex.  Chervenak also failed to disclose that he served as “key personnel” on New’s NIH grant.

Responses to our Freedom of Information requests show that Larry McCullough gave the AJOB original manuscript to the federal investigators at OHRP prior to publication, in an attempt to undermine the claims in our complaints. No conflict of interest disclosures were attached to the manuscript. This suggests that OHRP personnel would have seen the McCullough and Chervenak criticisms of our request for an investigation, but would not have known of the authors’ conflicts of interest.

Second, it appears that Nelson did not disclose to his FDA or OHRP colleagues that he was a member of the editorial board of AJOB – the journal in which the criticisms were published. One might feel less concerned about this particular undisclosed conflict were it not for the fact that, like the AJOB target article, Nelson’s official FDA findings on prenatal dex misrepresented key facts, including whether the FDA had previously reviewed New’s use of this steroid on first-trimester fetuses.

Third, this week we have obtained additional material through our Freedom of Information request showing that Nelson was, in fact, developing an even deeper relationship with AJOB while he was conducting the prenatal dex investigation. At the very time Nelson was investigating our complaints, he was also negotiating to become editor-in-chief of a new AJOB journal, AJOB Primary Research (since renamed AJOB Empirical Bioethics).

A May 2010 email conversation between Nelson and others at the FDA shows that Nelson was to be compensated by AJOB not only with the editor-in-chief title, but also with $10,000 per year, for editorial assistance. In the email conversation about the new position with AJOB, Nelson never disclosed that the journal was being used to aggressively (dare we say “transgressively”?) undermine complaints he was investigating.

Curiously, Nelson’s FDA memo and the associated OHRP findings on prenatal dex were released on virtually the same day in September 2010 that AJOB published the McCullough and Chervenak “target article” and responses to it. The timing of this “coincidence” was openly celebrated by Glenn McGee, then editor-in-chief of AJOB: “With the release of the September issue of the Journal, both the FDA and OHRP have released letters responding to the complaints that are the subject of the Target Article…”

What might once have been thought fortuitous timing must now be examined through the lens of conflicts of interest, as we now know that, by September 2010, Nelson was working in titled and compensated positions for both the FDA and AJOB.

Fourth, in December 2010, AJOB published a “vindication” by Dr. New that consisted mostly of a long quote from Nelson’s FDA response to our letter. Consistent with the established pattern of non-disclosure, nowhere in conjunction with New’s “vindication” does one find disclosure of Nelson’s dual role as FDA investigator and key member of the AJOB editorial team.

We have repeatedly appealed to the editorial board of AJOB to add disclosures to all the dex-related publications. That has gotten us nowhere, except to force disclosure of who is on the AJOB conflict-of-interest committee. The committee includes Larry McCullough, specifically representing AJOB Empirical Bioethics, the journal given to Skip Nelson.

---

Larry McCullough, one of the founders of “bioethics”, pop control, research using children, pro-human embryonic stem cell research, etc.:  https://www.google.com/#q=%22Larry+McCullough%22+%22bioethics%22

Frank Chervenak, M.D., ObGyn specialist in maternal and fetal medicine, pro-abortion and woman’s rights, anti-personhood for the unborn, pro-euthanasia, etc.: https://www.google.com/#q=%22Frank+Chervenak%22+%22bioethics%22+%22controversy%22

Glenn McGee, partner with bioethics founder Art Caplan, pro-“designer babies” and human cloning, implicated in conflict of interest in the Celltex corruption case, etc.:  https://www.google.com/#q=%22Glenn+McGee%22+%22bioethics%22

Skip Nelson, Senior Pediatric Ethicist at FDA, promotes research using children, etc.:  https://www.google.com/#q=%22Skip+Nelson%22+%22bioethics%22&start=10

See also “Charges of editorial misconduct at American Journal of Bioethics (AJOB), at: 

http://www.healthnewsreview.org/2011/06/charges-of-editorial-misconduct-at-american-journal-of-bioethics/.

