Author name: Bob Carter

Risperdal Continues to Rack Up Hefty Lawsuits
Latest News

Risperdal Continues to Rack Up Hefty Lawsuits

Risperdal Continues to Rack Up Hefty Lawsuits      By Robert Carter/August 21, 2025      Johnson & Johnson is again being sued for deceptive off-label marketing of its antipsychotic Risperdal. In April this year the Wisner Baum law firm filed a  lawsuit that alleges that Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary Janssen  Pharmaceuticals concealed evidence that Risperdal causes breast cancer.      In fact, not only did J&J conceal evidence from as far back as the 1990s which  linked the drug to increased cancer risks, they specifically stated in their promotional material that no “clinical trials or epidemiological studies conducted to date have shown an association between chronic  administration of this class of drugs” and cancer. An outright lie.      The new lawsuit alleges that the drug manufacturer took their narrow-use antipsychotic Risperdal, which is only to be prescribed for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, and through deceptive marketing induced doctors to prescribe it to people without either of those severe diagnoses. J&J claimed that Risperdal would offer general “mood stabilization” for those with less severe diagnoses while they also concealed the increased risks for breast cancer for those taking Risperdal.      In May this year, Wisner Baum amended their lawsuit to include further allegations that J&J also withheld and manipulated clinical trial data, delayed the publication of studies deemed unfavorable to Risperdal, funded ghostwritten and misleading research aimed at downplaying its breast cancer risks, obstructed regulatory transparency, and illegally promoted Risperdal for off-label uses.      “J&J transformed a narrow-use drug into a billion-dollar blockbuster by targeting vulnerable segments of our population, all while hiding a cancer risk they’ve known about for decades,” said Wisner Baum law partner Pedram Esfandiary.      This is not the first lawsuit J&J has been hit with regarding its marketing of Risperdal. J&J pleaded guilty to criminal charges in 2013 and settled civil allegations by paying $2.2 billion for promoting Risperdal to health care providers for off-label uses. J&J also settled other Risperdal cases for an undisclosed amount in October, 2021. Those lawsuits involved another off-label use of the drug which led to breast growth in thousands of men. The company disclosed that it recorded $800 million in expenses related to the agreement.      Either J&J are very slow learners, or the huge profits they have made from  Risperdal — off- label or not — have been well worth their apparent inability to learn from their experience.

Insider Exposes Big Pharma Marketing Sins of Omission
Articles, Blog posts

Insider Exposes Big Pharma Marketing Sins of Omission

Insider Exposes Big Pharma Marketing Sins of Omission By Robert Carter/August 9, 2025 Pharmacist Lydia Green spent thirty years as an advertising professional writing marketing copy for Big Pharma. Today, after realizing the distortions she was for so long paid to contrive in order to boost pharmaceutical profits, she runs RxBalance, a site devoted to telling the truth about pharmaceutical products. Today the Mad in America website posted a lengthy article by her which exposes the many tricks of the marketing trade she was involved in to maximize Big Pharma profits of Risperdal while minimizing its  dangerous long term effects on consumers. She gives a point by point list of the unethical distortions  Johnson and Johnson employed her agency to use to make Risperdal its biggest selling antipsychotic. To do that she had to redefined schizophrenia, rewrite the safety  parameters for antipsychotics, and then manipulate the Risperdal narrative for behind-the-scenes medical thought leaders, academic  authorities, and finally the NAMI principals who could increase the chances of Medicare and Medicaid funding Risperdal  prescriptions. It’s a scary tale. It’s a tale that should be heard. In a short TEDx talk that Lydia Green gave four years ago, she lists the three cardinal strategies Big Pharma marketers use to establish and expand a drug’s viability. First, they exaggerate the benefits of the drug, second, they inflate the size of its potential market, and third, they minimize the risks associated with the drug. Cherry picking which scientific and often pseudo-scientific “data” to use and which to leave out to paint the most positive picture of the drug is the skill a savvy Big Pharma marketer develops. Green labels these activities sins of omission – not commission – and points out that because these distortions of the truth come from absences of data, not inclusions of it, marketing manipulations are not easily visible to the general public. Antidepressants and antipsychotics are made desirable, and the 43 million Americans who take them every year do so because the dangerous side effects and risks of suicide from severe withdrawal symptoms are not made known. Big Pharma advertising does not include these facts and, worse yet, because of its behind-the-scenes  marketing efforts — also containing these sins of data omission — the doctors who are prescribing them fail to inform their patients of the true risks. Lydia Green is helping to open consumers’ eyes to the Big Pharma wool that’s been pulled over them for so long, but unfortunately 43 million pairs of eyes is an awful lot of eyes to uncover. It’s too bad she waited thirty years. Even twenty years ago the dangerous side effects of Risperdal were already coming to light: there were serious metabolic side effects and the drug was increasingly associated with significant weight gain, diabetes, and, in adolescent boys, gynecomastia, breast development. Independent research from Canada and America’s National Institute of Mental Health showed that Risperdal was not nearly as effective as Big Pharma had originally claimed. Not only has Risperdal not been doing anybody all that much good, it has been causing severe, long term health conditions for them, as well.

