reSee.it - Related Video Feed

In this video, the speaker addresses the current state of drug use for mental health problems, focusing on antidepressants, antipsychotics, and mood stabilizers. They challenge the belief that these medications correct an underlying chemical imbalance, arguing for a drug-centered model instead. The speaker discusses the historical development of the disease-centered model and the influence of pharmaceutical companies. They advocate for a more honest and collaborative approach to drug treatment. The issue of unpublished research and the addictive nature of psychotropic medications are also discussed. The importance of individuals taking control of their own health and seeking alternative treatments is emphasized. The Soteria project is mentioned as a potential alternative for treating psychosis without relying solely on medication. Additionally, the speakers highlight the significance of considering social factors in understanding mental health issues.

Laura Delano discusses her experience with psychiatric drugs, starting at age 13. She claims the "chemical imbalance" theory is a lie and that 66 million Americans are on these drugs. She describes Post-SSRI Sexual Dysfunction (PSSD) and the outrage she faced after sharing her story of getting off medication. Delano recounts being diagnosed with bipolar disorder at 14 and put on a cocktail of drugs, including antidepressants, mood stabilizers, and antipsychotics. She says she was told it was a lifelong, incurable condition. She says there are no objective tests for mental illness, only subjective observations. She describes feeling numb and disconnected while on the drugs, and experiencing physical side effects like digestive issues and weight fluctuations. Delano says the drugs impaired her ability to think critically and connect with others. She says she eventually realized the treatment was making her sicker. She highlights the lack of long-term safety studies and the dangers of polypharmacy. She advocates for informed consent and questions the motives of the mental health industry. She emphasizes the importance of community, empathy, and finding purpose as alternatives to medication. She says she experienced withdrawal symptoms when she stopped taking the drugs. She says she found purpose in sharing her story and helping others make informed choices.

The speaker receives an award and discusses the controversy surrounding mental illness and psychiatry. They argue that the diagnosis of mental illness is a weapon used to silence those who question the authority of psychiatry. They claim that there is no scientific evidence for brain lesions causing mental illness and that psychiatrists had to create their own book of diseases called the DSM, which they consider to be a work of fiction. The speaker concludes by stating that the diagnosis of mental illness is always a weapon.

Speaker 0 discusses the effectiveness and limits of psychiatric treatment. They say: “How many patients have you been able to cure so far? I would say one.” They also state, “There are no real cures right now in psychiatry. I don’t know that any of us are ever completely cured of anything.” On biological tests for mental illness, they remark, “What kind of biological tests do we have available today for detecting mental illnesses? None. I always felt like I was throwing darts in the dark at my patients and had hurt some of them.” They list various medications, including “Lithium. Remeron is another one. Trazodone. Zagradog. Depakure, levothyroxine. Amexico. Equatroids. Depakure. Lithium. Ambien. You may need an antidepressant also with a with pempectomy.” They warn about safety, noting that “There is a reason that most psychiatric medications have black box warnings. Give them to the wrong person, and you can precipitate a disaster.” They acknowledge uncertainty in efficacy: “We don't know if I give you a medication if it is going to work or not. To a certain degree, it's trial and error.” The speaker claims, “I have cured none of my patients.” Finally, they question who benefits: “The people who makes the diagnosis.”

Speaker 0 argues that the food supply is treated with a chemical called folic acid, which is not a natural vitamin and did not exist until the 1980s. According to the speaker, folic acid is not found anywhere on the surface of the earth, whereas folate does exist in nature. The speaker notes that during pregnancy, women are told to take high doses of folic acid, and questions why a man-made chemical that didn’t exist until the eighties is deemed absolutely necessary for a healthy pregnancy. The comparison is made between folate and methylfolate, implying a distinction between natural forms and synthetic forms. The speaker also states that in the United States, the entire grain supply—flour, rice, bread, pasta, grains of any kind, and cereals—is required to be sprayed with folic acid, although this is not openly labeled as such. Instead, it is described as fortified or enriched foods. The speaker claims that these fortified or enriched nutrients are fed to children, and asserts that half of the population has a gene mutation that prevents them from processing folic acid effectively. The consequence, according to the speaker, is that when a person cannot process a high amount of something introduced into the body, it becomes dysfunctional. The speaker then connects this to a broader societal issue, describing a common scenario: a child goes to school, comes home with a phone call reporting inattention and poor ability to follow directions, and the ensuing medical response is the prescription of stimulants such as Adderall or Ritalin. The speaker characterizes this as a solution that uses amphetamines to accelerate the central nervous system to match the pace of a racing mind, rather than addressing underlying factors. Ultimately, the speaker presents a proposed solution: remove folic acid, fortified, and enriched nutrients from the diet, and observe changes in behavior. The underlying claim is that eliminating these synthetic nutrients would calm behavior and improve function, implying that the current approach relies on artificial chemistry rather than natural nutrition.