For an extensive analysis and critique of “bioethics”, with extensive references, see my article, "What is 'bioethics'?" (June 3, 2000), UFL Proceedings of the Conference 2000, in Joseph W. Koterski (ed.), Life and Learning X:  Proceedings of the Tenth University Faculty For Life Conference (Washington, D.C.:  University Faculty For Life, 2002), pp. 1-84, at:

http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_36whatisbioethics01.html.  As a First Generationer in this “bioethics”, I hold one of the few Ph.D. concentrations in bioethics the field from the KIE and Dept. of Philosophy, Georgetown University (1991).

--  DNI]

by Health Impact News/MedicalKidnap.com Staff

A trial began this week for a mother who was separated from her baby after the 4-month-old mistakenly received a Gardasil-9 vaccine intended for her older brother.

Anita reads to Aniya at a recent visitation. Photo supplied by family.

The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services seeks to convince a jury to terminate the parental rights of Anita Vasquez for her now 22-month-old daughter, Aniya Blu Vasquez.

Jury selection began on Monday, June 18, 2018, for the trial which is expected to last up to 2 weeks.

We originally reported their story in June of last year:

UPDATE:
 

Infant Accidentally Vaccinated with Gardasil – Mother Blamed for Vaccine Injuries and Baby Medically Kidnapped

The previously healthy baby, Aniya, began showing symptoms of problems almost immediately after getting the shot, a vaccine which is not approved for use in children under 10 years of age.

Her mother sought medical attention for the symptoms that her daughter exhibited, asking each practitioner about the connection between the symptoms and the Gardasil-9 shot that her baby should not have received, but her concerns were rebuffed at every turn.

No doctor that saw her daughter wanted to admit that the shot could have any kind of side effects.

The doctor who made a medical error in giving her the vaccine has suffered no consequences, but the baby’s family has been ripped apart.

Previously health baby Aniya’s health declined after her doctor mistakenly gave her the Gardasil-9 vaccine. Photo supplied by family.

Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy Accusation to Cover up Gardasil Injury?

Instead, the mother was accused by doctors and social workers of Munchausen syndrome by proxy (today usually called “factitious disorder”), a diagnosis that has become a convenient scapegoat to accuse parents, usually mothers, of children who are vaccine injured, medically complex, or victims of medical malpractice.

It is a difficult accusation to fight, since even Munchausen experts recognize that the symptoms of Munchausen syndrome by proxy, or “medical child abuse” as it is sometimes referred as, are remarkably similar to those of parents who are seeking medical help for children with difficult medical conditions.

Dr. Marc Feldman, who is considered to be a leading authority on the subject of Munchausen syndrome by proxy, says that the very fact that a mother protests and defends herself and her child is perceived as a further indication of her guilt. It is a lose/lose scenario, he told Health Impact News. (see article).

The very criteria for diagnosing MSBP are prejudicial, according to Dr. Helen Hayward-Brown, a medical anthropologist from Australia. The profile criteria “lacks scientific credibility” and “is being used by medical practitioners to hastily condemn women.”

In a paper entitled, “False and Highly Questionable Allegations of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy,” which Dr. Hayward-Brown presented to the 7th Australasian Child Abuse and Neglect Conference in Perth, she lists behaviors that are listed among the diagnostic criteria for MSBP and shows how these could actually apply to any normal, innocent parent, especially one with a medically complex child.

See also:

Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy – A False Diagnosis to Blame Parents for Vaccine Injuries and Deaths

Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy Label Destroys Families – Covers Up Vaccine Injuries

As we continue to report at Health Impact News, the safety of the Gardasil vaccine has come under fire by many countries around the world. The lives destroyed or ended, after the vaccine, continue to stack up while mainstream media and doctors ignore the dangers. A recently published study linked the Gardasil vaccine to infertility.