How Involuntary Incarceration Laws Help Big Pharma Make Money from the Homeless
Articles, Blog posts

Involuntary Incarceration Laws Help Big Pharma Make Money from the Homeless

How Involuntary Incarceration Laws Help Big Pharma Make Money from the Homeless      By Robert Carter/July 28, 2025      Forced psychiatric incarceration has now come full circle in America.      After the ever increasing money that state taxpayers had had to pay to keep the “insane” institutionalized up until the nineteen-fifties, the FDA’s approval for the use of psychotropic medications such as Thorazine offered an alternate, less expensive “treatment” for those mentally disturbed members of society who had been kept in horrible institutions for the previous hundred years.      President Kennedy’s signing of the Community Mental Health Act of 1963 opened the doors of America’s state psychiatric institutions, and they began to release thousands of residents, mostly labeled schizophrenic, out into the world. To house and care for these poor souls, a national network of 1500 community mental health centers was to be constructed.      However, less than half of those facilities have ever been built. Instead, many of those released from mental hospitals have ended up homeless on our streets. In 2024 there were about three quarters of a million homeless people in the United States. Most of them, correctly or incorrectly, are considered “mentally ill” or – psychiatry’s catch all diagnosis – “schizophrenic.”      In the last few years involuntary incarceration laws have been strengthened in many states so that these people can more easily be rounded up and forced back into the institutions they were freed from fifty years ago.      State and federal taxpayers will again foot the bill, but today all that revenue goes to Big Pharma to pay for the prescribed medications these people take or will be forced to take.        To make rounding up these individuals from off the streets simpler, a new diagnosis had to be coined by psychiatry to label these folks. They have “anosognosia.” It’s defined as “lack of insight” and is “a biological condition that prevents some people with severe mental illness from knowing they are experiencing symptoms of a brain disorder.”      In other words, it’s the perfect Catch-22 for incarcerating a person involuntarily. If they claim they are not schizophrenic, or have some other psychiatric “disorder,” they are then labeled as anosognosic, and – bingo! – the law now has reason to lock them up and involuntarily keep them on hold for an indeterminate time. And, yes, they can be forced to take heavy psychotic medication as well.      The revenue from all those prescriptions – paid for now by the state or the federal government – goes right into the pockets of the pharmaceutical companies.      Anosognosia is listed as a “biological condition,” despite the fact that the whole chemical imbalance theory has been thoroughly debunked by tons of competent research. There is no physical or biological cause behind any of the psychiatric labels – like anosognosia – that are contained in the psychiatrists’ bible, the DSM.      Civil rights activists have brought lawsuits alleging these policies that violate one’s constitutional guaranty of due process and equal protection, as well as one’s right to privacy, autonomy and liberty. So far, none of these harsh laws have been overturned.      Meanwhile, even more expensive psychiatric drugs for the “treatment” of those who have anosognosia are being developed, such as Bristol Myers Squibb’s KAR XT, which is already projected to earn $7 billion by 2028.      That’s an awful lot of money to be earned from people who, once again, do not have a choice.

