You searched for ABUSE - Page 26 of 35

The Evil Man Hamodia Idolized Is Finally Dead

July 3, 2018 – כ׳ בתמוז תשע״ח by Hyehudi

Charles Krauthammer: The Ultimate Armchair Warrior

July 2, 2018

Charles Krauthammer, the eminent US media pundit died in June 2018 at the age of 68, reportedly of cancer of the small intestine.

Krauthammer was the loudest and leading public voice of the neoconservative movement in the United States. He was a lifelong warmonger and proud of it. Needless to say he never donned the uniform of his country when he had the chance and made sure his son never went to serve in the conflicts he so tirelessly demanded either.

Krauthammer championed the relentless and unending expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe and the efforts to recruit countries across Eurasia into the Atlantic Alliance. He demanded the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the toppling of previously stable governments in Ukraine and Libya. He urged the toppling of the government of Syria, demanding the policies that have so far killed at least 600,000 people and unleashed more than 5 million refugees. He demanded the 1998 bombing of Serbia. He sneered at the very idea of international law.

Krauthammer applauded the toppling of established governments including democratically elected ones across Europe, Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Middle East in the name of human rights. He relentlessly advocated the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the ludicrous attempt to set up a US-designed, Shiite-dominated so-called democracy there. He sneered at and denied in the face of all the evidence the formidable anti-American popular rebellion in Iraq that started in May 2003. For months afterward, Krauthammer claimed there was nothing to worry about. Later, he claimed that General David Petraeus had brought lasting peace to Iraq with his “Surge” Strategy.

Krauthammer hated and sought to destroy every attempt to bring a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians. He championed the Free Trade policies that gutted the US industrial base and brought poverty and despair to hundreds of millions of Americans. He fanatically opposed the Six-Plus-One nuclear agreement with Iran.

None of his “solutions” worked. He was oblivious to all consequences in the real world. He never changed. He was incapable of learning anything or ever admitting he had been wrong. He had practiced as a psychiatrist, but no one in the public domain was more in need of sustained therapy himself.

In his last message on June 8, Krauthammer wrote, “I believe that the pursuit of truth and right ideas through honest debate and rigorous argument is a noble undertaking.” It was another lie. No one did more to suppress free, balanced and open debate in the US media over four decades. He poured endless hatred and ridicule on everyone who disagreed with him. He was never even an independent voice. Every public position he took was carefully decided and coordinated in advance by the exceptionally close knit coterie of neoconservatives for whom he was the voice.

He appeared endlessly on Fox News and numerous other US media outlets. But no one was ever allowed to seriously criticize him or challenge his assertions in any of those forums. He applauded the passing of the 2001 Patriot Act with its outrageous extension of the already huge power of the US security services and Deep State.

While still in his mid-20s, Krauthammer suffered a bizarre accident that ironically left him immune from criticism for the rest of his life. He shattered his spine diving into a swimming pool which had far too little water in it, leaving him a quadriplegic for life.

He certainly showed an indomitable will and ingenuity in maintaining a full career. However, this personal catastrophe had two other crucial effects never publicly acknowledged: It left him immune to the kind of virulent ad hominem personal abuse and contempt he freely showered on everyone else. He claimed to live in defiance of his physical affliction: Another lie. Any vitriol he poured on others was indulgently permitted. No legitimate criticism was allowed against him.

Second, as a cripple, Krauthammer was incapable of actually ever visiting Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Ukraine or the American heartland where the policies he demanded inflicted so much suffering. He did not want to know any such inconvenient facts. He did not just suffer from paradigm blindness all his life, he embraced it.

Although a successful psychiatric resident, he was extraordinarily arrogant and narcissistic and treated most people outside his family and closest colleagues with withering contempt. An informal poll carried out among Washington Post op-ed page editors in the 1990s overwhelmingly chose him as the most obnoxious and hated columnist they had to deal with. (Liberal columnist Richard Cohen easily was voted the most popular and the nicest guy.)

Krauthammer was abysmally ignorant of economics, business, practicalities of government, diplomacy, global history, war and strategy. He had never studied or practiced any of them. This ignorance generated the boundless confidence that was the secret of his success.

Krauthammer was never a reporter. He was physically incapable of visiting any country to see things himself and he was manifestly uninterested in anything that ordinary people anywhere had to say. He knew that he and his friends had all the answers. Nothing else was needed. He was convinced he was one of Plato‘s philosopher-kings, the inner elite that should guide the human race for its own good.

In his very last public statement, he said, “I leave this life with no regrets.”

It was an unintentionally revealing admission: Charles Krauthammer led his own country down the road to waste, endless suffering, unending wars, misery, drug addiction epidemics and economic ruin and helped put the whole world on a helter-skelter slide towards nuclear Armageddon.

But he had no regrets.

From Lewrockwell.com, here.

Psychiatry Is Sick!

June 10, 2018 – כ״ז בסיון תשע״ח by Hyehudi

This article is copyrighted by GreenMedInfo LLC, 2014
Visit our Re-post guidelines

Twenty-six years have passed since Prozac, the antidepressant drug, was introduced to the US market and quickly achieved the label of a “wonder drug.” In the decade that followed, other antidepressant drugs including paroxetine (Paxil), sertraline (Zoloft), fluvoxamine (Luvox), and citalopram (Celexa) would be released, creating an entire class of medications known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Since hitting the shelves, the popularity of SSRIs has skyrocketed. Today, 1 in every 10 Americans reaches for antidepressants daily.[1] This ratio jumps to an incredible 25% among women between the ages of 40 and 59.[2] Approximately 5% of children ages 12 to 19 are also taking antidepressants.[3] Worldwide, mental illness is now the leading cause of disability among children.[4]

Active members and veterans of the US military have become especially dependent on psychiatric meds. Today, about 1 in 6 service members is using antidepressants, sedatives, and other psychiatric drugs in an attempt to cope with post traumatic stress disorder and other afflictions.[5] From 2001-2009 alone, psychiatric drug use in this demographic rose by 76% and in 2010 alone, the Pentagon spent more than $280 million on psychiatric drugs.[6] [7]

Along with the rise in antidepressant use in recent years, we have witnessed the creation of many new clinical diagnoses in the field of psychiatry. What would have been considered just a few years ago to be rebellious behavior among teenagers is now termed Oppositional Defiant disorder; what was once looked upon as a child not wanting to do math homework is now classified as Mathematics Disorder. As the psychiatric establishment increasingly asserts its importance by pathologizing normal human behaviors, tens of millions of Americans are popping pills in an attempt to find mental wellbeing. All the while, Big Pharma is making a killing; in 2010 alone, SSRI sales topped $70 billion.[8]

Considering how widely SSRIs are prescribed, you would be forgiven for thinking that this class of drugs is highly safe and effective. In point of fact, these drugs come with a host of devastating and sometimes deadly health implications. Examining the state of the medical industrial complex deeper still makes one thing abundantly clear: Psychiatry is NOT a science but a massively destructive unscientific experiment fueled by a medical industrial complex that values profits over human life and wellbeing.

