Hi Chaotic Inflation  

More liberal so-called "science." These are the nut-jobs that 
gave us CO2 as the cause of global warming.
Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000]
See my Leibniz site at

----- Receiving the following content -----  
From:  Chaotic Inflation  
Time: 2013-08-05, 04:43:42 
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [Theoretical_Physics] Re: 
[4DWorldx]Fw:Re:Re:[Theoretical_Physics_Board] OK, but think about this 

>Suicide[edit source | editbeta] 
>See also: Let Them Eat Prozac 
>The FDA requires all antidepressants to carry a black box warning stating that 
>antidepressants may increase the risk of suicide in people younger than 25. 
>This warning is based on statistical analyses conducted by two independent 
>groups of the FDA experts that found a 2-fold increase of the suicidal 
>ideation and behavior in children and adolescents, and 1.5-fold increase of 
>suicidality in the 18–24 age group. The suicidality was slightly decreased for 
>those older than 24, and statistically significantly lower in the 65 and older 
>group.[41][42][43] This analysis was criticized by Donald Klein, who noted 
>that suicidality, that is suicidal ideation and behavior, is not necessarily a 
>good surrogate marker for completed suicide, and it is still possible that 
>antidepressants may prevent actual suicide while increasing suicidality.[44] 
>There is less data on fluoxetine than on antidepressants as a whole. For the 
>above analysis on the antidepressant level, the FDA had to combine the results 
>of 295 trials of 11 antidepressants for psychiatric indications to obtain 
>statistically significant results. Considered separately, fluoxetine use in 
>children increased the odds of suicidality by 50%,[45] and in adults decreased 
>the odds of suicidality by approximately 30%.[42][43] Similarly, the analysis 
>conducted by the UK MHRA found a 50% increase of odds of suicide-related 
>events, not reaching statistical significance, in the children and adolescents 
>on fluoxetine as compared to the ones on placebo. According to the MHRA data, 
>for adults fluoxetine did not change the rate of self-harm and statistically 
>significantly decreased suicidal ideation by 50%.[46][47] 
>David Healy is an Irish psychiatrist who is a professor in Psychological 
>Medicine at Cardiff University School of Medicine, Wales. He is also the 
>director of North Wales School of Psychological Medicine. He became the centre 
>of controversy concerning the influence of the pharmaceutical industry on 
>medicine and academia. For most of his career Healy has held the view that 
>Prozacand SSRIs (selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors) can lead to suicide 
>and has been critical of the amount of ghost writing in the current scientific 
>literature. Healy's views led to what has been termed “The Toronto Affair” 
>which was, at its core, a debate aboutacademic freedom. 
>Contents  [hide]  
> * 1 Background and research 
> * 2 SSRIs, suicide and Healy 
> * 2.1 Does Prozac cause suicide? 
> * 2.2 Lilly’s knowledge of Prozac and suicide 
> * 2.3 Tobin vs. SmithKline 
> * 3 Healy’s healthy volunteer study 
> * 4 Toronto affair 
> * 4.1 Lecture 
> * 4.2 Aftermath 
> * 5 Ghost writing 
> * 6 Solutions 
> * 7 Editorial board membership 
> * 8 Books 
> * 9 Resources 
> * 10 See also 
> * 11 References 
> * 12 External links 
>Background and research[edit source | editbeta] 
>Healy was born in Raheny, Dublin. He completed an MD in neuroscience and 
>studied psychiatry during a clinical research fellowship at Cambridge 
>University Clinical School. In 1990, Healy became a Senior Lecturer in 
>Psychological Medicine at North Wales. In 1996 he became a Reader in 
>Psychological Medicine, then later became Professor. His current research 
>interests at Cardiff University include: cognitive functioning in affective 
>disorders and psychoses as well as circadian rhythms in affective disorders, 
>recovery in psychoses and physical health of people with mental illness. 