Articles, Blog posts

Suicide Prevention Programs Produce More Suicides

Guess What? Suicide Prevention Programs Produce More Suicides By Robert Carter/February 25, 2025 In 1999 federal, state and local government agencies launched the first massive suicide prevention program. Screening tests were  devised – written by psychiatrists, of course – and those who were “depressed” were urged to take antidepressants and other psychotropic medication. Since 2000 the use of prescription drugs by Americans has risen steadily. So has America’s suicide rate, which has also risen steadily since 2000. Similar, coincident increases in suicide rates have been discovered in other countries, as well. An Australian research team found in one hundred countries they studied that suicide rates had only increased in countries that had initiated national mental health policies, programs, and legislation. Those 76 countries they discovered had higher suicide rates were countries that spent more on mental health, had passed mental health legislation, had a greater number of  psychiatrists and  psychiatric nurses, had more psychiatric beds, and gave more training in mental health to primary care professionals. Another analysis of 191 countries found that those countries with “better” psychiatric services also had higher suicide rates. A 2016 U.S. Veterans Department study showed that military members who had a “more severe” mental health diagnosis, but were not treated at all by the VA for their “disorder,” had a much lower suicide rate than those service members who had a “less severe” condition, with no  diagnosis, but who were treated with mental health services by the VA. A 2013 Military Times report showed that from 2001 to 2009 $1.1 billion was spent by the Defense Logistics Agency on  psychiatric drugs and pain medications. Antidepressants and anticonvulsants were the most commonly prescribed for mental health conditions. These were part of the treatment that was given to the service members with the higher suicide rate after undergoing mental health services by the VA. Today prescription drugs are the third leading cause of death for all Americans, right behind heart disease and cancer. Suicides are included in those deaths, and the suicide rate for all  Americans increased 37 percent from 2000 to 2022. Nor surprisingly, antidepressant use by Americans increased 65 percent from 2000 until 2014 and then increased by 66 percent from 2016 to 2022. Psychiatrists today say that antidepressants increase only suicidal thoughts, not suicides. They only say that, of course, because they have to agree with the black box warnings of their partner in crime, the FDA. They also  apparently agree with the profits of the Big Pharma companies producing those antidepressants whose advisory boards they sit on. The rise of America’s suicide rates at the same time as the rise of  Americans’ use of antidepressants cannot just be a coincidence, can it, as these psychiatrists suggest? Common sense would tell any one else that’s far more than coincidence.

Articles, Blog posts

A Primer on Rockefeller’s Medical Mafia

A Primer on Rockefeller’s Medical Mafia By Robert Carter/February 17, 2025 In the 1800s few doctors actually held medical degrees. Known as physicians, they diagnosed patients and recommended medications. The other “doctors,” who did surgery or who prescribed various health tonics, learned their trade apprenticing under a medical mentor. Meanwhile, John D. Rockefeller, the oil baron, recognized that his monopoly of Standard Oil was about to be broken up by the government’s anti-trust purge, and he began looking for another lucrative business venture. He chose petrochemicals. He recognized that only synthetic drugs made from petrochemicals could be patented — natural health remedies could not — but he then had to clear the way for his creation of what would become a comparable monopoly to Standard Oil in the petrochemical industry. First he created the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research in 1901. That organization began pioneering research and development of petrochemical-based medicines such as vaccines, antibiotics and the  chemical-based drugs that would ultimately become the foundation of today’s pharmaceutical industry. This research flew in the face of the most popular health therapies of the day, such as homeopathy, chiropractic, and naturopathy, as well as all of the popular “natural” potions and herbal medicines on the market then. Many of these “cures” were mixtures that contained cocaine, heroin, and other dangerous, but then legal chemicals. Their popularity resulted in illness and death, though, and in 1906 the U.S. Bureau of Chemistry was given the power to regulate interstate commerce of foods and drugs and cull the marketplace of these dangerous potions. This fit in perfectly with Rockefeller’s campaign to turn public and government opinion against such popular remedies, and he almost undoubtedly worked behind the scenes to encourage this legislation. In 1910 Rockefeller helped fund the Flexner Report. This broadly disseminated publication ridiculed natural medicine as “unscientific quackery” and called for a standardization of medical education in the country. Abraham Flexner, the author of the report, soon began serving on the Rockefeller Foundation 's General Education Board , and after 1917 he was made its secretary. By the time the Flexner Report was released, Rockefeller had already begun donating millions of dollars to medical schools, starting with the prestigious University of Chicago and Yale medical schools, with the stipulation they only teach pharmaceutical-based allopathic medicine. The American Medical Association, a union of allopathic physicians which had been established in 1847, now came into prominence as the country’s most influential ruling agency with exclusive power over granting and issuing medical licenses in America. Next, Rockefeller and his robber baron associates Carnegie and J.P. Morgan formed a partnership and bought controlling shares of the pharmaceutical giant I. G. Farben, a German pharmaceutical company that would supply the newly patented synthetic medicines that American doctors were now being educated to prescribe. Rockefeller now had a compliant Bureau of Chemistry, which in 1927 became the Food, Drug, and Insecticide Organization (later the Food and Drug Administration) and a significant investment in the production of pharmaceutical medicine that could be patented for profit. Now he only needed to establish a body of doctors who could exclusively write the prescriptions for what he foresaw would become the vast market for  psychotropic medications, given the experimentation that he saw the Nazis doing in this field with the cooperation of I. G. Farben’s laboratories. In 1930 Rockefeller funded a ten year,  $1,000,000 grant to the Yale Medical School to establish their School of Psychiatry. Three years later Charles-Edward Winslow, Professor of Public Health at Yale, founded the  National Committee on Mental Hygiene, the organization that launched the mental hygiene movement in America and set the stage for the widespread chemical treatment of “mental disorders.” In 1938 the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 1938 was signed into law and in 1951 the Durham-Humphrey Amendment to it defined which dangerous drugs, like barbiturates, could only be prescribed and refilled by licensed doctors such as psychiatrists. In 1992 Congress passed the Prescription Drug User Fee Act that requires drug and biologics manufacturers to pay fees to the FDA for product applications and supplements, and other services. The act also requires the FDA to use these funds to hire more reviewers to assess drug applications. Today forty percent of the FDA overall is funded by Big Pharma, and 75 percent of its drug division is  funded by Big Pharma. Psychiatrists predominate on the FDA approval boards for new psychotropic  medication and members of those boards often move on to lucrative employment in Big Pharma companies. The Medical Mafia – the FDA, Big Pharma, and psychiatry – is alive and well and, oh, so profitable thanks to Rockefeller’s overt and covert manipulation of the public and the U.S. government until he died in 1937. By then the damage to America’s health and mental health was done and his new monopoly was firmly in place. It still is.