In this case, a family could be forever-separated as a side effect of the shot, unless the jury finds in favor of the mother.

Baby Aniya and her mother Anita Vasquez. Photo from Justice for Aniya Facebook page.

The Victoria Advocate is covering the story of the Vasquez trial.

Excerpts:

Jurors began hearing a case Monday that will ask them to determine whether a toddler’s illness was the result of endangerment from her mother or the accidental injection of an HPV vaccine.

Attorneys for the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services are suing Victoria mother Anita Vasquez, 36, to terminate her parental rights for 22-month-old Aniya Blu Vasquez. They claim the child struggled to gain weight and was hospitalized for severe medical problems because of her mother’s actions.

“I would like a hashtag movement (called) #KeepAniyaSafe,” said Shelly Merritt, an attorney representing the state, to jurors. “It’s what she deserves.”

Note: this seems to be in response to the #BringAniyaHome twitter hashtag that family and supporters have been using as they post in social media and share the story of the medical kidnapping of Aniya.

But Vasquez’s attorney, Chris Branson, of Houston, told jurors the allegations against his client were “nonsense” and based on “an assumption.”

He also asked jurors to hold state attorneys to the strict burden of “clear and convincing evidence” that they are required to meet when the custody of a child is at stake. That burden, one lower than the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt requirement used in criminal cases, is the highest available in civil court.

Anita and her daughter during a recent visit. Photo supplied by family

During the jury selection process Monday morning, Judge Jack Marr said the trial could take as long as two weeks.

Branson said he planned to call as many as 14 witnesses. Attorneys for the state and Barron declined to comment, and a Texas Department of Family and Protective Services spokeswoman did not answer phone calls Monday.

Anita Vasquez, who is a registered nurse, first took the stand after jurors were selected, describing Aniya’s battle with persistent health problems in 2017.

Vasquez said those problems manifested after a Victoria doctor accidentally administered to Aniya an HPV vaccine meant for her 14-year-old son.

After the mistake, Aniya suffered not only physical symptoms such as fever and weakness but also psychological changes, such as lip smacking and staring spells, Vasquez said.

Doctors don’t know the cause of Aniya’s illness and have no reason to accuse Vasquez of endangerment, she said.

Note by Health Impact News: Although CPS has argued that her health problems disappeared, there is evidence that she continued to experience health issues after going into state custody.

There was at least one occasion that the fosters took Aniya to the emergency room that the family learned about. The mother has been denied medical information about her daughter in foster care.

The photo below was taken during a visit while Aniya was in state care. Her family described her as lethargic that day, and her eyes showed that she was not feeling well.

Grandma Mary holds baby Aniya on her 1st birthday during visitation. Photo provided by Vasquez family. Read the full article at Victoria Advocate.

Supporters have set up a Facebook page called Justice for Aniya for the public to follow Aniya’s story.

by JD Heyes

For some reason, the American Medical Association — which was founded to promote the American medical community — wants to wade into one of the premier political battles of our day: Gun control.

The AMA has shifted at least some of its attention recently away from pushing Big Pharma meds that kill more than 100,000 Americans a year to jumping on the gun confiscation bandwagon pushed by the Marxist Left.

As reported by TownHall,

the organization last week approved a wide-ranging list of “common sense” gun control demands that include banning the sale of “all assault-type weapons, bump stocks and related devices, high-capacity magazines, and armor piercing bullets.”

The list was okayed by the AMA’s House of Delegates, a pretend ‘legislative body’ that meets a couple times a year at overpriced venues to drink overpriced liquor and vote on medical and political ‘recommendations.

As TownHall noted further:

The lengthy list of gun policy changes also includes bans on the sale of firearms and ammunition to those under 21 years of age, prohibitions on the ownership and unsupervised use of firearms by those under 21, and the establishment of a national gun registry for all firearms and a gun licensing system for gun owners.

