“Johnson was prescribed a muscle relaxant, an antidepressant and anti-anxiety and sleep medication, and a nurse offered him tips on managing anger, records show.

He also saw a psychiatrist and was further evaluated for his PTSD symptoms in September of that year, but the physician noted that his mood was “better.”

When providers called Johnson in October 2014, he requested to put off further assessment for PTSD…”


The AP has just run an article discussing the medical records recently released on Micah Johnson, the Dallas Police shooter who just over a month ago on July 7 targeted and killed five Dallas Police officers before being killed. Important excerpts from that article follow below. Let me point out that Micah Johnson did not see heavy combat in Afganistan, but he returned as so many are with symptoms of PTSD which antidepressants do produce. See our Facebook group: Antidepressant-Induced PTSD

If you will recall from the following 2010 report we learned that one out of six soldiers in the Iraq/Afghanistan conflict are reportedly being prescribed antidepressants even though the majority are still in the age group of under 25 who are cautioned that doing so will increase the rate of suicidal ideation.

“Upon his return to the U.S. nine months later, Johnson told doctors he was experiencing panic attacks a few times a week, including once while at Wal-Mart, where there was an unspecified conflict that required a police response, the records said.

“Veteran states hearing all the noises, fights and police intervening caused him to have palpitations, ‘My heart felt like someone was pinching it while it was beating fast,'” the records state. Johnson said he began shaking, felt short of breath and got chills following the Wal-Mart incident.

“….he had lower back pain and was avoiding “crowds of people and when in the public, scanning the area for danger, noting all the exits, watching everyone’s actions.”

“I feel like I can’t trust all of these strangers around me,” Johnson told his doctor, who noted that he had taken to drinking since his return to Dallas, consuming three to four shots of vodka up to three times a week. “It’s hard for me to be around other people and I am so angry and irritable.”




Details on this case can be found here:

We also know that what the VA so often gives for sleep is an antidepressant thereby mixing two antidepressants together which should not be given together due to the strong potential of Serotonin Syndrome. One major example would be the case of the Navy Yard Shooter in 2013 who shot and killed 13 after being given Trazadone for sleep:   (Please see our Facebook group Trazadone Should Be Illegal

We all know that once you are started on medications at the VA they just continue with little followup and we all know how extremely difficult it is to get off these medications once they are started. Add to that the fact that Micah Johnson was being treated by the VA North Texas Health Care System, the second largest VA health care system in the country.

From the article we learn, “In May 2014, new patients seeking mental health care at the Dallas VA faced a 50-day average wait, then the 10th longest in the nation.

“The mother of Gavin Long, the former Marine and Iraq war veteran who killed three law enforcement officers July 17 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, told PBS’ Tavis Smiley that her son had post-traumatic stress disorder and unsuccessfully sought the VA’s help.”



SSRIstories.NET is a database of the cases our group at the International Coalition for Drug Awareness has gathered over the past 2 1/2 decades, including nearly every school shooter and mass shooter in the country. The question remains in all of these cases as to the level of consciousness of the perpetrator – something that is never tested in the court cases and should be. (Tragically in this case that is no longer an option.) Testing is still back in the dark ages with blood levels of drugs rather than brain waves which will detect the level of consciousness and therefore culpability. These are drugs that accumulate in brain tissue at an alarming rate. Testing the blood tells us nothing about the level of toxicity.



Tragically the answer is simple. Antidepressants strongly impair sleep producing a disorder known as a REM Sleep Disorder (RBD) where you act out nightmares in a sleep state. And who gets hurt in your nightmares if not those you care about the most? Of those being diagnosed with RBD 86% are taking an antidepressant and 80% of them hurt themselves or someone else. It has long been know that this includes both murder and suicide as a result. RBD was known basically as a drug withdrawal state before the SSRI antidepressants hit the market. So having someone withdraw slowly enough to avoid serious withdrawal is key in prevention.