>He also heads the psychiatric inpatient unit at Bangor, North Wales, where 
>treatments include electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) and psychiatric 
>medication.[1] Healy has authored a number of books and is an expert on the 
>history and development ofpsychopharmacology. He co-authored a book, History 
>of Convulsive Therapy with Edward Shorter. Healy’s work, particularly his 
>histories of psychopharmacology, influenced Charles Barber's book Comfortably 
>Numb: How Psychiatry Is Medicating a Nation. 
>SSRIs, suicide and Healy[edit source | editbeta] 
>Selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are used to treat major 
>depression. At one time it was hypothesized that depression was due to low 
>levels of serotonin in the brain and that antidepressants increased this 
>level.[2] But this theory was discredited by Ashcroft who showed that 
>depression is not associated with or caused by a lowering of serotonin.[3] 
>Today, serotonin levels can be measured by 5-HT imaging with Positron emission 
>tomography (PET) imaging[4][5] as well as measuringtryptophan plasma levels. 
>Prozac is a well known commercial brand of SSRI. In the 1970s Bryan Molloy at 
>Eli Lilly and Company created a phenoxyphenyl-propylamines termed LY-94949 but 
>it could not be easily dissolved so David Wong reformulated it as a chloride 
>salt and it was renamed LY-110140. Then on September 1, 1975 it was first 
>called fluoxetine and then later marketed under the name Prozac. Prozac was 
>launched in the United States and Canada in 1988 and in the United Kingdom in 
>Soon after its launch there was a large debate on whether or not Prozac was 
>related to suicide. 
>Does Prozac cause suicide?[edit source | editbeta] 
>The debate was started by Martin Teicher from Harvard when they published an 
>article in the American Journal of Psychiatry in 1990. The article outlined 
>six individual cases of people who had become preoccupied with thoughts of 
>suicide after being prescribed Prozac. 
>Eli Lilly was quick to respond with a contradictory article by Charles Beasley 
>and colleagues from Eli Lilly that examined evidence from 3,065 patients of 
>which 1,700 had been put on Prozac. The authors concluded that there was no 
>evidence for individuals taking Prozac to have a higher rate of suicide than 
>those taking placebo. 
>In his book, Let Them Eat Prozac, Healy points out several flaws in the 
>Beasley experiment. In Healy’s view the entire experimental analysis rested on 
>one question from the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale which is too 
>insensitive to accurately measure suicidality. 
>The question reads: 
>“This past week, have you had any thoughts that life is not worth living, or 
>that you’d be better off dead? What about thoughts of hurting or even killing 
>There are four choices from which the patient can choose: 1) has made a 
>serious suicide attempt, 2) has clear suicidal ideas or gestures, 3) wished he 
>were dead or any thoughts of possible death, 4) feels life is not worth living 
>or absent. The problem that Healy has with this that the “Raters rate in a 
>global way. If a patient is improving raters whiz through an interview, often 
>completing the scale afterward in a manner that indicates a general 
>improvement in the overall score. If some aspects of the patient’s condition 
>are improving – which they might even when the patient is becoming suicidal – 
>raters often won’t bother asking the suicide question.” 
>A second problem with that rating system is that if a significant number of 
>people improve, their scores will drown out the noise being produced by 
>patients who have worsened. 
>The debate centered around the question of which was more important, a handful 
>of individual cases or a large randomized control trial. Healy believes that 
>Prozac induces suicide. His comments in 1994 in CNS Drugs are often misquoted. 
>Healy wrote that “data from several thousand patients must on any scientific 
>scale outweigh the dubious evidence of a handful of case reports.” However, 
>according to Healy this was a “piece of irony” and the “article came down 
>firmly on the side of saying that Prozac did cause suicide” In addition Healy 
>believes that the problem could be managed with proper warnings:[6] 
>"The best management of such reactions will involve counselling patients 
>beforehand about the possibility of these reactions, stopping treatment with 
>the agents if such a reaction is suspected, or adding an agent with 5-HT1A 
>antagonistic properties (e.g. propranolol) to the treatment regimen." 