Let’s break it down:

FACT: Psychiatric Drugs are Dangerous

Volumes of solid scientific evidence collected over the last quarter-century demonstrate that SSRIs carry serious and sometimes deadly side effects. These adverse effects include akathisia (a condition in which a person feels compelled to move about), permanent neurological damage, bone fracture, birth defects, sexual dysfunction, suicide (especially in children and teenagers) and acts of violence.[9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Shockingly, evidence indicates that SSRI use in patients can, in fact, increase the length of bouts of depression and significantly promote relapse.[14]

Especially concerning is the alarming link between suicides and psychiatric drug use. At present, 22 US veterans commit suicide each day.[15] In fact, more active-duty American soldiers are ending their own lives than are dying in combat.[16] Could it be that the rising rates of suicide among members of the US military are actually being fueled by SSRI and other psychiatric medicine use? A body of research suggests that the answer is yes.

A meta-analysis appearing in the British Medical Journal, which pooled data from more than 700 studies and 87,650 patients, found that that there exists an “association between the use of SSRIs and increased risk of fatal and non-fatal suicide attempts”[17] The researchers stated in their conclusion that methodological limitations may have caused them to actually underestimate the real risk of suicide attempts.[18]

It has been ten years since the FDA required SSRI manufactures to place a black box label on their drugs stating suicide as a side effect of taking this class of drugs. How many more deaths have to occur before the FDA bans these dangerous pills?

FACT: Psychiatric Drugs are NOT Effective

Numerous studies show that SSRIs are generally no more effective than a placebo (sugar pill) in treating depression.[19] The authors of a 2008 meta-analysis examining the effectiveness of using SSRIs in patients with depression remarked that:

“These findings suggest that, compared with placebo, the new-generation antidepressants do not produce clinically significant improvements in depression in patients who initially have moderate or even very severe depression, but show significant effects only in the most severely depressed patients”[20]

Upon closer investigation, it’s little wonder that these drugs aren’t efficacious. Psychiatric authorities still contend that mental illness has its roots in “chemical imbalances” in the brain (particularly related to levels of serotonin) that may be mediated through pharmaceuticals. The only problem with this is the fact that no compelling evidence exists to confirm this hypothesis. A growing body of evidence actually debunks the chemical imbalance theory altogether.[21] [22] Further still, studies have proven that SSRIs disturb normal brain function, ultimately reducing the brain’s ability to respond to serotonin.[23] This is a possible reason that individuals on SSRIs are more likely to suffer from depression for longer periods of time, and relapse more frequently.

FACT: Psychiatric Diagnoses Have No Basis in Science

The American Psychiatric Association’s Fifth Edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) is the definitive guide for psychiatric diagnoses. Of the nearly 300 mental disorders outlined in the DSM-5, not one of them is based on objective data drawn from double-blind, placebo-controlled studies. Rather, the criteria for determining mental illness are based solely on subjective described behaviors. There are no blood tests, no brain scans or urine samples- not one biological marker to validate the existence of these so-called conditions.

The flawed nature of mental health diagnoses has been pointed out for years. In a 2010 opinion piece for the LA times, Allen Frances, chairman of the taskforce that created the DSM-4, commented on the absurdity of the ever-expanding pool of mental disorders stating the following:

The first draft of the next edition of the DSM, posted for comment with much fanfare last month, is filled with suggestions that would multiply our mistakes and extend the reach of psychiatry dramatically deeper into the ever-shrinking domain of the normal. This wholesale medical imperialization of normality could potentially create tens of millions of innocent bystanders who would be mislabeled as having a mental disorder. The pharmaceutical industry would have a field day — despite the lack of solid evidence of any effective treatments for these newly proposed diagnoses.

Even more damning was a deathbed confession in 2009 by the eminent child psychiatrist, Dr. Leon Eisenberg. In his final interview, Eisenberg reportedly revealed that “ADHD is a prime example of a fictitious disease.”[24] The bombshell came at the end of Eisenberg’s long career developing foundational theories in modern psychiatry that led to the creation of ADHD and other mental disorders.

Given the lack of scientific rigor with which the APA concocts new disorders, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the DMS-5 even outlines “caffeine use disorder” and “internet gaming disorder” as conditions that warrant further study.[25] The bottom line is that psychiatry’s diagnostic handbook has as much credibility as a comic book.

FACT: The Psychiatric Establishment is Bought and Paid for by Big Pharma

Like the other branches of the medical-industrial complex, psychiatry is infested with conflicts of interest. One of the most outspoken critics of the pharmaceutical industry’s extensive influence over modern medicine is Dr. Marcia Angell, the former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine who now serves as a senior lecturer in social medicine at Harvard Medical School.

In an essay written for The New York Book Review. Dr. Angell recounts the systemic corruption that has plagued the field of psychiatry:

As psychiatry became a drug-intensive specialty, the pharmaceutical industry was quick to see the advantages of forming an alliance with the psychiatric profession. Drug companies began to lavish attention and largesse on psychiatrists, both individually and collectively, directly and indirectly. They showered gifts and free samples on practicing psychiatrists, hired them as consultants and speakers, bought them meals, helped pay for them to attend conferences, and supplied them with “educational” materials. When Minnesota and Vermont implemented “sunshine laws” that require drug companies to report all payments to doctors, psychiatrists were found to receive more money than physicians in any other specialty. The pharmaceutical industry also subsidizes meetings of the APA and other psychiatric conferences. About a fifth of APA funding now comes from drug companies.[26]

Dr. Angell goes on to describe how pharmaceutical companies manipulate study results to maximize profit streams from their drugs:

…drug companies make very sure that their positive studies are published in medical journals and doctors know about them, while the negative ones often languish unseen within the FDA, which regards them as proprietary and therefore confidential. This practice greatly biases the medical literature, medical education, and treatment decisions.[27]

Upon further investigation we find that not only are unflattering study outcomes concealed while positive ones are publicized, but Big Pharma has become embroiled in scandals involving fabricated study results. It surfaced in 2009 that Scott S Reuben, a Massachusetts anesthesiologist and researcher, had faked data for 21 studies on major medications. Several of the drugs reviewed in Reuben’s studies, including Wyeth’s antidepressant, Effexor FX, were shown in a favorable light.[28]

Evidence suggests that Reuben is not alone in his dishonesty. A 2013 article appearing in The Economist titled “Unreliable Research: Trouble at the Lab” covers the work of Dr. Daniele Fanelli of the University of Edinburgh, who has studied the flaws of academic research outcomes. The article explains that

Fraud is very likely second to incompetence in generating erroneous results, though it is hard to tell for certain. Dr Fanelli has looked at 21 different surveys of academics (mostly in the biomedical sciences but also in civil engineering, chemistry and economics) carried out between 1987 and 2008. Only 2% of respondents admitted falsifying or fabricating data, but 28% of respondents claimed to know of colleagues who engaged in questionable research practices.[29]

Collusion and deception have become hallmarks of the medical establishment. Here are some additional examples of psychiatry’s corruption by the pharmaceutical cartel.