Insider Exposes Big Pharma Marketing Sins of Omission
Latest News

Involuntary Psychiatric Hospitalization America’s Tactic

Involuntary Psychiatric Hospitalization…a Communist’s Tactic? Nope. Today It’s America’s      By Robert Carter/February 15, 2025      Reuters published an article on the 10 th of this month alerting the public to the large increase since the start of the Ukraine war in compulsory psychiatric incarceration of Russians for their political views. 48 dissidents have recently been institutionalized involuntarily.      Instead, Reuters should have published an article on the one million involuntary psychiatric hospital commitments in America in 2022.      “Punitive psychiatry” had been a method of social control used in the Soviet Union since the nineteen-sixties. Today Russia is following suit by again using psychiatrists to label Ukraine war protestors with a mental disorder so that they can be put in a mental hospital.      Russian human rights activist Robert Van Voren notes that these involuntary commitments have quadrupled since 2022, the beginning of the Ukraine conflict. Still, they’re only 38.      To accomplish a “legal” incarceration, Russian psychiatrists had originally come up with two politically convenient diagnoses of mental disorder. “Sluggish schizophrenia” and “reformist delusions” were the terms coined by their psychiatrists, in the same manner that American psychiatrists vote for the inclusion of a new mental disorder into their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.       Communist China solved their problem with social “misfits” through a similar psychiatric tactic. A new mental disorder had been created by Chinese psychiatrists which allowed forceful psychiatric incarceration of Chinese citizens. They were labeled as suffering from what psychiatrists called “culture bound disorder.” Thousands of Falun Gong members, for instance, had been incarcerated in this way because their religious beliefs were considered to be a threat to an ordered Chinese society.      In America today, the rate of involuntary psychiatric detentions has increased sharply over the past two decades. In 2014 the rate of all emergency involuntary detentions was 357 per 100,000 people. Today the rate of involuntary psychiatric incarceration in the United States ranges up to a new high of 966 per 100,000 in Florida.       Laws for involuntary psychiatric incarceration — such as Florida’s Baker Act — now exist in every state. In some jurisdictions, legal mechanisms like Laura’s Law and Kendra’s Law have been passed which authorize court-ordered, forced ingestion of psychiatric drugs for those with “chronic, untreated severe mental illness.”      These laws are said to be used to protect an individual from harming himself or others. However, they can too easily be misused when in the wrong hands, as they have been in Russia and China under the complicity of their psychiatrists.      The problem in America, of course, may not then be the laws themselves. It is the use of them by psychiatrists who are able to incarcerate someone involuntarily in a mental institution through the use of one of their DSM labels of a “mental disorder” which has no scientific basis. The psychiatrist does not even always see in person the one who is being incarcerated.      A psychiatrist just writes down on a form one of the semi-bogus “mental disorders” from the DSM. Those disorders – like Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder, a label for the cramps and heightened emotions for a woman during her monthly cycle – may be no more valid than the “sluggish schizophrenia” or “cultural bound disorder” coined by America’s psychiatric counterparts in Russia and China.      Yet in 2022 American psychiatrists or their proxies forcefully committed just over one million people by ordering these involuntary psychiatric hospitalizations.