>Lilly’s knowledge of Prozac and suicide[edit source | editbeta] 
>In Let them Eat Prozac, Healy presents evidence that Eli Lilly already knew in 
>1986 that patients taking Prozac attempted more suicides than patients taking 
>other anti-depressants or a placebo. A memo from Barbara von Keitz, who was 
>working in Germanyfor Eli Lilly, was sent to Joachim Wernicke at Eli Lilly 
>Headquarters in Indianapolis. A result of a clinical trial showed that 
>patients taking Prozac had a suicide attempt rate of 10 per 1000 but those 
>patients randomized to other anti-depressants (imipramine,amitriptyline, 
>doxepin or mainserin) had a rate of only 1.5 per 1000. Placebo patients had 
>varying rates of 6, 4.3 or 1 per 1000. 
>The varying placebo rate is due to suicide attempts during the washout period 
>being placed in the placebo groups. Healy sees this experimental method as 
>“highly inappropriate”. There are two appropriate ways to respond. One is to 
>count only the five suicide attempts in the placebo group which would give a 
>rate of 4.3/1000. The second is to count all the patients that went into 
>clinical trials as placebo which would give a rate of 1.0/1000. 
>Signs of violence and suicidality had been there since Prozac was tested in 
>premarketing trials. 
>In May 1984, Germany’s regulatory agency (BGA) rejected Prozac as “totally 
>unsuitable for treating depression.”[7] In July 1985,Eli Lilly’s own data 
>analysis—from a pool of 1,427 patients—showed high incidence of adverse drug 
>effects and evidence of drug-induced violence in some patients.[8] In May 
>1985, FDA’s (then) chief safety investigator, Dr. Richard Kapit, wrote: 
>“Unlike traditional tricyclic antidepressants fluoxetine’s profile of adverse 
>side effects more closely resembles that of a stimulant drug than one that 
>causes sedation.” He warned “It is fluoxetine’s particular profile of adverse 
>side-effects which may perhaps, in the future give rise to the greatest 
>clinical liabilities in the use of this medication to treat depression.”[9] 
>Dr. Kapit’s safety review described the clinical trial data from 46 trials 
>with a total of 1,427 patients. He noted under the section, “Catastrophic and 
>Serious Events,” 52 cases of “egregiously abnormal laboratory reports which 
>were the reason for early termination,” and “additional adverse event reports 
>not reported by the company [which] were revealed on microfiche.” Dr. Kapit 
>reported: “In most cases, these adverse events involved the onset of an 
>unreported psychotic episode.” There were 10 reports of psychotic episodes; 2 
>reports of completed suicides; 13 attempted suicides; 4 seizures—including a 
>healthy volunteer; and 4 reports of movement disorders. 
>In 1985 Dr. Kapit recommended “labeling warning [for] the physician that such 
>signs and symptoms of depression may be exacerbated by this drug". No such 
>warning was issued until 2004. 
>In 2005, an internal document purportedly from Eli Lilly and Co. made public 
>showed that the drug maker had data more than 15 years old showing that 
>patients on its antidepressant Prozac were far more likely to attempt suicide 
>and show hostility than were patients on other antidepressants and that the 
>company attempted to minimize public awareness of the side effects. The 1988 
>document indicated that 3.7 percent of patients attempted suicide while on the 
>blockbuster drug, a rate more than 12 times that cited for any of four other 
>commonly used antidepressants. The document, which cited clinical trials of 
>14,198 patients on fluoxetine also stated that 2.3 percent of users suffered 
>psychotic depression while on the drug, more than double the next-highest rate 
>of patients using another antidepressant. 
>The document was provided to CNN by the office of Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-New 
>York, who called for tightening FDA regulations on drug safety. "The case 
>demonstrates the need for Congress to mandate the complete disclosure of all 
>clinical studies for FDA-approved drugs so that patients and their doctors, 
>not the drug companies, decide whether the benefits of taking a certain 
>medicine outweigh the risks," Rep. Hinchey said. 