A 2012 study carried out by psychologist Lisa Cosgrove and her colleagues examining the conflicts of interest in DSM panel members revealed how the stranglehold of Big Pharma on psychiatric medicine has only increased in recent years. The authors of the study noted that “69% of the DSM-5 task force members report having ties to the pharmaceutical industry. This represents a relative increase of 21% over the proportion of DSM-IV task force members with such ties (57% of DSM-IV task force members had ties).”[30]

Cosgrove goes on to point out that panel members are eligible to help create the DSM as long as they are not paid more than $10,000 from drug companies per year (through consultancies and other jobs). In addition, members are permitted to have up to $50,000 in stock holdings in pharmaceutical firms and still serve in their position.[31]

The American Psychiatric Association meets in secret to develop the DSM. All task force members are required by the APA to sign non-disclosure agreements. This practice has been assailed by many, even former DSM chairman Robert Spitzer, who stated in an interview that “When I first heard about this agreement, I just went bonkers…transparency is necessary if the document is to have credibility.”[32]

In March 2009, The APA made an announcement that it would phase out the practice of accepting contributions from pharmaceutical companies for medical education seminars and food provided at conventions. The pledge was short lived, however. Less than two months later the organization accepted $1.7 million from Big Pharma for its yearly convention in San Francisco.[33]

Groups such as the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) and the Anxiety and Depression Association of America (ADAA), which were allegedly founded to advocate on behalf of people with mental disorders, have since been exposed as nothing more than front groups created to push Big Pharma’s profit-driven agenda.

In the 1970s and 1980s, leaders at the National Institute of Mental Health played a key role in helping found these groups, which have effectively lobbied lawmakers in Washington and state capitols to fund more research into psychiatry. These organizations have enjoyed a steady stream of generous financial support from drug makers for years. Congressional records reflect that from 2006-2008, the pharmaceutical cartel poured $23 million into NAMI coffers, accounting for about 75% of its donations.[34]

***

Given the overwhelming evidence implicating modern psychiatry as a sick and twisted farce designed to profit from human suffering, how could it be that this issue doesn’t receive any substantive media coverage? Why hasn’t this been exposed by The New York Times, Dateline, and 60 Minutes? Could it be the hundreds of millions of dollars in advertising that the corporate media receives from Big Pharma each year? Perhaps this could lead to self-censorship.

The Dangers of SSRIs

We will now take a deeper look at the dangers of associated with SSRIs, particularly Prozac. This new drug consists of the single active isomer of Celexa.)[35] The most controversial issue surrounding the use of SSRIs–a possible connection to suicidal thoughts and behavior in some users–made news in mid-2003 when the Food and Drug Administration recommended that Paxil not be used to treat depressed children and adolescents because regulators were reviewing reports from clinical trials of an increased risk of suicidal thinking and suicide attempts in young users of the drug.[36]

Zoloft, Paxil, and Prozac were the top-selling antidepressants in the US in 2001, and antidepressants themselves were the largest category of prescription drug that year, with US retail sales of $12.5 billion.[37] Prozac was the leading antidepressant worldwide in 2000, but its share of prescriptions has been declining since the mid-1990s due to competition from other drugs and from generic fluoxetine.[38] Eli Lilly’s US sales of fluoxetine products fell 73% in 2002 following the introduction of generic fluoxetine here in August 2001.[39] Generic paroxetine and fluvoxamine also are available in the US market.

Although the Prozac era has ended for Eli Lilly, the availability of less costly generics means that fluoxetine may be more affordable for tens of millions of uninsured people.[40] And in addition to gaining approval for Prozac for indications besides depression (obsessive-compulsive disorder, bulimia nervosa, and panic disorder), Eli Lilly now markets two Prozac-related products that have their own patents: Sarafem is the version of Prozac approved in 2000 for the treatment of premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD). It was the first prescription drug in the US with this indication. The second drug is Prozac Weekly, intended for the longer-term treatment of depression when symptoms have stabilized. It was approved in 2001.[41] [42] [43]

IMS Health has noted a trend toward “lifestyle indications” for antidepressants.[44] In addition to major depression and OCD, both Paxil and Zoloft are indicated for panic disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, and social anxiety disorder. Zoloft also is approved for premenstrual dysphoric disorder, while Paxil also is approved for generalized anxiety disorder. [45][46] Doctors, for their part, prescribe SSRIs for a wide range of conditions, such as headaches, substance abuse, eating disorders, back pain, impulsivity, upset stomach, irritability, hair pulling, nail biting, premature ejaculation, sexual addictions, and attention deficit disorder.[47]

One growing market for SSRIs is their use with children, even though some studies have found that antidepressants are no more effective than placebos in these patients.[48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] A study in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2000 found that psychotropic medications prescribed to preschoolers had “increased dramatically between 1991 and 1995” in the three sites studied.[54] An analysis of prescription claims among young Medicaid patients in North Carolina found that the use of Ritalin-type stimulants and Prozac-type antidepressants among children rose dramatically in the 1990s and that more were taking both drugs at once. In 1998, 10.7% of children aged 6 to 14 were receiving stimulants and 1.7% were receiving SSRIs (30% of these also took stimulants). Lead author Jerry Rushton, MD, MPH, stated, “… the consistent increase in SSRI use and in dual prescriptions is especially surprising. We need further information about whether this is due to new unrecognized mental disorders, substitution for other therapies, or overprescription.”[55]

Serotonin and side effects

Prozac relieves depression by affecting the level of serotonin, a neurotransmitter that connects receptor sites and fires nerve cells. Joseph Glenmullen, MD, a clinical instructor in psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, explains in his book Prozac Backlash that the drug inhibits the reuptake of serotonin–a process in which a cell that releases this chemical messenger reabsorbs any unused portion of it. By blocking the reuptake of this neurotransmitter, Prozac boosts the level of serotonin and prolongs the serotonin signals in the brain.[56]

Dr. Glenmullen points out, however, that neurotransmitters like serotonin, adrenaline, and dopamine are connected by complex circuitry and function interdependently. Changes in one neurotransmitter can set off changes in another. Thus, the idea that Prozac-type drugs work “selectively” on serotonin is an illusion. When the level of serotonin is artificially increased, the primary reaction in the brain is a drop in dopamine–a powerful secondary effect that was not understood when the new class of serotonin boosters was introduced. The severe effects of the SSRIs are thought to be caused by the connections between the serotonin and dopamine systems. “Drugs producing a dopamine drop are well known to cause the dangerous side effects that are now appearing with Prozac and the other drugs in its class,” Dr. Glenmullen writes. His term for these compensatory reactions in the brain is “Prozac backlash.”[57]

Peter R. Breggin, MD, also reports in Talking Back to Prozac: What Doctors Aren’t Telling You About Today’s Most Controversial Drug, that Prozac acts as a stimulant to the nervous system.[58] Therefore, it can produce side effects that mimic those of amphetamines and are exaggerations of the desired effects of Prozac in relieving depression.

According to Dr. Breggin, the FDA psychiatrist who wrote the agency’s safety review of Prozac stated that the drug’s effects–including nausea, insomnia, and nervousness–resembled the profile of a stimulant drug rather than a sedative.[59] Dr. Breggin notes that nearly all of the Prozac side effects listed in the Physician’s Desk Reference “fit into the stimulant profile.” Among others, these stimulant symptoms include headaches, nervousness, insomnia, anxiety, agitation, tremors, weight loss, nausea, diarrhea, mouth dryness, anorexia, and excessive sweating.[60] He adds in The Antidepressant Fact Book that all of the SSRIs can cause insomnia, anxiety, agitation, and nervousness. These same effects and others are caused by the classic stimulants–methylphenidate, amphetamine, methamphetamine, Ecstasy, and cocaine.[61]

A drug that acts as a stimulant also can overstimulate the body systems. In Talking Back to Prozac, Dr. Breggin offers the example of a person who takes Prozac to relieve depression (the beneficial effect) and suffers from agitation and insomnia (the negative effects). These adverse reactions “are inherent in the stimulant effect that produces feelings of energy and well-being,” he writes. “In this sense, the difference between ‘therapeutic effects’ and ‘toxic effects’ are merely steps along a continuum from mild to extreme toxicity.”[62]

The Food and Drug Administration has received approximately 45,000 adverse reaction reports on Prozac.[63] It is not unusual for serious adverse effects to surface after a drug has hit the market, perhaps requiring that a major new warning be added to the label or that the drug be withdrawn. The FDA informs doctors, but not the public that the approval of a drug does not mean it is safe.