Speaker 0 argues against psychiatry, claiming it is a pseudoscience and criticizes the use of drugs and electric shock therapy. Speaker 1 counters by mentioning that some people have found relief through antidepressants and counseling. Speaker 0 dismisses this, stating that drugs only mask the problem and that there is no such thing as a chemical imbalance. Speaker 1 questions the term "postpartum depression," to which Speaker 0 clarifies that he believes drugs are not the answer and can be dangerous. Speaker 1 suggests that some treatments may work for certain individuals, but Speaker 0 dismisses this, accusing Speaker 1 of not understanding the history of psychiatry. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 criticizing Speaker 1's lack of knowledge about Ritalin.

The speaker is against drugs and psychiatric abuses like electric shock, particularly drugging children without understanding the effects. The speaker claims Ritalin is now a street drug and that psychiatry masks problems without addressing the root cause. They assert there is no such thing as a chemical imbalance and that drugs are not the answer, especially dangerous, mind-altering antipsychotics. The speaker challenges the other person's knowledge of Ritalin and the history of psychiatry, urging them to research the origins of chemical imbalance theories and the lack of medical tests for Ritalin dosage. The speaker suggests that discussing the issue reasonably without sufficient knowledge is irresponsible, especially on a platform like the Today Show.

The speaker describes over forty years of work with psychiatrists and notes that the voices schizophrenics hear are not true hallucinations. He argues that these voices follow very specific, predictable patterns—about 23 of them—and that frontline clinicians can observe them without advanced lab equipment. He contends that psychiatry did not originate the idea of a chemical imbalance as the cause of schizophrenia; rather, it was devised by Eli Lilly in the 1970s when there was no clear explanation for the voices. According to him, the chemical imbalance theory was created to provide a cause and to avoid looking foolish, and it required labs and extensive disproving to challenge. He claims that those who first proposed the chemical imbalance theory could not support it with solid evidence, and that only a few university researchers outside the so-called psychiatric establishment began to question it, finding no chemical imbalance and admitting they did not even know what the brain’s chemical balance should be. He asserts that there have been no studies confirming a chemical imbalance as the cause of schizophrenia and that the theory was fabricated to appear explanatory. The speaker then shifts to the nature of the voices themselves, describing them as consistently negative: they are insulting, abusive, destructive, anti-religious, and hostile toward religion and spirituality, including a dislike of the Bible and preachers, and they reject the Twenty-Third Psalm. He claims the voices foster and create negative emotion, which is the reason they produce rotten statements to the person hearing them—suggesting that the voices aim to undermine self-worth and provoke despair. According to the speaker, when people hear these voices and are attacked by them, their energy level drops to nothing after the voices leave, and they do not notice the decline in energy. They observe that energy was not used during the attack and wonder where it went. The speaker posits a one-to-one correspondence between the appearance of the voices and the vanishing of energy, concluding that the voices “take” emotional energy in this way. He asserts that the voices survive on negative emotional energy, turning emotional state negative before they can be sustained by it.

According to the speaker, 100% of documented school shootings in America over the past 52 years were committed by teenagers on either an antidepressant or a barbiturate drug for anxiety. The speaker claims that every antidepressant, including Prozac, Zoloft, and Xanax, as well as anti-anxiety drugs, are published to increase the risk of suicide, violent behavior, and homicidal actions. The speaker asserts that these drugs are prescribed by doctors and sold at pharmacies like CVS and Walgreens.