>Tobin vs. SmithKline[edit source | editbeta] 
>In February 1998, 60-year-old Donald Schell went to see his doctor complaining 
>of difficulty sleeping. He was diagnosed with an anxiety state and placed on 
>Paxil, an SSRI. Within forty-eight hours of being put on Paxil Schell killed 
>his wife, daughter, infant granddaughter, and himself. Tim Tobin, Schell’s 
>son-in-law, took legal action against SmithKline. Healy was retained as an 
>expert witness in the case. 
>The Tobin case was heard in Cheyenne, Wyoming from May 21 to June 6, 2001. On 
>the stand SmithKline representative Ian Hudson indicated that no matter how 
>many physicians or clinicians reported to the company that they thought 
>suicide was related to the Paxil, SmithKline would deny causation. The jury 
>returned a guilty verdict against SmithKline and awarded Tobin $6.4 
>million.[10][11][12] This was the first verdict returned guilty against a 
>pharmaceutical company regarding adverse behavioral effects of a psychotropic 
>Healy’s healthy volunteer study[edit source | editbeta] 
>Healy designed an experiment to examine if disinhibition, which Healy believes 
>can lead to suicide, is associated with SSRIs. He compared Zoloft (an SSRI) to 
>reboxetine (a non-SSRI anti-depressant) in a group of healthy volunteers. The 
>volunteers would be placed on Zoloft or reboxetine for two weeks, halt for two 
>weeks and then take the other drug for two weeks. The experiment would test if 
>the marketed “better than well” phenomenon for SSRI was true. 
>At the end of the study two-thirds of the participants rated themselves as 
>“better than well”. However, the volunteers’ quality of life and social 
>functioning decreased on Zoloft but remained the same on reboxetine. 
>Approximately half the group reported emotional blunting on the drugs. 
>Two patients in the study became suicidal which Healy associated with 
>disinhibition caused by Zoloft. One patient's experience highlighted the theme 
>of hanging, which is common in SSRI suicides.[13] Healy calculated the 
>probability of two healthy volunteers without mental illness and no current 
>interpersonal legal or financial problems becoming suicidal during a two-week 
>period on Zoloft as p = 0.0000005. In other words, the chance that Zoloft was 
>unrelated to the two healthy volunteers' becoming suicidal during the trial 
>period (that is, the chance that it was coincidental) is only 1 in 2000000. 
>Healy concluded that he had “accidentally demonstrated conclusively that the 
>drugs could cause the problem.”[14][15] 
>Toronto affair[edit source | editbeta] 
>In 1999, Healy was recruited for a position in the Department of Psychiatry 
>and the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health(CAMH) in Toronto. He was 
>brought in for a three-day visit to CAMH and the Department in July. Following 
>his visit, Dr. Paul Garfinkel, Chair of the University's Department of 
>Psychiatry, wrote him a congratulatory letter. 
>On January 28, 2000 Dr. Sidney Kennedy, Professor or Psychiatry and Head, Mood 
>& Anxiety Division, CAMH, wrote to Healy discussing details of an offer to be 
>appointed a Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Toronto and Clinical 
>Director for the Mood and Anxiety Disorders Program at CAMH. Kennedy 
>concluded: "I am extremely enthusiastic about your interest in this position 
>and I believe that you will bring an important line of critical inquiry and 
>clinical research acumen to this department".[16] 
>On August 17, 2000 Dr. David Goldbloom, Physician-in-Chief at CAMH and 
>Professor of Psychiatry at University of Toronto, andGeorgina Veldhorst, 
>Vice-President, Mental Health Programs, CAMH, wrote to Healy to offer him 
>formally the position of Clinical Director, Mood and Anxiety Disorders 
>Program, CAMH. 
>Lecture[edit source | editbeta] 
>On November 30, 2000 Healy was invited to a meeting at the University of 
>Toronto entitled “Look Back. Looking Ahead – Psychiatry in the 21st Century: 
>Mental Illness and Addiction”. Healy presented a talk with the title 
>“Psychopharmacology and the Government of Self”.[17] This talk gave an 
>overview of the history of psychopharmacology and was critical of several 
>aspects of the pharmaceutical industry. 