An analysis of 548 new drugs approved between 1975 and 1999 was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2002. It found that 56 of the drugs acquired a black box warning or were withdrawn (16 drugs) from the market. There was a 20% chance that problems will arise with any given drug after its approval. The researchers conclude that serious adverse drug reactions commonly emerge after FDA approval. They add, “The safety of new agents cannot be known with certainty until a drug has been on the market for many years.”[64] [65]

Dr. Glenmullen says that popular psychiatric drugs follow a “10-20-30 year pattern” in revealing their dangerous effects and falling into disfavor: About 10 years after their debut, the earliest signs of problems appear. At 20 years, there is enough data for the problems to be undeniable and a significant number of physicians to voice their concerns. At 20 years (or more), professional organizations and regulators actively work to stop overprescribing of the drug. At this point, drugs have become passe and lost their patent protection, and the manufacturers move on to more profitable drugs “that can be promoted as ‘safer’ because their hazards are not yet known.” [66]

Comparisons of efficacy

The SSRIs have no more specific effect on depression than do other antidepressants, including the tricycles and monoamine-oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs), according to Charles Medawar. As he explains in “The Antidepressant Web,” patients generally respond to antidepressants in about 60% to 70% of cases, while the typical response to placebo is 30% to 35%. Therefore, the popularity of SSRIs is due to the fact that most experts believe they are safer or otherwise more acceptable than the alternatives. And, in fact, promotional messages for SSRIs state three advantages: the drugs produce fewer unwanted side effects, are more acceptable to more patients, and are safer in overdose.[67]

Despite the safety-related claims made in the medical literature, however, “the evidence overall does not suggest that SSRIs show any great and decisive safety advantage over alternatives in day to day use,” says Medawar. Consider the results of trials comparing SSRI efficacy and safety with that of other antidepressants: “Two independent meta-analyses, each starting with a careful search of the literature to identify all properly controlled trials, have reached broadly similar conclusions–the SSRIs do have the edge on alternatives, but not by much.”[68] One analysis of 62 trials found a 49% dropout rate for SSRIs versus a 54% rate for tricyclic antidepressants.[69] A second analysis of 63 trials (16 comparing an SSRI with a nontricyclic) found that 3% fewer people stopped taking an SSRI because of the side effects. [70]

Other recent reviews also have found that the newer antidepressants are no more or less effective in treating depression than older-generation drugs.[71][72]In a government study conducted by Dr. Cynthia Mulrow and colleagues, the researchers analyzed more than 300 randomized controlled trials and concluded there were no significant differences in efficacy between newer and older agents or in overall discontinuation rates. Fewer people taking SSRIs stopped treatment due to adverse effects than those taking first-generation tricyclics (the rate difference was 4%). More than 80 studies did find that newer antidepressants were more effective than placebo in treating major depression in adults. The response rate was 50% for the drugs, versus 32% for placebo. [73][74]

A more troubling conclusion was reached by Dr. Irving Kirsch and colleagues who analyzed data sent to the FDA for approval of the six most commonly prescribed antidepressants between 1987 and 1999 (Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Effexor, Serzone, and Celexa).[75] Their analysis found that the response to placebo was almost as great as the response to the antidepressants. The mean difference on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression was two points, according to a report in Psychiatric Times. The difference was statistically, but not clinically, significant.[76] The article states, “More than half of the clinical trials sponsored by the pharmaceutical companies failed to find significant drug/placebo difference, and there were no advantages to higher doses of antidepressants.” The authors add, “The small difference between antidepressant and placebo has been referred to as a ‘dirty little secret’ by clinical trial researchers …”[77]

Several recent studies have reported similar results, finding that an SSRI did not differ significantly from placebo in the treatment of depression.[78]

Footnotes:

____________________________________

[1] Rabin, Roni Caryn. “A Glut of Antidepressants.” Well A Glut of Antidepressants Comments. N.p., 12 Aug. 2013. Web. 25 Mar. 2014. <http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/12/a-glut-of-antidepressants/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0>.

[2] Ibid

[3] Sharpe, Katherine. “The Medication Generation.” The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, 29 June 2012. Web. 30 Mar. 2014.

[4] “Mental illness leading cause of disability in youth.” The Chart RSS. Health Magazine, 6 June 2011. Web. 31 Mar. 2014. <http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/06/mental-illness-leading-cause-of-disability-in-youth/>.

[5] Tilghman, Andrew, and Brendan McGarry. “Medicating the military.”Http://www.armytimes.com/. 17 May 2010. 28 Mar. 2014 <http://www.armytimes.com/article/20100317/NEWS/3170315/Medicating-military>.

[6] Ibid

[7] Dao, James, Benedict Carey, and Dan Frosch. “A Deadly Mixture.” The New York Times. 12 Feb. 2011. The New York Times. 28 Mar. 2014 <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/us/13drugs.html?pagewanted=all>.

[8] Greenberg, Gary. “The Psychiatric Drug Crisis.” The New Yorker. N.p., 3 Sept. 2013. Web. 25 Mar. 2014. <http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/09/psychiatry-prozac-ssri-mental-health-theory-discredited.html>.

[9] Koliscak, Lindsey P., and Eugene H. Makela. “Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor-induced akathisia.” Journal of the American Pharmacists Association 49.2 (2009): e28-e38. Print.

[10] Wu, Q., A. F. Bencaz, J. G. Hentz, and M. D. Crowell. “Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor treatment and risk of fractures: a meta-analysis of cohort and case–control studies.” Osteoporosis International 23.1 (2012): 365-375. Print.

[11] Bahrick, Audrey (2008). “Persistence of Sexual Dysfunction Side Effects after Discontinuation of Antidepressant Medications: Emerging Evidence”. The Open Psychology Journal 1: 42–50. Retrieved 30 January 2014.

[12] Olfson M, Marcus SC, Shaffer D (August 2006). “Antidepressant drug therapy and suicide in severely depressed children and adults: A case-control study”. Archives of General Psychiatry 63 (8): 865–72.

[13] Henry, Chantal, and Jacques Demotes-Mainard. “SSRIs, Suicide and Violent Behavior: Is there a Need for a Better Definition of the Depressive State?.” Current Drug Safety 1.1 (2006): 59-62. pubmed.gov. Web. 18 Mar. 2014.

[14] van Weel-Baumgarten, EM, et al. “Treatment of depression related to recurrence: 10-year follow-up in general practice.” Journal of Clinical of Pharmacy and Therapeutics 25.1 (2005): 61-6. pubmed.gov. Web. 24 Mar. 2014.