Speaker 0 challenges the doctor, asking if they are being forced to put their child on ADHD medicine or risk CPS involvement. Speaker 1 asserts that the medication is recommended for the child and that following the doctor’s instructions is in the child’s best interest. The doctor states they will be forced to call CPS if the guidance isn’t followed and emphasizes doing what’s best for the child, framing it as not a favor but a necessity. Speaker 0 contends the child has not shown ADHD symptoms and asks for a second opinion, to which Speaker 1 responds that they are the doctor. Speaker 0 reiterates that they are being told either to put the child on medication or CPS will be called, calling this forcing. The doctor clarifies that they asked about a second opinion, maintains they are the doctor, and says if the patient doesn’t trust their doctor, they shouldn’t be coming there, which Speaker 0 finds unreasonable. Speaker 1 repeats that they are not threatening, but are trying to do what’s best for the patient and their child, and adds that if you love your child enough you will listen to their words. Speaker 0 pushes back, stating you cannot tell them how to feel about loving their child, and reiterates that the doctor is still the doctor, with Speaker 1 acknowledging the child’s importance but underscoring their medical role.

The speaker is against drugs and psychiatric abuses like electric shock and drugging children without knowing the effects. They claim Ritalin is now a street drug and that psychiatry masks problems without addressing the root cause. They assert there is no such thing as a chemical imbalance and that drugs are not the answer, particularly mind-altering antipsychotic drugs. The speaker challenges the other person's knowledge of Ritalin and the research behind chemical imbalance theories, questioning the lack of medical tests to determine appropriate Ritalin dosage. They suggest the other person should be more responsible in understanding the issue, especially when discussing it on platforms like the Today Show, rather than being reasonable about something they don't fully know.

"You have to have a term in the diagnostic and statistical manual in order to then call it a disease and treat it as a disease and write prescription for it." "Now there are over 300." "There have been 294 diagnoses diseases discovered discovered in the last sixty years in men in psychiatry alone? It's a joke." "It's an epidemic of psychiatry that we are dealing with." "No free will." "It's all chemicals." "A chemical imbalance matches very well with the idea that you give a drug which restores the balance." "Nobody has yet measured, demonstrated, or created a test to show that somebody has a chemical imbalance in their brain, period." "It is not science. It's politics and economics." "Behavior control." "It is not science. It is not medicine."

I oppose the use of drugs and psychiatric practices like electric shock without consent, especially in children. Many are unaware of the dangers of drugs like Adderall and Ritalin, which can be abused. There’s a misconception about chemical imbalances; drugs often just mask underlying issues. While there may be some cases where these treatments seem effective, it's crucial to understand the research behind them. There’s no definitive medical test to determine Ritalin dosage. It’s important to be informed and responsible when discussing these topics, especially in a public forum like the Today Show.

Beauty blockers have been used by doctors for kids experiencing precocious puberty. The conversation then shifts to transgender children, with one speaker arguing that gender affirming care is life-saving and reduces suicide rates. The other speaker questions the lack of studies on suicide rates among transgender children and argues against medical interventions like hormone therapy and surgeries. The conversation becomes heated, with one speaker claiming that transgender children don't exist and that they should be accepted as they are, while the other argues that they need medical interventions. The debate centers around the belief that transgender children are either born in the wrong body or that they should be accepted without medical interventions.

