Alphard Null

[Wilhem Ivorsson @Wilhem_Ivorsson]

There have literally been hundreds, if not thousands of White men and women who've said the same things Cofnas has, and they've said them with more grace, eloquence and character. He's no Jared Taylor or J. Philippe Rushton.

As far as honesty goes, Cofnas dragged Kevin MacDonald through the mud and an entire ecosystem of "alternative" and mainstream media were happy to assist. His "default hypothesis" denies that Jewish ethnocentrism and in-group loyalty is even a factor in outcomes.

[Alphard Null @AdaIsWrong]

@CDP1882 Gosh, I do wonder what sort of foolish dirtbag let him into the country. Any ideas Jenrick?

[Alphard Null @AdaIsWrong]

@Landeur How about all, I'm good with all.

[Alphard Null @AdaIsWrong]

@JadeEckhaus Ok jew.

[J͎Λ͎Y͎ @TakeThiamine]

Several parts of this are simply false.

Lindsay was found face-up, but Patrick testified that her head was closer to the house and her feet were away. The opposite of what you wrote. Her final position also doesn’t establish how she landed.

Forensic pathologist Dr. Elizabeth Laposata testified that Lindsay’s Jefferson fracture showed a head-first impact. She described it as a “free fall dive head first” and said the blood transferred onto the house was consistent with Lindsay’s bleeding wrists contacting it during her descent.

Lindsay did report taking pills, but as one part of a multistep suicide attempt: pills, cuts to her wrists and neck, then the window. Toxicology did not support a lethal overdose and may cast doubt on how many pills she swallowed. It doesn’t prove the entire attempt was staged.

The claim that none of the drugs reached therapeutic levels is also false. The toxicologist testified that most were within therapeutic concentrations and that quetiapine was slightly elevated, although none indicated a lethal overdose.

A “therapeutic” concentration is not a sanity test. It neither rules out a severe behavioral reaction nor establishes that her conduct was rational. Psychosis and premeditation aren’t mutually exclusive. A person can reason, plan and act coherently while operating under a delusion. People have killed their loved ones at “therapeutic” doses of these drugs before.

Patrick found Lindsay and she immediately told him, “I tried to kill myself.” Her wrist wounds penetrated the skin and cut underlying blood vessels. Laposata described significant bloodshed and testified that the numerous hesitation marks were a classic finding in suicide attempts.

Lindsay fell roughly 13 feet, fractured her cervical and thoracic spine and permanently injured her spinal cord. Her core temperature was 82.1°F and she later went into cardiac arrest in the ICU, requiring CPR and undergoing a massive transfusion.

She is permanently paralyzed.

Could she have hesitated at the window? Of course. Suicidal people hesitate all the time. Contact with the ledge establishes contact with the ledge. It doesn’t establish that she “knew she’d survive.”

Four months of medication-induced activation, insomnia and destabilization helped drive Lindsay into psychosis.

You can argue the drugs had nothing to do with it. But you can’t reverse the testimony and pretend you know what Lindsay was thinking.

And if you don’t think psych meds can make normal, non-violent people kill their loved ones (A), if you don’t think they can make people with no history of depression kill themselves (B), look up:

(A)
William Forsyth
Reynaldo Lacuzong
Donald Schell
David Hawkins
David Carmichael
Shane Clancy
Neal Jacobson
Carly Gregg (14)

(B)
Woody Witczak
Candace Downing (12)
Matthew Miller (13)

While you’re at it, look into the suicidality data from Prozac’s internal clinical-development records. 1990. Lilly Germany employee Claude Bouchy. Take a look at what he said.

And if you don't think SSRIs can make troubled kids shoot up schools, look into every school shooting with medical records made public. Jesse van Rootselaar. 250 mg of Zoloft. Eric Harris, Zoloft but switched to Luvox.

Patrick publicly asked people to forgive Lindsay, as he had. You don’t have to. But anger doesn’t turn a nearly fatal, permanently disabling suicide attempt into a performance.