>Healy talked about the inadequacy of clinical trials stating that “clinical 
>trials in psychiatry have never showed that anything worked”. His point was 
>that clinical trials demonstrate treatment effects and not whether or not a 
>drug works. Healy was also critical of ghost-written scientific literature. He 
>noted that the fact that unsuccessful clinical trials are suppressed and 
>successful clinical trials are over reported was not scientifically sound. 
>In addition, Healy made the direct comment that “Prozac and other SSRIs can 
>lead to suicide" and that “these drugs may have been responsible for one death 
>for every day that Prozac has been on the market in North America”. Moreover, 
>Healy criticized the industry by the fact that “since the controversy blew up, 
>there has not been a single piece of research carried out to answer the 
>question of whether ‘Prozac’ does cause suicide or not”. 
>Aftermath[edit source | editbeta] 
>On December 7, 2000, shortly after Healy’s talk he received an email from Dr. 
>Goldbloom, who was retracting his previously offered position at CAMH. The 
>reason Goldbloom indicated was as follows: “Essentially, we believe that it is 
>not a good fit between you and the role as leader of an academic program in 
>mood and anxiety disorders at the Centre and in relation to the University. 
>This view was solidified by your recent appearance at the Centre in the 
>context of an academic lecture. While you are held in high regard as a scholar 
>of the history of modern psychiatry, we do not feel your approach is 
>compatible with the goals for development of the academic and clinical 
>resource that we have.”[18] However, Healy believes that his job offer was 
>retracted because his critical views of the pharmaceutical industry and 
>especially Eli Lilly. This has been denied by the then-President of the 
>University of Toronto, Prof. Robert Birgeneau who stated in a 
> letter to the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) that Healy’s 
> contract was “not influenced in any way by Eli Lilly or by any other 
> pharmaceutical company.”[19] 
>Eli Lilly was a significant contributor to the University of Toronto. It 
>supported 52 percent of the budget for the Mood and Anxiety Disorder Clinic 
>that Healy would have headed up. In addition it gave a 1.5 million dollar gift 
>to CAMH to help its fundraising campaign. Furthermore, there was precedent for 
>Eli Lilly removing its financial support in response to anti-Prozac comments 
>or publications. In March 2000, the Hasting Center published an article by 
>Healy which indicated that Prozac induced suicide. Eli Lilly pulled their 
>support of $25,000 per annum. The Hasting Center re-reviewed the article but 
>stood behind its decision. 
>The Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) fully supported Healy 
>and lobbied the University of Toronto on his behalf. In a May 2001 letter to 
>Birgeneau, they stated “retraction of a job offer suggests a fundamental 
>attack on academic freedom…what happened to Dr. Healy appears to be an affront 
>to academic freedom in Canada.”[20] The CAUT was concerned that CAMH and the 
>University of Toronto were concerned about employing a widely recognized 
>critic, who raises questions about corporate connections and how this might 
>impact funding. 
>In September 2001, Healy filed a lawsuit against the CAMH and the University 
>of Toronto for $9.4 million in damages and lost income. In a press conference 
>Healy stated that his greatest concern was academic freedom and that with some 
>of the damages awarded he would set up a fund to promote academic freedom.[21] 
>The lawsuit settled out of court and many of the terms of settlement remain 
>undisclosed; following the settlement, Healy was offered and accepted a 
>visiting professorship at the University of Toronto. In an interview about 
>Healy's dismissal, a CAMH spokesperson "denied any influence on our decisions, 
>direct or indirect or otherwise, by an outsider donor, funder, or individual 
>and certainly not by a pharmaceutical company."[22] 
>Ghost writing[edit source | editbeta] 
>Medical ghost writing occurs when anonymous ghostwriters with scientific 
>backgrounds are paid to produce reports for publication as if written by 
>better-known experts. Healy estimates that up to 50 percent of literature on 
>drugs is ghostwritten.[23] In his thesis, he states that ghostwriters write on 
>research given to them by drug companies, which want both positive results and 
>positive research; therefore ghostwriting is biased from the beginning. 