Mike Adams introduces “medication spellbinding,” a concept borrowed from Dr. Peter Breggin, a psychiatrist known for criticizing mass medication. The term, also called Anosognosia, describes patients’ unawareness that they are mentally impaired, which can lead to involuntary violence or suicide and a lack of significant therapeutic efficacy compared to placebo. Drugs mask or hide their harmful mental and emotional effects, causing people to feel better in their own minds while their real-world behavior deteriorates. Some individuals become desperately depressed or violently aggressive without realizing the medication is causing it. Adams notes that the pharmacopoeia of big pharma has historical ties to sorcery, and mentions Ambien as an example some people claim leads to bizarre sleepwalking or even sleep driving. He also cites akathisia and emotional blunting associated with SSRIs, where people lose empathy and feel detached from emotional reality. School shooters are discussed, with links suggested between SSRI use or sudden cessation and violent acts. The central claim is that psychiatric drugs work by disabling brain function; SSRIs are described as inhibitory—selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors—blocking serotonin reuptake and flooding the brain with serotonin, thereby “disabling” brain function and creating spellbinding effects. Dr. Breggin’s theory, articulated in articles in Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry and in his 2008 book Medication Madness, outlines four overlapping effects of these drugs. First, patients fail to recognize the degree of drug-induced mental impairment. Second, they deny that the drug causes any altered state, attributing changes to the underlying illness or personal failure. Third, patients may feel they are functioning better while objective markers—work performance, relationships, judgment—deteriorate. Fourth, severe forms can lead to actions radically uncharacteristic, including self-injury, suicide, or violence, without subjective recognition that the drug drives the behavior. Adams contrasts psychiatric drug intoxication with alcohol intoxication, noting society’s greater cultural recognition of alcohol effects and the relative lack of recognition of medication intoxication. He argues that conventional psychiatry maintains a presumption of benefit for these drugs, insisting they are safe and effective, even as they admit these drugs alter brain chemistry. The speaker questions the reliability of psychiatrists, claiming many are on medications themselves and that the DSM can pathologize normal emotions, leading to more drug prescriptions rather than addressing root causes. He urges extreme caution with psychiatric medications and favors natural approaches: sunshine, good nutrition, exercise, and reducing addictive substances. He emphasizes that these drugs can cause aberrant behaviors and suggest that obtaining proper diagnosis and treatment through conventional psychiatry may perpetuate a cycle of polypharmacy and worsening symptoms. He also touches on broader societal stressors—economic pressures, relationships, and global tensions—that exacerbate mental health concerns. The discussion closes with a brief note that discoveries will be shared regularly, with the aim of presenting both positive and other discoveries, and mentions resources for further information (omitting promotional content as requested).

Depression drugs cannot cure people, but they can influence certain symptoms like emotional numbness and reduced self-care. However, these drugs can also cause sexual dysfunction even after discontinuation. Overall, these drugs are deemed terrible and should not be used. Psychiatry is unique in the healthcare field as its leaders consistently lie about the capabilities of their drugs. This situation is disheartening.

Speaker 0 believes vaccines are the cause of all disease. Speaker 1 disagrees, calling this a bogus statement, and claims that studies have only looked at two of 36 shots and one of 35 vaccines. Speaker 1 asserts that it is irrefutable that vaccines cause autism and accuses doctors of not reading studies and misleading parents. Speaker 0 says that Speaker 1 is antagonizing the medical community and Dr. Sears. Speaker 0 states the show is about helping kids and that yelling only causes anger. Speaker 0 feels attacked for being asked to defend their stance.

The speaker is questioned about his stance on childhood vaccines, with many scientific and medical organizations disagreeing with him. The audience asks how they can help him align with science. The speaker clarifies that he is not anti-vaccine, but believes vaccines should undergo safety testing like other medicines. He criticizes the lack of prelicensing placebo-controlled trials for vaccines and cites examples of potential risks and lack of long-term studies. The other speaker argues that there is evidence of vaccines preventing diseases and highlights the importance of distinguishing between association and causation. The speaker emphasizes the need for good science and questions the trustworthiness of pharmaceutical companies. The conversation ends with a discussion about the speaker's family not supporting his views on vaccines.

Speaker 0 suggests the increase in autism diagnoses is due to over-diagnosis, with children now receiving multiple diagnoses for what was once considered normal behavior, and that autism diagnoses are currently fashionable. Speaker 1 refutes this, calling it nonsense and an industry-driven myth. They claim numerous studies in reputable journals confirm a real autism epidemic. If it were simply better diagnosis, older people would also be diagnosed, but the epidemic is specific to those born after 1989. Speaker 1, age 71, states they have never seen someone their age with profound autism, characterized by nonverbal communication, lack of toilet training, head banging, and stimming. The speaker questions why, if it weren't an epidemic, it would only affect a single generation.