[15] Basu, Moni. “Why suicide rate among veterans may be more than 22 a day.” CNN. 14 Nov. 2013. Cable News Network. 28 Mar. 2014 <http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/21/us/22-veteran-suicides-a-day/>.

[16] Hall, Katy. “Veteran Suicides Outpace Combat Deaths, Child Gun Deaths (INFOGRAPHIC).” The Huffington Post. 24 May 2013. 31 Mar. 2014 <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/24/veteran-suicides-military-_n_3332231.html>.

[17] Fergusson , Dean, et al.. “Association between suicide attempts and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors: systematic review of randomised controlled trials.” British Medical Journal 330 (2005): n. pag. BMJ.com. Web. 17 Mar. 2014.

[18] Ibid

[19] Kirsch, Irving, Brett J. Deacon, Tania B. Huedo-Medina, Alan Scoboria, Thomas J. Moore, and Blair T. Johnson. “Initial Severity And Antidepressant Benefits: A Meta-Analysis Of Data Submitted To The Food And Drug Administration.” PLoS Medicine 5.2 (2008): e45. plosmedicine.org. Web. 18 Mar. 2014.

[20] Ibid

[21] Lacasse, Jeffrey R., and Jonathan Leo. “Serotonin And Depression: A Disconnect Between The Advertisements And The Scientific Literature.” PLoS Medicine 2.12 (2005): e392. Print.

[22] Spiegel, Alix. “When It Comes To Depression, Serotonin Isn’t The Whole Story.” NPR. N.p., 23 Jan. 2012. Web. 26 Mar. 2014. <http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/01/23/145525853/when-it-comes-to-depression-serotonin-isnt-the-whole-story?start=5>.

[23] Andrews, Paul W, et al.. “Blue again: perturbational effects of antidepressants suggest monoaminergic homeostasis in major depression .” Fronteirs in Psychology July (2011): n. pag. journal.frontiersin.org. Web. 17 Mar. 2014.

[24] Dean, Bradlee . “ADHD is a Fictitious Disease—In His Confusion He Blurted Out The Truth, Father Of ADHD.” CCHR International. N.p., 23 Oct. 2013. Web. 27 Mar. 2014. <https://www.cchrint.org/2013/10/30/adhd-is-a-fictitious-disease/>.

[25] American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing. pp. 783–808

[26] Angel, Marcia. “The Illusions of Psychiatry.” The New York Book Review. N.p., 25 Mar. 2014. Web. 31 Mar. 2014. <http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/jul/14/illusions-of-psychiatry/>.

[27] Angell, Marcia. “The New York Review of Books.” The Epidemic of Mental Illness: Why?. N.p., 23 June 2011. Web. 30 Mar. 2014. <http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/jun/23/epidemic-mental-illness-why/?page=1>.

[28] Rubenstein, Sarah. “A New Low in Drug Research: 21 Fabricated Studies.” The Wall Street Journal. N.p., 11 Mar. 2009. Web. 1 Apr. 2014. <http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2009/03/11/a-new-low-in-drug-research-21-fabricated-studies/>.

[29] “Trouble at the lab.” The Economist. N.p., 19 Oct. 2013. Web. 1 Apr. 2014. <http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21588057-scientists-think-science-self-correcting-alarming-degree-it-not-trouble>.

[30] Cosgrove, Lisa, and Sheldon Krimsky. “A Comparison of DSM-IV and DSM-5 Panel Members’ Financial Associations with Industry: A Pernicious Problem Persists.” PLoS Medicine 9.3 (2012): e1001190. plosmedicine.org. Web. 18 Mar. 2014.

[31] Ibid

[32] Carey, Benedict. “Psychiatry’s Struggle to Revise The Book of Human Troubles.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 17 Dec. 2008. Web. 27 Mar. 2014.

[33] Shrinks for Sale: Psychiatry’s Conflicted Alliance.” CCHR International. 27 Mar. 2014 <https://www.cchrint.org/issues/the-corrupt-alliance-of-the-psychiatric-pharmaceutical-industry/>.

[34] “National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI).” CCHR International. 27 Mar. 2014 <https://www.cchrint.org/issues/psycho-pharmaceutical-front-groups/nami/>.

[35] Forest Laboratories Inc. Lexapro news: Lexapro is now available in pharmacies nationwide for the treatment of major depressive disorder. September 5, 2002. From www.lexapro.com/news/news_detail.asp?d=400.

[36] U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA talk paper: FDA statement regarding the anti-depressant Paxil for pediatric population. June 19, 2003.

[37] National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation. Prescription drug expenditures in 2001: another year of escalating costs. Revised May 6, 2002.

[38] InPharm.com. Launching a new antidepressant. July 24, 2000.

[39] Eli Lilly and Company annual report 2002. From www.lilly.com/about/investor/02report/english/lillyar2002complete.pdf.

[40] CBSNEWS.com. Generic Prozac set to hit streets. August 3, 2001. From www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/08/02/national/main304692.shtml.

[41] IMS Health. Lifestyle indications for antidepressants. April 4, 2000. From www.ims-global.com/insight/news_story/news_story_000404b.htm.

[42] U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). New treatment approved for severe premenstrual symptoms. FDA Consumer magazine, Sep-Oct. 2000.

[43] U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Weekly Prozac dosage: treatment alternative for depression. FDA Consumer magazine, May-June 2001.

[44] IMS Health. Lifestyle indications for antidepressants. April 4, 2000. From www.ims-global.com/insight/news_story/news_story_000404b.htm.

[45] GlaxoSmithKline. Prescribing information for Paxil (paroxetine hydrochloride) Tablets and Oral Suspension. August 2003. From www.us.gsk.com/products/assets/us_paxil.pdf.

[46] Pfizer Inc. Prescribing information for Zoloft (sertraline hydrochloride) Tablets and Oral Concentrate. Revised September 2003. From www.pfizer.com/download/uspi_zoloft.pdf.

[47] Glenmullen, Joseph, M.D. Prozac backlash: overcoming the dangers of Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, and other antidepressants with safe, effective alternatives. Touchstone, Simon & Schuster, New York, 2000, p. 14.

[48] Leonard M. Children are the hot new market for antidepressants. But is this how to make them feel better? Boston Sunday Globe, May 25, 1997, D1, D5 (cited in Glenmullen).

[49] Strauch B. Use of antidepression medicine for young patients has soared. New York Times, August 10, 1997, 1 (cited in Glenmullen).

[50] Martin A, Leslie D. Trends in psychotropic medication costs for children and adolescents, 1997-2000. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2003 Oct; 157(10):997-1004.

[51] Shatin D, Drinkard CR. Ambulatory use of psychotropics by employer-insured children and adolescents in a national managed care organization. Ambul Pediatr 2002 Mar-Apr; 2(2):111-9.

[52] Fisher RL and Fisher S. Antidepressants for children. Is scientific support necessary? J Nerv Ment Dis 1996; 184:99-102 (cited in Glenmullen).

[53] Pellegrino D. Commentary: Clinical judgement, scientific data, and ethics: antidepressant therapy in adolescents and children. J Nerv Ment Dis 1996; 184:106-8 (cited in Glenmullen).

[54] Ibid, p. 15.