>Healy encountered ghost writing involving Wyeth’s SNRI Effexor. Healy attended 
>a meeting promoting Effexor, and was offered for his approval a draft article 
>that had been written for him. He left it intact, but made two additions. One 
>contradicted Wyeth’s claim that Effexor got patients fully well compared to 
>patients on other SSRIs and another stated that SSRIs could make some 
>individuals suicidal. The article had already been submitted to the Journal of 
>Psychiatry and Neuroscience before Healy saw it again; both of his additions 
>had been removed. In response Healy removed his name from the article.[24] 
>Solutions[edit source | editbeta] 
>In the preface of his book Let them Eat Prozac Healy describes the need for a 
>“new contract between society and the pharmaceutical industry – a contract 
>that will require access to the raw data”. Healy suggests a new division that 
>can manage the hazards that only becomes visible after products are launched. 
>This new division would be separate from the regulatory bodies and 
>pharmaceutical companies. 
>In "Interface between authorship, industry and science in the domain of 
>therapeutics"[25] a paper of 2003 for The British Journal of Psychiatry, David 
>Healy notes that : 
>"The literature profiles and citation rates of industry-linked and 
>non-industry-linked articles differ. The emerging style of authorship in 
>industry-linked articles can deliver good-quality articles, but it raises 
>concerns for the scientific base of therapeutics." 
>He proposed the following resolution of this conflict of interest : 
>"If ghostwriting is an inevitable feature of modern scientific writing, the 
>potential availability of the raw data would do more to ensure a 
>correspondence between those data and a published end result than could be 
>achieved by any other mechanism." 
>Editorial board membership[edit source | editbeta] 
>Healy sits on the Honorary International Editorial Advisory Board of the Mens 
>Sana Monographs[26] 
> From: Roger Clough  
>To: theoretical_physics ; 4dworldx <4dwor...@yahoogroups.com>; 
>Sent: Monday, August 5, 2013 4:23 AM 
>Subject: Re: Re: Re: [Theoretical_Physics] Re: [4DWorldx] 
>Fw:Re:Re:[Theoretical_Physics_Board] OK, but think about this 
>Hi Chaotic Inflation  
>A few anecdotes do not make a case, 
>although liberals do this all the time. 
>Prozac is very similar in composition to one 
>common class of anti-depressants. It's perfectly 
>Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] 
>See my Leibniz site at 
>----- Receiving the following content -----  
>From:  Chaotic Inflation  
>Time: 2013-08-04, 00:33:01  
>Subject: Re: Re: [Theoretical_Physics] Re: [4DWorldx] 
>Fw:Re:Re:[Theoretical_Physics_Board] OK, but think about this  
>>From what I've read some (prozac especially, but also others) cause violent 
>>tendencies in teenagers..... the side effects are vastly different in 
>>children with developing brains.  
>> From: Roger Clough  
>>To: 4dworldx <4dwor...@yahoogroups.com>; theoretical_physics  
>>Sent: Saturday, August 3, 2013 11:00 AM  
>>Subject: Re: Re: [Theoretical_Physics] Re: [4DWorldx] Fw: 
>>Re:Re:[Theoretical_Physics_Board] OK, but think about this  
>>Hi Chaotic Inflation  
>>Antidepressants are probably overprescribed, but they only help you if you 
>>are depressed,  
>>otherwise I am told that they have no effect (they surely don't make you 
>>high), so why would anybody  
>>keep paying even the copay ? My suspicion is that they are useful and so 
>>Without God, it's a depressing world.  