His forgiveness should at least make you pause. He knew Lindsay better than any stranger online and watched her deteriorate as prescriptions piled up. He lost all three of his children, yet still he doesn’t believe the woman who killed them was the Lindsay he knew.

[Alphard Null @AdaIsWrong]

@navyhato

[Alphard Null @AdaIsWrong]

I would hesitate to say it's more intelligent in general, but it does have a higher capacity with certain functions. Even just a calculator can do maths a lot faster than I can.

If we extend the processing power to more than numbers and ask it to derive the consequences of actions based on initial parameters, I could imagine that a machine might be able to keep track of more than I can and reach a conclusion faster.

That's not necessarily intelligence though.

[Alphard Null @AdaIsWrong]

@RWBB4U Because shit in the streets and then walk through that barefoot.

Since it's unthinkable for them to stop doing this the only other course of action is to keep washing the shit off.

[Alphard Null @AdaIsWrong]

@tyromper @timmychermak Incredibly tone deaf but not surprising considering you adopted 2 foreign children for the sake of it.

[Alphard Null @AdaIsWrong]

@LaJollaw4ll @CoreyJMahler It's literally just Isaiah 58:7. Do you not like the Bible?

[Alphard Null @AdaIsWrong]

@TheNativist_ Strawman, I'm stating that your judgement of how much awareness would diminish the subversion is overconfident.

[Alphard Null @AdaIsWrong]

@DoNawtNarcan @TakeThiamine It's a strong claim to state that she wasn't taking any of it. I've not seen anything to suggest that was the case.

[Alphard Null @AdaIsWrong]

Don't think I'm manipulating the concept at all, I just don't think it hits the mark very well.

If content is subversive then it will continue to be regardless of whatever the author's intentions were or what the audience goes on to feel about it.

The most susceptible to the propaganda are those lulled into a false sense of security about their own awareness such that they believe it would be possible to watch it without regard for what the author intended.

[Alphard Null @AdaIsWrong]

@DoNawtNarcan @TakeThiamine When people go to doctors with genuine intent and the medication starts messing them up, yeah, people will be reluctant to keep taking them.

[Alphard Null @AdaIsWrong]

Death of the Author is only relevant if the author accidentally makes something based whilst meaning otherwise.

If the subversion is a fundamental element of the content then your point is irrelevant.

The point is that your awareness of it doesn't make it go away or become ineffective.

[Alphard Null @AdaIsWrong]

@knightcore77 It's because the only reason you'd correct her is because her being either wrong or right had some significance. Regardless of whether she's wrong or right; you're imposing accountability on her and that's anathema to her.

[Alphard Null @AdaIsWrong]

@1Matt_Alexander @RealSamMelia @ThatWitch33 Basically that, yes. Antisocial/autistic leadership kinda covers it all though.

[J͎Λ͎Y͎ @TakeThiamine]

Psychiatry can’t fix problems it doesn’t understand.

Lindsay Clancy cannot be tried honestly unless psychiatry as a whole is put on trial with her. Not just her prescribers but the system that trained them. Her clinicians were doing what they had been taught to do.

No test established what was happening to serotonin, dopamine, GABA or any other signaling system in Lindsay’s brain. Because no clinically validated test can. Her diagnoses were judgments, not biological measurements. That might suffice if psychiatry understood the problems it attempted to solve.

It doesn’t.

That did not stop clinicians from prescribing drugs that act on those systems. When Lindsay developed new symptoms after starting them, those symptoms were treated as evidence of another disorder—not as evidence that the treatment itself might be destabilizing her.

Someone should have stepped back and looked at the whole picture: her sleep, postpartum physiology, weight loss, physical health, what her family was seeing and what all these drugs might be doing to her. Instead, each clinician did their job: they saw a fragment and answered it with another medication change.

What did they actually test?