Articles, Blog posts

Common Sense or Copious Profit?

Common Sense or Copious Profit? Big Pharma Chooses – Guess Which — for Benzos By Robert Carter/February 6, 2025 Valium, Xanax, Halcion, Ativan, and Klonopin are the most prescribed benzodiazepines. By 2020 more than thirty million people were taking them in the United States. That’s over twelve percent of our country’s population. Benzos, as they are commonly known, are most often prescribed to reduce anxiety. Per the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration they “produce sedation and hypnosis and relieve anxiety and muscle spasms,” but are associated with “amnesia, hostility, irritability, and vivid or disturbing dreams.” Benzos are highly addictive. The DEA reports that patients who try to stop taking them can experience panic attacks, sweating, confusion, vomiting, depersonalization, seizures, and suicidal ideation. They are prescribed twice as often for women as for men. Are there really twenty million women in America who need that level of “sedation and hypnosis” to treat their anxiety? Dr. Heather Ashton, a British psychopharmacologist, was the first in the medical profession to realize the dangers of benzos after so many patients had begun reporting the problems they experienced after long term benzo use. People who had been taking them for months or years came to her and reported their fears that the drugs were actually making them more ill. Their anxiety or depression was no better, and they had begun to have muscle weakness, memory lapses, and heart and digestive issues. Through extensive research, Dr. Ashton then recognized that the problems people were having with benzo dependence were the result of the medication being over-prescribed. She concluded that benzos might be useful in the short term, but that they should never be taken for longer than two to four weeks. Her further research showed that tapering off the dosage — sometimes for a period as long as six months — was the only way to help someone successfully withdraw from these dangerous, menacing drugs without experiencing hideous side effects. Her 1999 publication, Benzodiazepines: How They Work and How to Withdraw , became the medical profession’s definitive work for anyone seeking to quit these prescription drugs safely. It is now known as just “The Ashton Manual.” By 2013 the British National Formulary had updated its guidelines and recommended benzodiazepines for short-term use only. They also suggested a withdrawal protocol based on The Ashton Manual. In 2020 the FDA finally did update their black box warning for benzos to include “the risk of withdrawal reactions, including seizures, when stopping suddenly or reducing the dose too quickly.” But there is still no FDA recommendation for short term use only of benzos. The global revenue in 2022 for benzo sales was just over $2 billion, and it is projected to rise to $3 billion over the next seven years. Guess Big Pharma and the FDA don’t want to cut into that goldmine by limiting benzo prescriptions to a mere two to four weeks, eh?

