Connie was discussing things with another older woman of about sixty three, who was being told the same things about ECT. I thought it was ludicrous but at that time I did not know the state of the law. I met this woman and discussed her situation with her over a period of three days before she was given the ECT. She told me of visions and hearing things, which sounded like a cross between ESP and possession exacerbated by family stressors. One of her parents had just died and the other had died much earlier, but she had never really come to grips with her feelings about it. I told her that these things might be dealt with through therapy by people who didn't automatically assume that all psychic things were significators or indicators of insanity. Brian was involved in confirming what I said about psychic things. Still she wanted to believe it was the only way out, and I couldn't offer an alternative given the lack of funds and the state of the therapeutic reality.


“Where Was the FDA?


When psychiatric dugs turn out to be harmful, the victims often tell us. ‘I thought FDA approval meant a drug is safe. I never thought our doctor would prescribe something so dangerous.’ When a loved one dies from the effects of a psychiatric drug, grieving, outraged families often demand to know. ‘Did the FDA know it could be lethal? Should our doctors have known it could kill?’


Especially during the drug approval process, the FDA is largely dependent on information that it receives from drug companies. Consider the following circumstances, however. The fact that a person experienced an ‘adverse event’ (e.g. a headache or a fall) while taking a drug does not mean that this event was caused by the drug. Scientists or doctors employed by a drug company make the initial judgment that an adverse effect may or may not have been caused by a drug during testing; but management at the company headquarters (In the case of Valium they did not even do testing and the head of Roche outright lied to Senate Hearings.} makes the final decision about how to handle the data submitted to it by its paid researchers. If management decides that there’s no possible connection between the company’s drug and the patient’s negative reaction, the data may never find its way to the FDA. Or the data may be presented to the FDA in such a disguised fashion that it fails to draw attention at the agency. For example, a drug withdrawal reaction may be recorded as ‘two days in duration’ when in reality the patient was placed back on the drug after two days in order to stop the withdrawal reaction. (1)


At a training seminar tailored to drug company staff, (2) a drug company executive gave the following example of a death that, in his opinion, did not have to be reported to the FDA as even possibly drug-related� ‘While a subject in a clinical drug trial, a man stepped off a curb, was hit by a car, and died.’ According to the drug company executive, there was no reason to even consider reporting this as a possible adverse drug effect.� (3)


They go on to point out the reason why people act ‘drugged’ or in a stupor and how this or suicidal ideation which is often caused by these drugs (personal experience with those I helped tell me it is worse than Drs. Breggin and Cohen deem prudent to report). Then they go into Viagra and the FDA among the many other drugs that our society is encouraged to use today. And the matter of informed consent is something everyone must try to understand but I find most people still blindly accept what their doctor or some friend tells them that their doctor says.

FDA is pro-suffering and anti-treatment especially when it comes to mental illness, just look how they banned amineptine and continued to be pro-SSRIs http://www.amineptine.com