[55] Zito JM, Safer DJ, dosReis S, Gardner JF, Boles M. and Lynch F. Trends in the prescribing of psychotropic medications to preschoolers. JAMA 2000 Feb; 283(8):1025-30.

[56] Glenmullen, op. cit., p. 17.

[57] Ibid, pp. 17-20.

[58] Breggin, P.R., and Breggin, G.R. Talking back to Prozac: What doctors aren’t telling you about today’s most controversial drug. St. Martin’s Press, New York, 1994, p. 121.

[59] Ibid, p. 75.

[60] Ibid, p. 78.

[61] Breggin, P.R. The antidepressant fact book. Perseus Publishing, Cambridge, MA, 2001, p. 46.

[62] Breggin and Breggin, 1994, p. 105.

[63] Legal Law Help. Safety and health: Prozac. Undated. Accessed on October 18, 2003 from www.legallawhelp.com/safety_and_health/prozac/

[64] Willis MT. Risk of the new.abcnews.com, May 1, 2002. From http://more.abcenews.go.com/sections/living/dailynews/new_drug_safety020501.html.

[65] Lasser KE, Allen PD, Woolhandler SJ, Himmelstein DU, Wolfe SM, and Bor DH. Timing of new black box warnings and withdrawals for prescription medications. JAMA 2002 May; 287(17):2215-20.

[66] Glenmullen, op. cit., pp. 12-13.

[67] Medawar C. The antidepressant web–marketing depression and making medicines work. International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine 1997;10(2):75-126. Posted online at a Web site operated by Social Audit Ltd., the publishing arm of Public Interest Research Centre Ltd.: www.socialaudit.org.uk/Default.htm. Last updated August 8, 2003.

[68] Anderson IM, Tomenson BM. Treatment discontinuation with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors compared with tricyclic antidepressants: a meta-analysis. Brit Med J 1995 June 3; 310:1433-8 (cited in Medawar).

[69] Song F, Freemantle N, Sheldon TA, et al. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors: meta-analysis of efficacy and acceptability. Brit Med J 1993; 306:683-7 (cited in Medawar).

[70] Ibid.

[71] Mulrow CD, Williams JW Jr, Trivedi M, Chiquette E, Aguilar C, et al. Treatment of depression–newer pharmacotherapies. Psychopharmacol Bull 1998; 34(4):409-795.

[72] Geddes JR, Freemantle N, Mason J, Eccles MP, Boynton J. SSRIs versus other antidepressants for depressive disorder. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000; (2):CD001851.

[73] Mulrow, op. cit.

[74] Newer antidepressant drugs are equally effective as older-generation drug treatments, research shows. Press release, March 18, 1999. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Rockville, MD. From www.ahrq.gov/news/press/pr1999/deprespr.htm.

[75] Kirsch I, Moore TJ, Scoboria A, Nicholls SS. The emperor’s new drugs: an analysis of antidepressant medication data submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration. Prevention & Treatment, 5, Article 23. Posted July 15, 2002. From journals.apa.org/prevention/volume5/pre0050023a.html.

[76] Kirsch I, Antonuccio D. Antidepressants versus placebos: meaningful advantages are lacking. Psychiatric Times 2002 Sep; 19(9). From www.psychiatrictimes.com/p020906.html.

[77] Hollon SD, DeRubeis RJ, Shelton RC, Weiss B. The emperor’s new drugs: effect size and moderate effects. Prevention & Treatment, 5 Artical 28, 2002 (cited in Kirsch and Antonuccio).

[78] Hypericum Depression Trial Study Group. Effect of Hypericum perforatum (St John’s wort) in major depressive disorder: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2002 Apr 10; 287(14):1807-14.

Gary Null is an internationally recognized thought leader and activist who holds a Ph.D. in human nutrition and public health science. Learn more about Gary on his radio network, the Progressive Radio Network, as well as his website.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.

From GreenMedInfo, here.

Why Does Nobody Ask Halachic She’eilos About Sex?

May 27, 2018 – י״ג בסיון תשע״ח by Hyehudi

I quote from a 209 survey of 300 Jewish women, “Observant Married Jewish Women and Sexual Life: An Empirical Study“:

Asking for Rabbinical Counsel
Traditional Jewish practice encourages people to seek rabbinic advice when faced with challenging questions. As all aspects of life, from the mundane to the lofty, are imbued with religious significance, observant Jews regularly pose questions to rabbis. Queries concerning pillars of observant life, kashruth, Shabbat, and taharat haMishpahah are routine. Our data, however, revealed a significant skew regarding questions posed to rabbinic counsel—namely, that women in our study were less likely to inquire about matters relating to sexuality. This is illustrated by the fact that over 90 percent of women indicated that they have asked a rabbi questions about kashruth or about laws pertaining to the Sabbath. Only 76 percent, however, have asked about an aspect of niddah, and most of these questions were directed to technical concerns about menstrual staining. Just over one-third of women had ever asked a question pertaining to permissibility of a particular sexual practice. Mindful that our respondents are highly adherent to the laws of family purity, we assumed that they would naturally have questions about the religious permissibility of various sexual activities in marriage. We knew from their comments about their kallah (bridal preparation) classes that frank issues such as sexual desires and practices were rarely discussed by those teachers. We wondered, therefore, how couples align their sexual desires and their religious sensibilities.
Fully half of all women answering our survey have wondered whether performing certain sexual acts, during the course of their observant, married life, might constitute a violation of Jewish law. Oral sex was the activity of most concern followed by the use of fantasy during relations. Of this 50 percent who acknowledged halakhic concerns, only a small portion (12 percent) asked a rabbi for guidance. Of the remaining 88 percent who did not seek religious consultation, almost half refrained from the religiously questionable sex, while the rest enacted their desire without permission.
A related area is the use of contraception. Observant Jews take the biblical commandment to “be fruitful and multiply” seriously and generally give birth to and raise families larger than those of their secular peers. We wondered how observant women access family planning. Our findings revealed that although nearly 90 percent of our sample reported using birth control at some time in their marriage, only half of these women consulted a rabbi about that decision. Once again, our data suggest that many religiously committed Jews do not bring questions about their sexual or reproductive lives to the scrutiny of their rabbis with the same frequency that they bring questions about equally serious but less bodily intimate matters.

The lesson? Torah scholars (not necessarily the same thing as rabbis!) should, in fact, know what to say and additionally actively encourage people to ask.

P.S. The study also confirms the following:

One domain in which observant women and secular American women did not differ was in the prevalence of sexual abuse. It is imperative to not minimize the prevalence of such experiences within the observant community in light of their impact on both mental-health-related issues and married life.