Also, the organization’s gun control proposals include a number of provisions ostensibly aimed at curbing domestic violence and abuse, including one recommendation for a new legal tool by which “family members, intimate partners, household members and law enforcement personnel” can go to court in order to have a person’s guns confiscated “when there is a high or imminent risk for violence.” 

No ‘risk’ of having that authority abused, right?

According to a blog post introducing the ‘common sense’ proposals, the AMA appears to ignore a well-established  constitutional  requirement — due process — which must be engaged before a person’s property or belongings can be confiscated by authorities. 

Were this proposal to be implemented, it would mean the accused would not have an opportunity to defend himself or herself in court. Also, the proposals contain nothing in terms of how “risk for violence” would actually be defined, which means that even people without criminal records or any previous history of violence or abuse could feasibly have their firearms taken from them.

Who gets to decide?

The lack of defining parameters also extends to the AMA’s call for confiscating “high-capacity magazines” and “armor-piercing bullets.” (Related: Prescription drugs far more dangerous to Americans than guns.)

Typically, “high-capacity” has meant those that can hold 10 or more bullets, though New York state defines the term as a magazine capable of holding only seven or more rounds. Lawmakers in that state, by the way, never really said how they determined what the “safe” or “appropriate” level of bullets was in order to ‘allow’ state residents the ‘right’ to defend themselves and family. For instance, no one really knows how they arrived at seven bullets rather than five, or 11, or eight or…well, you get the idea.

The AMA’s guidelines also do not provide any definition of “armor-piercing,” and while that may seem rather obvious, remember that these demands were written up by Leftist anti-gunners, so the term could mean something completely different.

And if the term is applied too broadly, then it could apply to any bullet capable of piercing Kevlar-based body armor, which would encompass nearly every rifle round above .22 caliber.

One thing to remember as well is that these proposals are not being made as a symbolic gesture. The Big Pharma-linked AMA is making them with the intent of presenting them to lawmakers all over the country and in Washington, D.C. and getting them implemented.

“People are dying of gun violence in our homes, churches, schools, on street corners and at public gatherings, and it’s important that lawmakers, policy leaders and advocates on all sides seek common ground to address this public health crisis,” said AMA Immediate Past President David Barb, MD. 

Yes, well, they’re dying more often in vehicles and from prescription drugs, but no one’s calling for them to be banned.

Read more about Big Pharma’s death toll at PharmaDeathClock.com.

J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for NaturalNews.com and NewsTarget.com, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.

Sources include:

TownHall.com

NaturalNews.com

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).

by Jon Rappoport of No More Fake News.

I’ve been tracking the connection since 1999, when I wrote a long white paper, for the Truth Seeker Foundation, on school shootings and psychiatric drugs. The paper was titled: “Why Do They Do It? School shootings Across America.”

The drugs aren’t the only causative factor, but they produce what I call the Johnny Appleseed effect throughout society. Sprinkle enough of the drugs among enough people and you get otherwise unexplainable violence popping up—in schools, in workplaces. The psychiatric plague eats out the country from the inside.

Here are excerpts from my 1999 report—

The massacre at Columbine High School took place on April 20, 1999. Astonishingly, for eight days after the tragedy, during thousands of hours of prime-time television coverage, virtually no one mentioned the word “drugs.” Then the issue was opened. Eric Harris, one of the shooters at Columbine, was on at least one drug.

The NY Times of April 29, 1999, and other papers reported that Harris was rejected from enlisting in the Marines for medical reasons. A friend of the family told the Times that Harris was being treated by a psychiatrist. And then several sources told the Washington Post that the drug prescribed as treatment was Luvox, manufactured by Solvay.

In two more days, the “drug-issue” was gone.

Luvox is of the same class as Prozac and Zoloft and Paxil. They are labeled SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors). They attempt to alleviate depression by changing brain-levels of the natural substance serotonin. Luvox has a slightly different chemical configuration from Prozac, Paxil, and Zoloft, and it was approved by the FDA for obsessive-compulsive disorder, although many doctors apparently prescribe it for depression.