Insider Exposes Big Pharma Marketing Sins of Omission
Latest News

Suicides Occur while FDA Takes Time to Rule on Dangers of Singulair

At Least 82 Suicides Occur while FDA Takes Two Decades to Rule on Dangers of Singulair and Its Generic Offspring      By Robert Carter/January 30, 2025      Big Pharma drug  manufacturer Merck has had its asthma medicine,  Singulair, and its generic  offshoots, named in more than 4800 reports of psychiatric problems, particularly in children.At least 82 suicides have also been reported for those who took the medication, a third of whom are children.      However, no lawsuits from Singulair victims have been successful due to the legal, but constitutional loophole of “preemption,” which states that federal law overrides state law in these matters. Two U.S. Supreme Court rulings in 2011 and 2013 had barred any lawsuits against generic drug makers which were based on state laws that enabled claims about design defects or about failures to warn consumers of potential dangers.      Merck’s patent on Singulair expired in 2012 – after Merck had reaped more than $50 billion in revenue from it – and thereafter a number of generic drug manufacturers started producing the medication. Although 91 percent of all U.S. prescriptions are now generic, per the FDA, the legal “preemption” defense has protected most all generic drug manufacturers from lawsuits over production defects or inadequate black box warnings.      Only the original name brand drug manufacturers can still be sued, but it is hard to prove their violations of manufacturing defects or inadequate safety warnings.      For example, during Merck’s original clinical trials for Singulair before its 1998 release, one eighteen year old participant had attempted suicide and one twelve year old participant had to be hospitalized for depression and suicidal thoughts. Although there are still pending lawsuits against Merck over Singulair, Merck still has not yet lost any of the earlier suits. In 2014 the FDA dismissed the relevance of these two suicide events.      After Singulair first hit the market in 1998, the reports of psychiatric difficulties and successful suicides after taking the medication continued to accumulate, but it took twenty years before the FDA first took action. It was not until 2008 that an FDA review of the drug’s psychiatric effects and suicide risks recommended “further studies in animals and humans.” That report also suggested the FDA should have Merck conduct its own observational study.       However, the FDA never did require such a study, reasoning in part that serious side effects including suicidal thinking “were expected to be quite rare.”      In 2014 an FDA investigator of the initial Merck trials for Singulair claimed that those two reported suicide events had been unrelated to ingesting Singulair. The FDA agreed, but it did report that those initial Merck clinical trials were short and were not designed to detect psychiatric side-effects.      Stephane Bissonnette, a Merck manager, told the 2014 FDA panel that “suicidality was quite rare” in the trials, using almost exactly the same phrase the FDA itself had used six years earlier.      The lethal side-effects of those taking the medication continued to build – including a count of eighty-two suicides – and in 2019 the FDA convened another board to decide whether the drug’s side-effects warranted a black box warning. Following that board’s report, the FDA should have required new studies of Singulair and its generic descendents, but instead the FDA merely announced in March 2020 that it would only add to the existing black box warning of the drug’s “side-effects.”      At any number of points during its twenty-two year history monitoring Singulair and its generic offshoots, the FDA could have legally – not to mention ethically — required Merck to redo and improve their trials, given the number of severe negative reactions to the drug, but it did not.      If it had, a minimum of 82 suicides might have been prevented and 4800 victims of the psychiatric side-effects of the drug would have been spared their own mental health ordeals.      (Thanks to Reuters’ 2023 Special Report for help bringing this travesty to light).

Articles, Blog posts

You Probably Haven’t Heard of Ernst Rudin

You Probably Haven’t Heard of Ernst Rudin. You Should Have.      By Robert Carter/January 19, 2025       Psychiatry was divided into two schools of practice by 1900. The “talk therapy” guys like Freud introduced a psychoanalytic approach to mental health which tried to help people by having them talk about their emotional and mental troubles. They addressed the mind.      The “biological-cause-of-mental illness” guys like Emil Kraepelin, “the father of modern psychiatry,” who continued their pursuit of an answer to mental illness by addressing the body. They addressed the brain.      The debunked theory of “chemical imbalance” can trace its roots back to these biological cause guys and even to the phrenologists of the early nineteenth  century. From them also came the psychiatric  practices of electroconvulsive therapy and prefrontal lobotomies during the nineteen-thirties to “correct” mental illness.       Kraepelin, like many other psychiatrists of his day, considered  schizophrenia a biological illness, and in 1907 he took on as his assistant at the University of Munich Ernst Rudin. Besides sharing a biological view of mental illness, they both supported the idea that the German race was becoming degenerated by a  “domestication” that was causing higher rates of mental illness.      Rudin began publishing articles on the genetic causes of schizophrenia and he soon became known as the “father of psychiatric genetics,” an advanced theory of body-based mental illness. Rudin’s colleague and brother-in-law was Alfred Ploetz, who himself was known then as the “father” of racial hygiene after the  publication of his “Racial Hygiene Basics” in 1895.      By 1903 Rudin had already argued for the sterilization of incurable alcoholics, and by 1905 he had helped co-found the German Society for Racial Hygiene with Ploetz. In 1917 Emil Kraepelin established the Institute for Psychiatric Research in Munich and he installed his cohort Rudin as head of its Department of Genealogical and Demographic Studies.      By 1920 another Rudin colleague, psychiatrist Alfred Hoche, had  published  “Allowing the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Living.” In 1928 Rudin’s department was expanded greatly due to financial assistance from the American Rockefeller Foundation. By 1932 Rudin was in contact with the British psychiatrist Carlos Blacker and Rudin sent him a copy of the pre-Nazi voluntary sterilization laws.In the 1930s the Rockefeller Foundation funded further studies in psychiatric genetics by      Rudin’s department under the direction of genetic psychiatrists Eliot Slater and Franz Kallmann. Kallmann claimed in 1935 that minor anomalies found in any relatives of diagnosed schizophrenics should be grounds for compulsory sterilization. By that time Rudin’s colleagues had dubbed Rudin the  Reichsfuehrer for Sterilization.      In his 1934 speech praising Adolf Hitler’s racial hygiene program, Rudin wrote “Whoever is  not physically or mentally fit must not pass on his defects to his children. The state must take care that only the fit produce children.”      By 1942 Rudin spoke of the value of “eliminating young children of clearly inferior quality,” and he began financially supporting the work of psychiatrist Carl Schneider, whose activity at the University of Heidelberg involved setting up a training center for the Nazi Action T4 euthanasia program that killed children “for scientific purposes” at thirty facilities over a three year period.      Although Rudin was arrested after the war for his Nazi activities, he was released in 1947 and only given a 500 mark fine. Speculation is that he avoided being charged at the Nuremberg Trials because of his financial connections to American genetics researchers and to American funding entities.      Some say, however, that Rudin was a more influential architect of Nazi extermination policies than the infamous Josef Mengele, who attended Rudin’s lectures and was employed under him. Investigative journalist Victor Bernstein wrote that psychiatrist Ernst Rudin was “one of the most evil men in Germany.”      How is it that the field of psychiatry so often draws in such evil men?      Is it that the brain-based theories of mental illness are themselves malevolent, or do evil psychiatrists just find that those biological theories are perfect for masking their own evil intentions toward humanity?