Take the case of Andrea Yates, also a nurse, and the third nurse in a three month period to go to court for killing her children – all while on antidepressants. The other two nurses were married to doctors. Just the day before Andrea drowned all five of her children she had two huge dosage changes in her antidepressants (which the FDA warns can produced suicide, hostility, and/or psychosis) so she was on two antidepressants, both at maximum dose when she drowned her children. Rusty Yates will tell you in a heartbeat that losing her children was Andrea’s very worst nightmare. She had even quit her nursing career so she could spend more time with them. (Also during Andrea’s second trial a female doctor in Illinois on one of the antidepressants Andrea was taking stabbed her two sons.)




What the world remains unaware of is the fact is that 86% of those who are diagnosed with the most deadly sleep disorder known as REM Sleep Disorder (RBD) are currently taking antidepressants. REM Sleep Disorder is a condition in which there is no paralysis during sleep thus allowing the patient to act out the dreams or nightmares they are having. Tragically 80% of those going into this sleep disorder hurt themselves or others including both murder and suicide as a result.

This is possibly the most deadly of all reactions one can have to antidepressants. Even more frightening though is to learn that before the introduction of the SSRI antidepressants RBD was known mainly as a drug withdrawal effect. Thus the chances of going into this dangerous reaction should be expected to increase as one goes into withdrawal. This is why it is so important to avoid as much of the withdrawal effects as possible by tapering off the antidepressant very, very slowly.


What so many were not aware of is that an increase in serotonin by an accompanying decrease in one’s ability to metabolize serotonin has long been known to produce both impulsive murder and suicide. Yet this is exactly what we are told is how antidepressants produce what we are told is their “therapeutic” or beneficial effect in ridding one of depression and anxiety! See this study out of the Southern California:

1996 – Mutant Mice May Hold Key To Human Violence – An Excess Of Serotonin.

08/11/1996 – Mutant Mice May Hold Key To Human Violence – An Excess Of Serotonin, A Chemical That Helps Regulate Mood And Mental Health, Causes Mayhem


Ann Blake Tracy, Executive Director,

International Coalition for Drug Awareness & ssristories.NET
Author: ”Prozac: Panacea or Pandora? – Our Serotonin Nightmare – The Complete Truth of the Full Impact of Antidepressants Upon Us & Our World” & Withdrawal CD “Help! I Can’t Get Off My Antidepressant!”

WITHDRAWAL WARNING: In sharing this information about adverse reactions to antidepressants I always recommend that you also give reference to my CD on safe withdrawal, Help! I Can’t Get Off My Antidepressant!, so that we do not have more people dropping off these drugs too quickly – a move which I have warned from the beginning can be even more dangerous than staying on the drugs!

WITHDRAWAL HELP: You can find the hour and a half long CD on safe and effective withdrawal helps here: And if you need additional consultations with Ann Blake-Tracy, you can book one at or sign up for one of the memberships in the International Coalition for Drug Awareness which includes free consultations as one of the benefits of that particular membership plan. For only a $30 membership for one month you can even get 30 days of access to the withdrawal CD with tips on rebuilding after the meds, all six of my DVDs, hundreds of radio interviews, lectures, TV interviews I have done over the years PLUS access to my book on antidepressants (500 plus pages) with more information than you will find anywhere else (that is only $5 more than the book alone would cost) at (Definitely the best option to save outrageous postage charges for those out of the country!)

 5,055 total views

ANTIDEPRESSANTS & Anti-Anxiety Pills: Man Accidentally Takes an Overdose: UK

Last three paragraphs read:  “The 59-year-old suffered
from anxiety and depression since his teenage years and was taking
anti-depressants and antianxiety pills, the hearing was told.”

“Terrance Bird, a friend, told the inquest that Mr Smith sometimes
forgot how many pills he had taken.”

“East Lancashire Coroner
Richard Taylor concluded that Mr Smith did not mean to take his own life and
died accidentally on January 7 as a result of
taking two prescribed drugs.”

Rawtenstall man died of accidental overdose of prescribed

10:39am Wednesday 17th February 2010

ROSSENDALE man died accidentally after taking a lethal concoction of prescribed
medication, an inquest heard.

Geoffrey Smith, of Holland Avenue,
Rawtenstall, was found dead at his house after failing to measure his medication
properly, Burnley Coroner’s Court heard.