Hormones? Thyroid function? Glucose and electrolytes? And did anyone interpret those results in the context of childbirth, weight loss, insomnia and rapid psychiatric deterioration—or merely scan a page for “in range” and “out of range”?

Lindsay went to a psychiatrist because she was anxious about returning to work and leaving her son, Callan, who was refusing a bottle. She reacted badly to the first drug. Then came another. And another. And another.

The drugs—not the anxiety or postpartum depression—drove her over the edge. Had she never been prescribed them, I believe her children would still be alive.

On October 19, Lindsay increased her sertraline (Zoloft) from 25 to 50 milligrams as prescribed.

She stayed awake for 48 hours and did not feel tired.

Psychiatric nurse practitioner Rebecca Jollotta called this an “activating response” to Zoloft.

Antidepressant activation, particularly after treatment begins or a dose is increased, can involve:

Insomnia
Agitation
Restlessness or akathisia
Hypomania or mania

Jollotta knew of no earlier manic episode, and Lindsay’s bipolar screening had been negative. She nevertheless used the Zoloft reaction itself as evidence of underlying bipolar disorder.

That’s worth emphasizing: Jollotta correctly identified a bad drug reaction and still chose to twist that reaction into evidence of underlying bipolar disorder.

This is the loop. This is diagnostic recursion:

Symptoms justify a drug. New symptoms appear after the drug. The new symptoms justify another diagnosis. The new diagnosis justifies more drugs.

Bad reaction to drugs? We have a solution: drugs.

On January 16—8 days before the killings—Lindsay’s psychiatrist, Dr. Jennifer Tufts, started her on 10 milligrams of amitriptyline.

On January 23, the day before the killings, she instructed Lindsay to double the dose to 20 milligrams.

These drugs can be started in a day. Coming off them safely can take weeks or months. For patients who have taken benzodiazepines for longer than a month, current guidance generally begins with reductions of 5 to 10 percent every 2 to 4 weeks—a process measured in months, not days.

Antidepressants can also require very gradual (hyperbolic) tapering, with smaller reductions as the dose falls. In fact, emerging evidence suggests that hyperbolic tapering should be the standard. This is beyond the scope of this writing, but, once you understand SERT occupancy, you'll understand why.

From her first prescription to the killings, less than 19 weeks passed.

In that time, she was prescribed 5 antidepressant-class drugs and 8 other psychotropics.

Once the medication changes began, nobody got a sustained, clean look at Lindsay without drugs, withdrawal or sleep loss clouding the picture.

Judging whether a drug is working takes time too. The American College of Physicians tells clinicians to change course if there has been no adequate response within 6 to 8 weeks—which leaves room in 19 weeks for 2 or 3 adequate trials at most.

Some courses ended almost immediately: fluoxetine was stopped after 3 days when Lindsay reported feeling “spaced out.” She was starting one drug, stopping another and reporting new symptoms while her clinicians tried to decide what was illness and what was treatment.

People call the number of clinicians Lindsay saw “doctor-shopping.” That makes her sound manipulative—as though she were chasing prescriptions or searching for someone who would tell her what she wanted to hear.

The testimony says otherwise.

Lindsay was reluctant to take medication.

She repeatedly reported that she was getting worse.

Her then-husband, Patrick, told her providers that the psychiatric medications had made her “1,000 times worse.”

She worried about dependence. She resisted or stopped drugs because of frightening effects and kept asking for help along the way.

Tufts agreed in court that Lindsay was not seeking drugs to get high. She did what patients are told to do: she kept reaching out to professionals. Jollotta agreed that Lindsay was trying to get off medication, not obtain more of it.

Lindsay was not shopping for drugs. She was shopping for one competent doctor who could tell her what was happening and make it stop.

Her condition deteriorated sharply after the first SSRI trial. Benzodiazepines, sedatives, an antipsychotic and a mood stabilizer followed while her sleep, mood and cognition continued to worsen.

