Did Psychiatric Drugs Play a Role in Plaskon’s Violent Behavior?
The alleged “Prom day” killer, Christopher Plaskon, is a snap shot of the future result of Connecticut’s increased mental health services. The 17 year-olds defense apparently will be that his “mental health” caused his murderous actions – not the dangerous psychiatric drugs he obviously has been taking for some time.
Early reports of Plaskon’s behavior included information that he had been taking drugs to treat the alleged ADHD. What psychiatric drugs? When was the teenager first diagnosed? Had he been further diagnosed with additional “mental illnesses?” Which diagnoses? How many psychiatric drugs had the teenager been prescribed during his young life? Had Plaskon been taking a “cocktail” of psychiatric drugs? All of these questions are important to understanding Plaskon’s violent actions. Here’s why.
The teenager is mentally ill. He suffers from one or more psychiatric disorders. This is the mental health community’s mantra and “ace in the hole.” Despite there being zero scientific or medical data to support even one psychiatric “disorder” being an abnormality of the brain (objective, confirmable abnormality), the mental health community’s psychiatric labeling goes unchecked, opening the flood gates for prescribing dangerous psychiatric drug “treatments.”
According to recent news reports, Plaskon is being “treated” with two mind-altering psychiatric drugs – an anti-anxiety drug and also an anti-psychotic. How long has Plaskon been taking these drugs? Had the teenager been prescribed the mind-altering drugs prior to his murderous actions?
For the sake of argument, let’s assumed Plaskon was being “treated” with both the anti-anxiety and anti-psychotic drugs prior to the stabbing. Had he, like the Santa Barbara shooter, been prescribed the anti-anxiety drug, Xanax? What are some of the known serious adverse reactions associated with anti-anxiety drugs like Xanaz? Confusion, hallucinations, unusual thoughts or behavior, thoughts of suicide or hurting yourself, aggression, hostility and decreased inhibitions are some of the more serious adverse reactions associated with this class of drug.
What about the adverse reactions associated with anti-psychotic drugs? Like so many of the psychiatric drug “treatments,” known adverse reactions associated with antipsychotic drugs include increased anxiety, depression and suicidal thoughts, to name a few.
Given the known adverse reactions associated with these psychiatric drugs, and withdrawal from them, it seems fair to suggest that it’s possible that Plaskon’s violent behavior may have been a result of one or more of the adverse reactions associated with these psychiatric drugs.
Will Plaskon’s psychiatric drug use even be made part of the trial? If history is any indication, probably not. The mental health community, which cannot prove even one of its alleged mental disorders is an abnormality of the brain and, which, the state of Connecticut has warmly embraced will effectively and without scrutiny argue the worsening of Plaskon’s mental disorders.
As Ablechild’s mission is one of informed consent, we cannot help but wonder if Plaskon’s parents were made aware of the complete subjectivity of psychiatric diagnosing or, for that matter, advised of the possible known adverse reactions associated with any psychiatric drugs their son may have been prescribed. This information can be easily verified by the informed consent document parents should sign when the diagnosis is made, like the one linked.
Because of the state’s ill-informed rush to institute costly, increased mental health services in Connecticut, and being fully aware that mental health “treatment” largely consists of prescribing psychiatric drugs, Ablechild believes that the state has an obligation to insure that parents and families are fully informed on both of these issues.
It’s one thing to tell consumers that the mental health increases are being instituted to help those who are “suffering.” But without providing all the information about psychiatric diagnosing and the risks associated with psychiatric drugs, the state is nothing more than a shill for the mental health community and pharmaceutical industry.