America’s Fiscal Gap: 200 Trillion Dollars

April 18, 2018 – ג׳ באייר תשע״ח by Hyehudi

34 Shocking Facts About U.S. Debt That Should Set America On Fire With Anger

By Michael Snyder, on January 5th, 2012

We have all been lied to. For decades, the leaders of both major political parties have promised us that they can fix our current system and that they can get our national debt under control. As the 2012 election approaches, they are making all kinds of wild promises once again. Well you know what? It is all a giant sham. The United States has gotten into so much debt that there will be no coming back from this. The current system is irretrievably broken. 30 years ago the U.S. debt was a horrific crisis that was completely and totally out of control. If we would have dealt with it back then maybe we could have done something about it. But now it is 15 times larger, and we are adding more than a trillion dollars to the debt every single year. The facts that you are about to read below should set America on fire with anger. Please share them with as many people as you can. What we are doing to our children and our grandchildren is absolutely nightmarish. Words like “abuse”, “financial rape”, “theft” and “crime” do not even begin to describe what we are doing to future generations. We were the wealthiest nation on earth, but it wasn’t good enough just to squander all of our own money. We had to squander the money of our children and our grandchildren as well. America has been so selfish and so self-centered that it is hard to argue that we don’t deserve what is about to happen to this country. We have stolen the future of America, and yet we strut around as if we are the smartest generation that ever walked the face of the earth.

All of this prosperity that we see all around us is just an illusion. It is a false prosperity that has been purchased by the biggest mountain of debt in the history of the world.

Did you know that if you added up all forms of debt in the United States and divided it up equally that every single family in the country would owe more than $683,000?

We are a nation that is absolutely addicted to debt, and the U.S. debt crisis threatens to destroy everything that our forefathers built.

Yes, everything may seem fine for the moment, but what do you think would happen if the federal government suddenly adopted a balanced budget?

1.3 trillion dollars a year would be sucked right out of the economy and we would be looking at an “economic readjustment” that would be mind blowing.

Enjoy this false prosperity while you can, because it is not going to last.

Debt is a very cruel master, and our day of reckoning is almost here.

The following are 34 shocking facts about U.S. debt that should set America on fire with anger….

#1 During fiscal year 2011, the U.S. government spent 3.7 trillion dollars but it only brought in 2.4 trillion dollars.

#2 When Ronald Reagan took office, the U.S. national debt was less than 1 trillion dollars. Today, the U.S. national debt is over 15.2 trillion dollars.

#3 During 2011, U.S. debt surpassed 100 percent of GDP for the first time ever.

#4 According to Wikipedia, the monetary base “consists of coins, paper money (both as bank vault cash and as currency circulating in the public), and commercial banks’ reserves with the central bank.” Currently the U.S. monetary base is sitting somewhere around 2.7 trillion dollars. So if you went out and gathered all of that money up it would only make a small dent in our national debt. But afterwards there would be no currency for anyone to use.

#5 The U.S. government spent over 454 billion dollars just on interest on the national debt during fiscal 2011.

#6 The U.S. government has total assets of 2.7 trillion dollars and has total liabilities of 17.5 trillion dollars. The liabilities do not even count 4.7 trillion dollars of intragovernmental debt that is currently outstanding.

#7 During the Obama administration, the U.S. government has accumulated more debt than it did from the time that George Washington took office to the time that Bill Clinton took office.

#8 It is being projected that the U.S. national debt will surpass 23 trillion dollars in 2015.

#9 According to the GAO, the U.S. government is facing 34 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities for social insurance programs such as Social Security and Medicare. These are obligations that we have already committed ourselves to but that we do not have any money for.

#10 Others estimate that the unfunded liabilities of the U.S. government now total over 117 trillion dollars.

#11 According to the GAO, the ratio of debt held by the public to GDP is projected to reach 287 percent of GDP by 2086.

#12 Others are much less optimistic. A recently revised IMF policy paper entitled “An Analysis of U.S. Fiscal and Generational Imbalances: Who Will Pay and How?” projects that U.S. government debt will rise to about 400 percent of GDP by the year 2050.

#13 The United States government is responsible for more than a third of all the government debt in the entire world.

#14 If you divide up the national debt equally among all U.S. taxpayers, each taxpayer would owe approximately $134,685.

#15 Mandatory federal spending surpassed total federal revenue for the first time ever in fiscal 2011. That was not supposed to happen until 50 years from now.

#16 Between 2007 and 2010, U.S. GDP grew by only 4.26%, but the U.S. national debt soared by 61% during that same time period.

#17 During Barack Obama’s first two years in office, the U.S. government added more to the U.S. national debt than the first 100 U.S. Congresses combined.

#18 When you add up all spending by the federal government, state governments and local governments, it comes to 46.6% of GDP.

#19 Our nation is more addicted to government checks than ever before. In 1980, government transfer payments accounted for just 11.7% of all income. Today, government transfer payments account for 18.4% of all income.

#20 U.S. households are now actually receiving more money directly from the U.S. government than they are paying to the government in taxes.

#21 A staggering 48.5% of all Americans live in a household that receives some form of government benefits. Back in 1983, that number was below 30 percent.

#22 Back in 1965, only one out of every 50 Americans was on Medicaid. Today, one out of every 6 Americans is on Medicaid.

#23 In 1950, each retiree’s Social Security benefit was paid for by 16 U.S. workers. According to new data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are now only 1.75 full-time private sector workers for each person that is receiving Social Security benefits in the United States.

#24 The U.S. government now says that the Medicare trust fund will run out five years faster than they were projecting just last year.

#25 Right now, spending by the federal government accounts for about 24 percentof GDP. Back in 2001, it accounted for just 18 percent.

#26 If the U.S. government was forced to use GAAP accounting principles (like all publicly-traded corporations must), the U.S. government budget deficit would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $4 trillion to $5 trillion each and every year.

#27 If you were alive when Chist was born and you spent one million dollars every single day since that point, you still would not have spent one trillion dollars by now. But this year alone the U.S. government is going to add more than a trillion dollars to the national debt.

#28 If right this moment you went out and started spending one dollar every single second, it would take you more than 31,000 years to spend one trillion dollars.

#29 A trillion $10 bills, if they were taped end to end, would wrap around the globe more than 380 times. That amount of money would still not be enough to pay off the U.S. national debt.

#30 If the federal government began right at this moment to repay the U.S. national debt at a rate of one dollar per second, it would take over 470,000 years to pay off the national debt.

#31 If Bill Gates gave every penny of his fortune to the U.S. government, it would only cover the U.S. budget deficit for 15 days.

#32 According to Professor Laurence J. Kotlikoff, the U.S. is facing a “fiscal gap” of over 200 trillion dollars in the future. The following is a brief excerpt from a recent article that he did for CNN….

The government’s total indebtedness — its fiscal gap — now stands at $211 trillion, by my arithmetic. The fiscal gap is the difference, measured in present value, between all projected future spending obligations — including our huge defense expenditures and massive entitlement programs, as well as making interest and principal payments on the official debt — and all projected future taxes.

#33 If you add up all forms of debt in the United States (government, business and consumer), it comes to more than 56 trillion dollars. That is more than $683,000per family. Unfortunately, the average amount of savings per family in the U.S. is only about $4,735.

#34 The U.S. national debt is now more than 5000 times larger than it was when the Federal Reserve was created back in 1913.

From The Economic Collapse, here.

Why Our Ruling Class Gets Away with Anything and Everything

April 17, 2018 – ב׳ באייר תשע״ח by Hyehudi

With Liberty and Justice for Some: Six Questions for Glenn Greenwald

By Scott Horton

In the wake of September 11, Glenn Greenwald emerged as the nation’s premier chronicler of the war that U.S. officials waged on the nation’s civil liberties under the pretext of battling terrorists. Persistent and technically skilled, he played a key role in unmasking shameless betrayals by government attorneys of their oath to uphold the law—exposing those who enabled the torture of prisoners, the introduction of a massive warrantless surveillance system, and the merciless war against loyal Americans who attempted to blow the whistle on such abuses. I put six questions to Greenwald about his new book, With Liberty and Justice for Some, which examines the emerging doctrine of impunity for politically powerful elites in the United States:

1. You start your account of the doctrine of elite immunity in the United States with Gerald Ford’s decision to pardon Richard Nixon. How did this one decision, among the numerous incidents you describe, provide a point of rupture in the nation’s rule-of-law tradition?