The 59-year-old suffered from

anxiety and depression since his teenage years and was taking anti-depressants
and antianxiety pills, the hearing was told.

Terrance Bird, a friend,
told the inquest that Mr Smith sometimes forgot how many pills he had taken.

East Lancashire Coroner Richard Taylor concluded that Mr Smith did not
mean to take his own life and died accidentally on January 7 as a result of
taking two prescribed drugs.

 1,696 total views,  1 views today

Antidepressants and anti-anxiety medications & heart risks

NOTE FROM Ann Blake-Tracy:

Although there have been concerns voiced and many other
studies released on this issue here is a study that was just released yesterday
morning – the morning after Britney Murphey’s sudden death.
Antidepressants and anti-anxiety medications may increase the
risk of heart disease, heart attacks and stroke in women, a new study

Antidepressants up heart disease risks

[Posted: Mon 21/12/2009 by Olivia Fens]

Antidepressants and anti-anxiety medications may increase the
risk of heart disease, heart attacks and stroke in women, a new study

According to researchers, from Uniformed Services University
in the US, women with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) who were taking
antidepressant and anti-anxiety medications had an increased risk of
cardiovascular events, compared to women not taking these

“It needs to be considered that taking antidepressant and
anti-anxiety medications may not be beneficial, and may in fact be harmful for
some women,” the researchers said.

The authors of the study, however,
said further research was needed to examine whether factors such as underlying
depression and anxiety, and not medications per se, may be responsible for these

Nevertheless, they added that the findings of the study
emphasised the importance of emotional and psychosocial factors in women with
suspected coronary artery disease.

The paper was published in the journal

 1,656 total views,  1 views today

6/1/2000 – Direct to consumer advertising

It is my opinion that one of the most frightening and dangerous practices in
American medicine today is this direct to consumer advertising. Advertising
of tobacco products has been banned, yet they are allowed to advertise
prescription drugs? Where is the logic?

Clearly many who have had their lives destroyed by the SSRIs would not have
ever taken the first pill had it not been for direct to consumer ads leading
them to believe that someone coming back to Prozac would be young, slender,
and athletic, rather than old and worn out, overweight and bloated, and
barely able to move or function. Or the Paxil ad leading them to believe the
drug would help them “come into life” rather than being honest about the drug
helping them come into the “afterlife” thanks to the very deadly effects of

It is my opinion that these drug company ads are the most perfect example of
the biblical prophesy about our day when they would call evil “good” and good

Ann Blake-Tracy, Executive Director,
International Coalition for Drug Awareness

With TV Spots, Drug Firms Aim At Patients’ Role

By Susan Okie
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, May 22, 2000 ; A01

In an animated television commercial for the anti-anxiety drug Buspar, a
woman sweeps her list of woes–worry, sleeplessness, muscle aches,
irritability–into the trash.

In one for Prilosec, a long-acting heartburn remedy, smiling people play or
recline on the faces of giant clocks.

And in a commercial for the antihistamine Zyrtec, a man with “indoor and
outdoor allergies” is sniffle-free as he flies a toy plane around his yard.

A pill can fix whatever ails you: That’s the message that makers of these
and other heavily advertised prescription drugs seem to be sending American
consumers. For years, pharmaceutical companies promoted
such medicines exclusively to doctors, since they wrote the prescriptions and
thus determined sales. But in the last decade, as managed care has limited
the drugs that doctors can choose from health plans’ formularies and as
consumers have demanded more say in their treatment, some companies have
dramatically shifted their marketing strategy.

Now, for a growing number of drugs, the patient is the target.
Direct-to-consumer advertising for prescription medicines increased nearly
20-fold during the 1990s. Last year, U.S. drug companies spent almost
$1.9 billion urging consumers to try prescription remedies for conditions
ranging from allergies and baldness to diabetes and high cholesterol. Of that
total, $1.1 billion was spent on television commercials, the fastest-growing
medium for advertising prescription medicines. The goal is to send patients
to the doctor demanding a brand-name drug, even if they have to pay for it

“There are a lot of forces now that are basically pushing the decision-making
back to the consumer,” said Jim Daly, general manager for respiratory and
anti-infective marketing at Glaxo Wellcome, the top-spending company for
consumer advertising of prescription drugs.