Insider Exposes Big Pharma Marketing Sins of Omission
Latest News

Big Pharma Cohorts Now under Federal Scrutiny

Birds of a Feather … Big Pharma Cohorts Now under Federal Scrutiny      By Robert Carter/December 23, 2024      Profit continues to be revealed as a driving force in the Big Pharma conglomerate.       Last week a Big Pharma consulting firm, McKinsey and Company, agreed to pay $650 million as a  settlement with the U.S. Justice Department so as to avoid their criminal prosecution for helping boost Purdue Pharma’s sales of its addictive opioid, OxyContin.      This week the U. S. Justice Department released its civil complaint against CVS alleging their complicity in filling unlawful prescriptions of opioids and “trinity” prescriptions (a dangerous combination of an opioid, a benzodiazepine and a muscle relaxant).      These two cases illustrate new legal forays by the Justice Department into those ancillary industries that have helped Big Pharma roll out death and addiction to so many unsuspecting users of their dangerous pharmaceutical concoctions.      Opioids have been linked to 80,000 deaths per year, and in the early years of their distribution to the public most of these fatalities were from legal prescriptions. Since then drug makers and distributors have paid nearly $50 billion in settlements with governments to atone for their unethical and illegal practices in pushing these drugs.      The net of justice is now expanding further as pharmaceutical consulting firms like McKinsey and Company and  pharmaceutical distribution centers such as CVS’s nine thousand pharmacies are coming into the sights of these Justice Department big guns.      McKinsey has acknowledged its guilt in contributing to the opioid crisis and has agreed for the next five years not to work for the sale, marketing, or promotion of controlled substances. The firm’s senior partner, Martin Elling, has also pleaded guilty to obstructing justice after it was discovered he had deleted relevant files from his computer about his business relations with Purdue Pharma.      “We should have appreciated the harm opioids were causing in our society and we should not have undertaken sales and marketing work for Purdue Pharma,” a company spokesperson said.      CVS, on the other hand, is still protesting the current Justice Department accusations.      “We will defend ourselves vigorously against this misguided federal lawsuit,” Amy Thibault, external communications director for CVS, wrote in a statement.      According to the Justice Department complaint, CVS ignored substantial  evidence from its own pharmacists as well as from other internal and external data and sources that its pharmacies were dispensing controlled substance  prescriptions without any medical purpose from known “pill mill” prescribers.      The Justice Department complaint also alleges that CVS sought reimbursement from federal health care programs for these  prescriptions, which is a violation of the U.S. False Claims Act.      “Each of the  prescriptions in question was for an FDA-approved opioid medication,” CVS’s Amy Thibault went on to say, and it was “prescribed by a practitioner who the government itself licensed, authorized, and empowered to write controlled-substance prescriptions.”      Yes, that’s right, Amy, and these guys are even more birds of a Big Pharma feather.

Scroll to Top