American history is suffused with violations of equality before the law. The country was steeped in such violations at its founding. But even when this principle was being violated, its supremacy was also being affirmed: resoundingly and unanimously in the case of the founders. That the rule of law—not the rule of men—would reign supreme was one of the few real points of agreement among all the founders. Arguably it was the primary one.

There’s an obvious element of hypocrisy in this fact; espousing a principle that one simultaneously breaches in action is hypocrisy’s defining attribute. But there’s also a more positive side: the country’s vigorous embrace of the principle of equality before law enshrined it as aspiration. It became the guiding precept for how “progress” was understood, for how the union would be perfected.

And the most significant episodes of progress over the next two centuries—the emancipation of slaves, the ending of Jim Crow, the enfranchisement and liberation of women, vastly improved treatment for Native Americans and gay Americans—were animated by this ideal. That happened because “blind justice”—equality before law—was orthodoxy in American political culture. The principle was sacrosanct even when it was imperfectly applied.

The Ford pardon of Nixon changed that, radically and permanently. When President Ford went on national television to explain to an angry, skeptical citizenry why the most powerful political actor would be fully immunized for the felonies he got caught committing, Ford expressly rejected the rule of law. He paid lip service to its core principle—the “law is no respecter of persons”—but then tacked on a newly concocted amendment designed to gut that principle: “but the law is a respecter of reality.”

In other words, if—in the judgment of political leaders—it’s sufficiently disruptive, divisive, or distracting to hold powerful political officials accountable under the law on equal terms with ordinary Americans, then they should be exempt and the rule of law suspended, all in the name of political harmony, of “moving on.” But of course, it will always be divisive and distracting, by definition, to prosecute the most powerful political leaders, so Ford’s rationale, predictably, created a template for elite immunity.

The rationale for Ford’s pardon of Nixon was subsequently legitimized, and it created a precedent for shielding the most powerful elites from the consequences of their lawbreaking. The arguments Ford offered are the same ones now hauled out over and over whenever it is time to argue why the most powerful among us should not be held accountable: It’s not just for the good of the immunized criminal, but in the common good, to Look Forward, Not Backward. This direct assault on the rule of law was pioneered by the pardon of Richard Nixon.

2. ProPublica released, just last week, a study of the pardons process showing that a wealthy, politically connected white person may very well get a presidential pardon, but that blacks don’t get pardons, period. Is this more fodder for your thesis?

It’s almost impossible to write a book and not have something like this happen: one of the best pieces of evidence imaginable for your thesis emerges only after the book’s publication. That’s how I see the superb ProPublica study: as indescribably compelling support for the central argument of the book.

It would be one thing if the lawbreaking license I just described were available to everyone regardless of power or position. If ordinary Americans could avail themselves of this same line of reasoning when they get caught committing crimes—Officer, isn’t it better that we concentrate on the future rather than wallowing in recriminations over the past?—one could have debates about the virtues of leniency as a criminal-justice policy, but at least it wouldn’t implicate rule-of-law concerns. Everyone would be subjected to the same set of rules.

But that’s not what happens. The exact opposite takes place. The flip side of elite immunity is that ordinary Americans are subjected to the world’s largest and among its most merciless penal states. The U.S. imprisons more of its citizens by far than any other country on the planet, and for longer periods, for more trivial transgressions, and with less forgiveness than any country in the Western world. Many of these oppressive penal policies are racist in effect if not in design: particularly the drug war, which results in vastly disproportionate imprisonment rates for African-Americans and Latinos.

Pardons were designed to be a last resort for correcting grave injustices produced by the justice system. Instead, as the ProPublica study documents, they mirror and exacerbate those injustices. Even at that stage, how one is treated depends far more on who one is rather than what one has done. That is the precise antithesis of what the rule of law was designed to ensure.

3. Whistleblowers in the era of Bush and Obama have been fired, harassed, and prosecuted under statutes like the Espionage Act with a hitherto-unknown vigor, especially when their disclosures suggested that government officials committed serious crimes. Is this prosecutorial zeal driven by the same factors that have created elite immunity?

Unquestionably. Take the case of the NSA eavesdropping scandal, the clearest-cut case of criminality during the Bush years. So egregious was the wrongdoing that James Risen and Eric Lichtblau won the Pulitzer Prize for exposing it in the New York Times. Bush officials were caught behaving in the exact way the law criminalized: eavesdropping on Americans’ communications without warrants. And the statute imposed a penalty of five years in prison and/or a $10,000 fine for each offense.

Yet not a single Bush official responsible for those crimes was ever investigated, let alone prosecuted. The nation’s telecom giants, which independently broke laws written specifically to bar telecom–government cooperation in illegal spying, were retroactively immunized for their crimes by an act of Congress.

Nobody paid a price for the NSA scandal, except one person: Thomas Tamm, the mid-level DOJ lawyer who learned of the illegal program and, in an act of conscience, picked up the phone, called Lichtblau, and told him what he had learned. Unlike the criminals themselves, Tamm was investigated, harassed, rendered unemployed, forced to hire a lawyer, and ultimately driven into bankruptcy and serious psychological distress. The only person to suffer from the NSA scandal was the person who blew the whistle on it.

We see this over and over, and it’s what the Obama war on whistleblowers is all about. The only real, cognizable crime—the only one the Obama DOJ displays any real interest in punishing—is committed by those who expose elite criminality, not those who commit it. The attempt to prosecute WikiLeaks is driven by this same mindset.

4. In a speech he delivered recently in Osawatomie, Kansas, President Obama used Theodore Roosevelt’s concept of New Nationalism as a rhetorical foil. Do you agree that Roosevelt’s vision of a nation dedicated to “real democracy” sets the right tone for an age suffering from elitist triumphalism? And do you think Obama is likely, in a second term, to take any meaningful steps against the problems you describe in your book—particularly relating to accountability?

Many of the themes sounded in Obama’s Kansas speech were valid and appropriate, but that matters little. Obama is in campaign mode, and what he has convincingly demonstrated is that the inspiring, passionate speeches he delivers have little relationship to his actions.

There is zero basis for believing that Obama will change course on any of these matters in his second term. There is always another election ahead that apologists can cite to justify bad acts (You have to understand: it’s vital that Democrats win the 2014 midterms). And Obama has displayed no interest whatsoever in holding elites accountable for criminality: not just political actors, but financial elites as well.

If anything, it’s even more unlikely that he would hold elites accountable in his second term. In November, 2008, the New York Times explained why presidents have an incentive to shield their predecessors from prosecution: “Because every president eventually leaves office, incoming chief executives have an incentive to quash investigations into their predecessor’s tenure.” In other words, by shielding those who came before him, Obama ensures that he can commit crimes with impunity as well. That’s why all elites—political, financial, media—are motivated to defend and preserve this lawbreaking license for their class.