Sabrina Smith of Arlington is the kind of consumer these companies are
trying to reach. Smith, 32, suffers from hay fever and is allergic to her two
cats. She has tried five different prescription medicines in the last two
years in response to TV commercials, with little success.

Drug ads “really grab my attention,” she said. “Why is it that I trust them
so much more than any other ad? . . . My allergies are so bad that I just get
desperate.” When a commercial mentioned a drug’s side effects, she added, “I
used to not even hear them, because I’d think, ‘Oh my God, here’s something
else that might help me.’ ”

Sales figures for heavily promoted drugs suggest that the strategy works.
U.S. sales for the antihistamine Claritin, No. 1 in direct consumer
advertising, were $2.3 billion last year; Prilosec, one of the top five, had
$3.8 billion in sales. But whether such advertising is good for patients–and
for the U.S. health care system–are hotly debated questions.

Advocates say the ads alert people to new treatments and open up discussion
of once-forbidden topics such as impotence or depression. Critics charge that
the ads play down medicines’ risks, contribute to steeply rising prescription
drug costs and encourage Americans to believe that pills–rather than
lifestyle changes or other nondrug interventions–are invariably the
treatment of choice.

“The aim is to sell a product,” said Barbara Mintzes, a public health
researcher at the University of British Columbia’s Centre for Health Services
and Policy Research. She noted that the United States and
New Zealand are the only countries that allow direct-to-consumer advertising
of prescription drugs, although Canada is considering such a policy. “It
doesn’t give [consumers] an overview of what’s available and whether it’s the
most appropriate treatment or the best value for money,” Mintzes said.

Although most prescription drug advertising still focuses on doctors, the
number of medicines being promoted to patients is growing. Many drugs
marketed in this way are for problems that are more bothersome than
dangerous: allergy symptoms, baldness, acne, migraine headaches. But
medicines for serious, chronic illnesses such as diabetes and asthma are
promoted, as well.

“Even on TV, we’re talking about over 40 drugs” advertised to consumers, said
Nancy M. Ostrove, chief of the division of drug
marketing, advertising and communications at the Food and Drug
Administration’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “It’s
easily over 100 if you count print [advertising] too.”

The boom in television ads began in August 1997, after the FDA issued a
“guidance” that made it easier for companies to craft commercials that
complied with agency regulations. Previously, every broadcast advertisement
linking a drug with a condition had to state the medicine’s potential side
effects and tell consumers how to get a copy of the product labeling. The new
guidance allowed TV and radio ads to mention only major risks and to list
four sources–“your doctor,” a toll-free number, a Web site and a concurrent
print ad–for people who wanted additional information.

In the three years since the guidance, television ads for drugs have
proliferated–and quite a few have run afoul of the FDA for lack of balance,
incomplete information or misleading claims.

Drug commercials need not be preapproved by the agency. Companies must send a
copy to the FDA whenever a new TV ad (or any other prescription drug ad)
debuts. Ostrove said her staff of 15 reviewers was responsible for screening
about 30,000 pieces of promotional material last year, including more than
100 television commercials. Even though TV ads for drugs are a top priority,
misleading ads have sometimes reached millions of viewers before FDA staffers
saw them and picked up violations.

According to an FDA official, 50 prescription drugs have been promoted on TV
or radio since August 1997. In the same period, the agency has sent 23
regulatory letters to drug companies for advertisements that violated FDA
rules. That total doesn’t include violations found in so-called reminder ads,
which the agency counts separately. (Reminder ads mention a drug’s name but
must not specify what it’s for, and they are not required to list its side

So far this year, two companies have received letters about TV commercials
that violated FDA regulations. The offending ads
were for the heartburn remedy Prevacid and the anti-allergy nasal spray

“Sometimes [companies] will argue with us, but generally they pull the ads,”
Ostrove said. “In some cases we have asked for
remedial advertisements.”