Prozac is the wildly popular Eli Lilly antidepressant which has been linked to suicidal and homicidal actions. It is now given to young children. Again, its chemical composition is very close to Luvox, the drug that Harris took.

Dr. Peter Breggin, the eminent psychiatrist and author (Toxic Psychiatry, Talking Back to Prozac, Talking Back to Ritalin), told me, “With Luvox there is some evidence of a four-percent rate for mania in adolescents. Mania, for certain individuals, could be a component in grandiose plans to destroy large numbers of other people. Mania can go over the hill to psychosis.”

Dr. Joseph Tarantolo is a psychiatrist in private practice in Washington DC. He is the president of the Washington chapter of the American Society of Psychoanalytic Physicians. Tarantolo states that “all the SSRIs [including Prozac and Luvox] relieve the patient of feeling. He becomes less empathic, as in `I don’t care as much,’ which means `It’s easier for me to harm you.’ If a doctor treats someone who needs a great deal of strength just to think straight, and gives him one of these drugs, that could push him over the edge into violent behavior.”

In Arianna Huffington’s syndicated newspaper column of July 9, 1998, Dr. Breggin states, “I have no doubt that Prozac can cause or contribute to violence and suicide. I’ve seen many cases. In a recent clinical trial, 6 percent of the children became psychotic on Prozac. And manic psychosis can lead to violence.”

A study from the September 1989 Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, by Joseph Lipiniski, Jr., indicates that in five examined cases people on Prozac developed what is called akathesia. Symptoms include intense anxiety, inability to sleep, the “jerking of extremities,” and “bicycling in bed or just turning around and around.” Dr. Breggin comments that akathesia “may also contribute to the drug’s tendency to cause self-destructive or violent tendencies … Akathesia can become the equivalent of biochemical torture and could possibly tip someone over the edge into self-destructive or violent behavior … The June 1990 Health Newsletter, produced by the Public Citizen Research Group, reports, ‘Akathesia, or symptoms of restlessness, constant pacing, and purposeless movements of the feet and legs, may occur in 10-25 percent of patients on Prozac.’”

Other studies:

“Emergence of self-destructive phenomena in children and adolescents during fluoxetine [Prozac] treatment,” published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (1991, vol.30), written by RA King, RA Riddle, et al. It reports self-destructive phenomena in 14% (6/42) of children and adolescents (10-17 years old) who had treatment with fluoxetine (Prozac) for obsessive-compulsive disorder.

July, 1991. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Hisako Koizumi, MD, describes a thirteen-year-old boy who was on Prozac: “full of energy,” “hyperactive,” “clown-like.” All this devolved into sudden violent actions which were “totally unlike him.”

September, 1991. The Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Author Laurence Jerome reports the case of a ten-year old who moves with his family to a new location. Becoming depressed, the boy is put on Prozac by a doctor. The boy is then “hyperactive, agitated … irritable.” He makes a “somewhat grandiose assessment of his own abilities.” Then he calls a stranger on the phone and says he is going to kill him. The Prozac is stopped, and the symptoms disappear.

The well-known Goodman and Gilman’s The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics reveals a strange fact. It states that Ritalin [given for ADHD] is “structurally related to amphetamines … Its pharmacological properties are essentially the same as those of the amphetamines.” In other words, the only clear difference is legality. And the effects, in layman’s terms, are obvious. You take speed and, sooner or later, you start crashing. You become agitated, irritable, paranoid, delusional, aggressive.

In his book, Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Breggin discusses the subject of drug combinations: “Combining antidepressants [e.g., Prozac, Luvox, Paxil] and psychostimulants [e.g., Ritalin] increases the risk of cardiovascular catastrophe, seizures, sedation, euphoria, and psychosis. Withdrawal from the combination can cause a severe reaction that includes confusion, emotional instability, agitation, and aggression.” Children are frequently medicated with this combination, and when we highlight such effects as aggression, psychosis, and emotional instability, it is obvious that the result is pointing toward the very real possibility of violence.