>>Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000]  
>>See my Leibniz site at  
>>----- Receiving the following content -----  
>>From:  Chaotic Inflation  
>>Receiver: 4dwor...@yahoogroups.com,theoretical_phys...@yahoogroups.com  
>>Time: 2013-08-03, 03:49:37  
>>Subject: Re: [Theoretical_Physics] Re: [4DWorldx] Fw: 
>>Re:Re:[Theoretical_Physics_Board] OK, but think about this  
>>>Obviously this isn't an all size all fits scenario, you have a serious 
>>>condition, but they are way overprescribed, especially to children and those 
>>>with only mild or moderate condition, which studies have shown respond much 
>>>better to counseling and lifestyle changes and which alternatives dont have 
>>>the serious side effects.  Your condition clearly isn't mild or moderate and 
>>>therefore you need them.  The pharmaceutical industry, like with statins, 
>>>has been trying to expand its market as much as possible, to people who dont 
>>>need them instead of concentrating on the ones who really do- hence the 
>>>television ads.  
>>> From: Roger Clough  
>>>To: 4dworldx <4dwor...@yahoogroups.com>; theoretical_physics_board ; 
>>>Sent: Friday, August 2, 2013 5:58 AM  
>>>Subject: Re: [Theoretical_Physics] Re: [4DWorldx] Fw: Re: 
>>>Re:[Theoretical_Physics_Board] OK, but think about this  
>>>Hi Chaotic Inflation  
>>>I've been on anti-depressants for 30 years and would  
>>>be dead without them.  
>>>Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000]  
>>>See my Leibniz site at  
>>>----- Receiving the following content -----  
>>>From:  Chaotic Inflation  
>>>Time: 2013-08-01, 21:29:12  
>>>Subject: [Theoretical_Physics] Re: [4DWorldx] Fw: Re: 
>>>Re:[Theoretical_Physics_Board] OK, but think about this  
>>>>Yes, the sad fact is that most psychotropic drugs dont cure anything but 
>>>>put people in a state of sluggishness that makes them not really care about 
>>>> From: Anna  
>>>>To: 4dwor...@yahoogroups.com; theoretical_physics_bo...@yahoogroups.com; 
>>>>Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2013 9:25 PM  
>>>>Subject: Re: [4DWorldx] Fw: Re: Re: [Theoretical_Physics_Board] OK, but 
>>>>think about this  
>>>>I tried once. Makes you very dull and uncreative.  
>>>>From: Chaotic Inflation  
>>>>Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 7:23 PM  
>>>>To: 4dwor...@yahoogroups.com ; theoretical_physics_bo...@yahoogroups.com ; 
>>>>Subject: [4DWorldx] Fw: Re: Re: [Theoretical_Physics_Board] OK, but  
>>>>think about this  
>>>>I agree, I think they have good intentions however the end result would be  
>>>>disastrous.  Although not all have good intentions, some have argued that  
>>>>introducing lithium would be a good way to ensure "compliance" and curb 
>>>>authoritarian behavior  
>>>> From: Roger Clough  
>>>>To: theoretical_physics_board  
>>>>Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2013 5:45  
>>>>Subject: Re: Re: Re:  
>>>>[Theoretical_Physics_Board] OK, but think about this  
>>>>Hi Chaotic Inflation  
>>>>Lithium carbonate is a poison for most of us.  
>>>>Even for those with  
>>>>bipolar depression, it needs to be carefully monitored,  
>>>>and they  
>>>>can't be already taking it.  
>>>>Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.)  
>>>>See my Leibniz site  
>>>>----- Receiving the  
>>>>following content -----  
>>>>From: Chaotic Inflation  
>>>>Receiver: mailto:Theoretical_Physics_Board%40yahoogroups.com  
>>>>Time: 2013-08-01, 03:17:43  
>>>>Subject: Re: Re: [Theoretical_Physics_Board]  
>>>>OK, but think about this  
>>>>>Probably lol- what's your  
>>>>position on some psychiatrists' wanting lithium in the water supply though? 
>>>>> From: Roger  
>>>>>To: theoretical_physics_board  
>>>>>Sent: Thursday, August 1,  
>>>>2013 2:16 AM  
>>>>>Subject: Re: Re: [Theoretical_Physics_Board] OK, but think  
>>>>about this  
>>>>>Hi Chaotic Inflation  
>>>>>It won't make people happy, but putting contraceptives in the  
>>>>drinking water should  
>>>>>stop over-population.  