Here’s the full list:

Sertraline — Zoloft
Lorazepam — Ativan
Hydroxyzine — Vistaril/Atarax
Buspirone — BuSpar
Trazodone — Desyrel
Fluoxetine — Prozac
Zolpidem — Ambien
Mirtazapine — Remeron
Clonazepam — Klonopin
Quetiapine — Seroquel
Diazepam — Valium
Lamotrigine — Lamictal
Amitriptyline — Elavil

Some adverse reactions were recognized, and some drugs were stopped. The drugs changed. But the thinking didn’t.

Tufts testified that she was not sure whether Seroquel was making Lindsay worse and thought it was possible. Yet she continued to describe Lindsay’s attribution of her symptoms to medication as evidence of poor insight. She also testified that Lindsay believed Seroquel was making her depressed when, “in reality,” Tufts thought she simply was depressed.

Are you noticing a pattern here?

Once a patient’s report that a drug is harming her is treated as lack of insight, she has no way out. If she agrees with the doctor, the diagnosis stands. If she objects, the objection becomes part of the diagnosis.

Where did Lindsay’s original distress end?

Where did the drug effects begin?

Which symptoms came from withdrawal, from sleep deprivation, from rapid medication changes or from overlapping drugs?

Which symptoms belonged to Lindsay—and which belonged to the treatment?

By the end of this four-month nightmare, Lindsay’s three children were dead and she was paralyzed.

The prosecution has an answer to all of this: she planned it.

But premeditation is not a sanity test.

On cross-examination, Dr. Sejal Shah—a psychiatrist who evaluated Lindsay after the killings and testified for the prosecution—agreed that a person can communicate, make plans and carry them out while psychotic.

Psychosis does not require someone to be incoherent, visibly hallucinating or incapable of completing a series of actions.

Organized behavior does not, by itself, establish criminal responsibility.

Lindsay’s own contemporaneous accounts describe what she was experiencing. After taking mirtazapine and clonazepam, she reported feeling “super disconnected with myself and reality.”

She later wrote:

“Medication stole my motherhood and my life.”

“Prescription medication stole me from my own body.”

Under Commonwealth v. McHoul, once criminal responsibility is genuinely in question, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lindsay both understood that what she was doing was wrong and had enough control to obey the law.

Planning the killings may show that she could organize her actions. It does not prove that she understood their wrongfulness or could stop herself.

Lindsay’s case is not the first in which psychiatric drugs have been implicated after an act of extreme, uncharacteristic violence:

William Forsyth — Prozac
Donald Schell — Paxil
David Hawkins — Zoloft
David Carmichael — Paxil
Shane Clancy — Celexa
Neal Jacobson — Zoloft and Xanax

In Schell’s case, a jury found Paxil was a proximate cause of the murder-suicide.

Hawkins’s case was also a failure of the system. Years earlier, he had reacted badly to Zoloft and stopped after one dose. His doctor recorded in his file: “Do not give this man SSRIs.” Years later, when Hawkins sought help again, his regular doctor was away. The substitute doctor who prescribed Zoloft had not read the file.

That night, when the first 50-milligram tablet appeared to have no effect, Hawkins took four more—a total of 250 milligrams, 5 times the prescribed dose. The next morning he strangled his wife of nearly 50 years. Justice Barry O’Keefe later found: “I am satisfied that but for the Zoloft he had taken, he would not have strangled his wife.”

In every case mentioned above, the person had recently started or restarted an SSRI, or had recently increased the dose, before the killing.

That's enough to establish that the drug question is not imaginary—and that it should be investigated rather than dismissed.

The trial cannot honestly examine Lindsay’s criminal responsibility while treating the system that repeatedly altered her mental state as a neutral observer.

This is not one bad prescription or one incompetent clinician.

It is a system capable of interpreting the injuries it causes as further proof that the patient was sick.

The logic is circular. Unfalsifiable.

And it will keep happening until we are honest about what this industry is doing to people.