Along with the topic of abortion, soaring gas prices, food shortage, and the crumbling Southern border, Americans are now dealing with multiple mass shootings over the last few months. The latest, happening in Uvalde, Texas, caused President Joe Biden to call for stricter gun laws and for certain assault rifles to be banned. Knowing that plan would be welcomed with criticism and backlash, the Democrats also promoted Red Flag Laws that could end due process in America.
While Americans call for action and for future generations to be protected, former physician Dr. Andrew Wakefield recently explained that the surge in shootings might be due to the medications marketed toward ending mental illness.
Discussing the wave of mass shootings and how the pharmaceutical companies could be involved, Dr. Wakefield, in the video below, stated, “Now that we understand the chemistry of the brain, we at least we thought, we could develop pharmaceutical agents that could affect, that could influence you. It could treat every psychological or psychiatric manifestation or disease in human beings. No, we couldn’t. That, again, has been an utter disaster. And I bring it to your attention because it’s one of the knock-on effects of the drugs that have been derived from that kind of thinking. The SSRIs, the antidepressants, the behavior-modifying drugs. They worry me enormously because when I analyzed the data some years ago on mass shootings, in schools in particular or elsewhere, the common denominator was psychotropic medication, many of which have this warning on them about suicidal and violent ideation. That’s what they drive people to do.”
This isn’t the first time pharmaceutical companies have come under fire, as they received a mass amount of backlash during the COVID-19 pandemic. While companies like Pfizer made billions in profits, their COVID-19 drug didn’t stop the coronavirus from being contracted.
And for those who might disagree with Dr. Wakefield, he added that antidepressants could be the culprit. “Is it biologically plausible? Absolutely. Has it been investigated? Absolutely not. Why? Because people don’t want to do it. Why? Because scientists are beholden to the pharmaceutical industry that makes these drugs. Will it ever get reported on TV as such? No. Why? Because the television networks are dependent on the pharmaceutical companies for their very survival, their way of life, their lifestyle. We are unable to answer the questions that really need to be asked about what is causing these things.”
Users online shared their opinions on the rise of antidepressants over the last decade and the numerous side effects that have been seen. One user suggested, “if you need permission to do research, you are not a scientist.”
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Red Voice Media. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary. Red Voice Media would like to make a point of clarification on why we do not refer to any shot related to COVID-19 as a "vaccine." According to the CDC, the definition of a vaccine necessitates that said vaccine have a lasting effect of at least one year in preventing the contraction of the virus or disease it's intended to fight. Because all of the COVID-19 shots thus far available have barely offered six months of protection, and even then not absolute, Red Voice Media has made the decision hereafter to no longer refer to the Pfizer, Moderna, or Johnson & Johnson substances as vaccinations.