>>>>>Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000]  
>>>>>See my Leibniz site at  
>>>>>----- Receiving the following content -----  
>>>>>From: Chaotic  
>>>>>Receiver: mailto:Theoretical_Physics_Board%40yahoogroups.com  
>>>>>Time: 2013-07-31, 21:26:42  
>>>>>Subject: Re:  
>>>>[Theoretical_Physics_Board] OK, but think about this  
>>>>>>The problem is, what works in a petri dish is time limited-  
>>>>those studies only go forward for a few months, while years down the line,  
>>>>things can be much different- and I contend this is exactly why we've seen 
>>>>higher rates of certain illnesses. Man, reading that story about Agent 
>>>>and the 200,000 kids born with birth defects really turned my stomach, and  
>>>>Monsanto had to shell out 230 million in a settlement and yet still denied  
>>>>responsibility? Evil endures. And now that glysophate has stopped working 
>>>>want to use it on crops- what?! Haha, expect that company to be blown out 
>>>>existence in the next few years. Dont think many tears will be shed.  
>>>>>> From: Allen Francom  
>>>>>>To: "mailto:Theoretical_Physics_Board%40yahoogroups.com";  
>>>>>>Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 9:22 PM  
>>>>>>Subject: Re:  
>>>>[Theoretical_Physics_Board] OK, but think about this  
>>>>>>This is actually  
>>>>a heck of a topic  
>>>>>>Because... Malthusians "do the math",  
>>>>right or wrong, they still do it...  
>>>>>>What works in a  
>>>>Petri-dish works for us too ?  
>>>>>>Likely so  
>>>>>>EXCEPT - we are good at inventing new corn and wheat, right or wrong  
>>>>at that too,  
>>>>>>we still feed more people than have seemingly ever even  
>>>>existed in entire history.  
>>>>>>Shoulder to the wheel  
>>>>>>Reach for the stars  
>>>>>>Or bust  
>>>>>> From: Chaotic  
>>>>>>To: "mailto:Theoretical_Physics_Board%40yahoogroups.com";  
>>>>; "mailto:4dworldx%40yahoogroups.com";  
>>>>; "mailto:theoretical_physics%40yahoogroups.com";  
>>>>>>Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 12:02 AM  
>>>>>>Subject: Re:  
>>>>[Theoretical_Physics_Board] OK, but think about this  
>>>>>>Nah, that's the wrong way to look at it,  
>>>>humanity isn't being "controlled" it's just a fact of nature that this is 
>>>>happens when one species dominates a planet for too long- it has nothing to 
>>>>with "hating" anyone, but recognizing how the planet keeps everything in  
>>>>balance- for the benefit of the entire planet, rather than just one 
>>>>species. In  
>>>>the long run it benefits everyone, including humans.  
>>>>>> From: Stephen P. King  
>>>>>>To: mailto:Theoretical_Physics_Board%40yahoogroups.com  
>>>>>>Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 12:21 AM  
>>>>>>Subject: Re:  
>>>>[Theoretical_Physics_Board] OK, but think about this  
>>>>>>Is humanity a blight to be controlled? If  
>>>>so, we should we worry about shoving the throttle to full speed ahead and 
>>>>the blight over with forthwith? Nature seems to manage to take care of 
>>>>quite well w/o us... The inconsistency of the "Humanity Haters" confuses 
>>>>7/30/2013 10:18 PM, Chaotic Inflation wrote:  
>>>>>>The ice  
>>>>ages actually performed a very necessary function if this is true- by 
>>>>the human population- thus preventing a much greater disaster. I think we 
>>>>overdue for one of these cataclysmic events and another reduction of the 
>>>>>>>Either way, we'll  
>>>>be off of primitive fossil fuels long before any of this comes to pass- a 
>>>>hundred years is a drop in the bucket on all scales but the limited 
>>>>lifespans of  
>>>>human beings.  

DreamMail - Your mistake not to try it once, but my mistake for your leaving 
off. use again  www.dreammail.org

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to