Daly of Glaxo Wellcome, which makes Flonase, said the FDA’s position on
direct-to-consumer advertising is still evolving and often difficult for
companies to predict. “It is far from black and white, in terms of what
claims and what fair balance the agency feels comfortable with,” he said.

Every prescription drug ad contains some variation of the phrase “ask your
doctor”–and physicians say that’s just what patients are doing. As a result,
direct-to-consumer advertising is shifting the agenda of many doctor-patient
encounters and influencing treatment decisions.

“One-fifth or one-sixth of the patients that I see either come in with an
advertisement that they’re holding or mention something that they’ve seen,”
said Michael S. Wilkes, a professor of medicine at the
University of California at Los Angeles who has published studies on the
impact of consumer advertising.

About 75 percent to 80 percent of the time, a patient who asks for a
specific drug receives it, according to several surveys. “The physician
doesn’t want to disappoint patients,” Wilkes said. “It takes time to answer,
to argue or to reeducate somebody. [Doctors] don’t want to be perceived as
cheap or cutting corners.”

A selection of Washington area doctors said drug advertisements sometimes
prompt patients to seek treatment for serious problems that they might
otherwise have ignored.

“If they come in and say, ‘I’m anxious or depressed and I’d like to consider
medication,’ it just makes talking about it so much easier,” said Bryan J.
Arling, who practices internal medicine in the District.

But doctors also complained that responding to requests for specific drugs
takes up time that might be better used discussing lifestyle changes or other
issues. “[Patients] all say, ‘Well, it [the drug] is paid for by my insurance
plan,’ ” said Ronald E. Greger, a family physician in Gaithersburg. “It’s
going to take the doctor time to explain why an alternative might be better.
. . . If I’m going to get paid $38 or $48 for the visit, I can just give you
the [drug] that you really wanted in two minutes and you’re going to leave

The explosion in consumer advertising is contributing to rising health care
costs. Americans spent more than $100 billion on prescription medicines last
year, about 10 cents in every health care dollar. The average cost of a
prescription rose 11.6 percent last year–partly because of increasing
research and development costs, but also because of hefty promotion budgets.
Drugs advertised to consumers tend to be among the newest and most expensive
on the market, and ads may woo patients away from cheaper generic drugs.

There’s indirect evidence that consumer advertising also increases visits to
the doctor and medical testing. For example, in the year after an advertising
campaign for Fosamax, an osteoporosis treatment, patient visits for
osteoporosis evaluations almost doubled, according to the market research
firm IMS Health Inc. In the first nine months of 1998, according to a survey
by Scott-Levin, a drug-marketing research firm, total patient visits rose by
only 2 percent compared with the same period in 1997, but visits for hair
loss doubled and visits for smoking cessation more than tripled. Drugs for
baldness and to help smokers quit were being heavily promoted at the time.

Daly of Glaxo Wellcome said consumer advertising motivates people to seek
help for problems–such as migraine, allergies or irritable bowel
syndrome–that many doctors tend to minimize and treat in a limited way. “I
think it’s an empowering message . . . that the condition you have is real,
it’s not psychosomatic, it’s not in your head, there’s a biological basis and
there are effective treatments available,” he said.

Smith, the Arlington woman, recalled one occasion when a drug ad provoked a
valuable exchange with her doctor. She saw a commercial for Zyban, an
antidepressant marketed for people who want to quit

Smith, who was a longtime smoker, asked her doctor at Kaiser Permanente, an
HMO, about the drug. “He said, ‘Well, that’s a lot
of money, and it usually doesn’t work,’ ” she recalled. Instead, the doctor
suggested she try a nicotine patch and a smoking-cessation program at a local
hospital. She did–and she hasn’t smoked since.

Cathy Alphin of Springfield, another Kaiser Permanente member, believes drug
advertisements have made her a more knowledgeable patient. Alphin said seeing
such ads prompted her to ask her doctor about alternative treatments for her
chronic sinusitis.

Drug ads directed her to pharmaceutical company Web sites, which she learned
to check regularly for new treatments and rebate offers. From there, she
began to surf other health sites to address her medical questions. “Now I go
out and look on the Web,” she said. “I’m responsible to be an informed

© 2000 The Washington Post Company

 1,964 total views