In 1986, The International Journal of the Addictions published a most important literature review by Richard Scarnati. It was titled, “An Outline of Hazardous Side Effects of Ritalin (Methylphenidate)” [v.21(7), pp. 837-841].

Scarnati listed over a hundred adverse affects of Ritalin and indexed published journal articles for each of these symptoms.

For every one of the following (selected and quoted verbatim) Ritalin effects then, there is at least one confirming source in the medical literature:

• Paranoid delusions
• Paranoid psychosis
• Hypomanic and manic symptoms, amphetamine-like psychosis
• Activation of psychotic symptoms
• Toxic psychosis
• Visual hallucinations
• Auditory hallucinations
• Can surpass LSD in producing bizarre experiences
• Effects pathological thought processes
• Extreme withdrawal
• Terrified affect
• Started screaming
• Aggressiveness
• Insomnia
• Since Ritalin is considered an amphetamine-type drug, expect amphatamine-like effects
• psychic dependence
• High-abuse potential DEA Schedule II Drug
• Decreased REM sleep
• When used with antidepressants one may see dangerous reactions including hypertension, seizures and hypothermia
• Convulsions
• Brain damage may be seen with amphetamine abuse.

Other ADHD medications, which also have a chemical profile similar to amphetamines, would be expected to produce some of the same effects listed above.

The ICSPP (International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology) News publishes the following warning in bold letters: “Do Not Try to Abruptly Stop Taking Psychiatric Drugs. When trying to withdraw from many psychiatric drugs, patients can develop serious and even life-threatening emotional and physical reactions…Therefore, withdrawal from psychiatric drugs should be done under clinical supervision…”

—end of excerpts from my 1999 white paper on school shootings and psychiatric drugs—

There is a problem. It is chilling. Pharmaceutical companies, which manufacture drug after drug for “mental disorders,” are doing everything they can to cover up the drugs’ connection to violence.

They use their lawyers and PR people—and their influence over the press—to scrub the connection.

And now, one typical, disturbing, official reaction to every new mass shooting is: build more community mental health facilities. Obama was prominent in this regard, after Sandy Hook in 2012. The implication? More drug prescriptions for more people; thus, more violent consequences.

’ll close with another excerpt from my 1999 report. It is the tragic account of Julie Marie Meade (one account of many you can find at ssristories.org (also here)):

Dr. Joseph Tarantolo has written about Julie Marie Meade. In a column for the ICSPP (International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology) News, “Children and Prozac: First Do No Harm,” Tarantolo describes how Julie Meade, in November of 1996, called 911, “begging the cops to come and shoot her. And if they didn’t do it quickly, she would do it to herself. There was also the threat that she would shoot them as well.”

The police came within a few minutes, “5 of them to be exact, pumping at least 10 bullets into her head and torso,” as she waved a gun around.

Tarantolo remarks that a friend of Julie said Julie “had plans to make the honor roll and go to college. He [the friend] had also observed her taking all those pills.” What pills? Tarantolo called the Baltimore medical examiner, and spoke with Dr. Martin Bullock, who was on a fellowship at that office. Bullock said, “She had been taking Prozac for four years.”

Tarantolo asked Bullock, “Did you know that Prozac has been implicated in impulsive de novo violence and suicidalness?” Bullock said he was not aware of this.  Tarantolo is careful to point out, “Violent and suicidal behavior have been observed both early (a few weeks) and late (many months) in treatment with Prozac.”

The November 23rd, 1996, Washington Post reported the Julie Meade death by police shooting. The paper mentioned nothing about Prozac. Therefore, readers were left in the dark. What could explain this girl’s bizarre and horrendous behavior?

The answer was there in plain sight. But the Post refused to make it known.

---

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos. The article first appeared Here