Latest / Radically Genuine / 223. The CIA's Connection to Modern Psychiatry
Transcript
- Dr. McFillin (00:01.806) Welcome to the Radically Genuine Podcast. I am Dr. Roger McFillin. If you're following me on Substack and you're reading my articles, you're probably aware of my Mind Control series. So today I want to start with a document. It was written in 1952. It was published to the CIA's Public Reading Room in 1983 and it was processed and cataloged again in 2025. very quietly without announcement, without coverage from any major news outlet. And the document describes a research program. The goal of that program was to develop chemical compounds capable of altering human behavior. Compounds designed to produce anxiety, depression, docility, confusion, delivered covertly. without the subject's knowledge or consent. The subjects were not foreign prisoners. They were not enemy combatants. The subjects the researchers had in mind were ordinary American citizens. That document generated no headlines, no congressional response, no comment from the American Psychiatrics Association. And today we're going to follow that document to where I believe it leads. Because where it leads is not 1952. It's not a Cold War footnote. It leads here. It leads to 80 million plus antidepressant prescriptions filled in this country. The last year we have data, which I believe is 2023, an unknown amount of children on psychiatric drugs. It leads to the system that told you or someone you love, that your emotional suffering or struggling is a brain disease. So stay with me on this because I think I'm going to make some connections because I do think and often wonder how did we get to this place in our human evolution? And I want to set up the historical foundation first because without it, everything else just floats. It's not a conspiracy episode. I want to say that clearly. Dr. McFillin (02:25.752) what I'm going to describe is documented. The primary sources are in the CIA's public reading room. They're available for you. They're available for anyone who wants to go read the documents. The congressional testimony, its public record, the psychiatric history that exists is in peer-reviewed literature. I'm not asking you to believe anything that has not been verified. So let's start in 1950. The CIA launches a program called Project Bluebird. The driving concern at the time is Korea. American POWs are being broken by techniques the intelligence community cannot account for. The fear is that the Soviet and Chinese governments have developed methods of controlling human thought and behavior that the United States does not understand and cannot counter. And here's where the story turns. A defensive program studies the enemy's capabilities in order to protect against them. But what the documents reveal is something different. The CIA's program was not primarily defensive. The question was not how do we protect our people from this? The question was how do we do this to ourselves? And Bluebird becomes Project Artichoke in 1951. And the Artichoke documents reveal an agency that wanted to understand control in order to exercise it. On enemies, yes. On assets, yes. But also explicitly on unwitting American citizens. The research agenda includes hypnosis, sensory deprivation, electroconvulsive therapy, ECT, and a broad portfolio of chemical compounds. The researchers were not fringe figures. They were PhDs, were MDs, many had academic affiliations. They were working under the cover of legitimate research institutions. And the question they were asking should stop you cold now. Dr. McFillin (04:36.558) Can a person be made to perform acts against their will without retaining conscious awareness of what they have done? Can anxiety be reliably induced in a subject who doesn't know they're being dosed? Can a substance produce long-term docility, confusion, dependence? These were not theoretical questions. They had funding, they had timelines, and they produced results. In 1953, Artichoke's ambitions were absorbed and expanded into Project MKUltra. 149 documented sub-projects, universities, hospitals, prisons, private research institutions. The subjects were frequently unwitting. Psychiatric patients, prisoners, military personnel, James Whitey Bolger, Years before he became Boston's most feared organized crime figure was dosed with LSD at the Atlanta Penitentiary as part of MKUltra. He described hours of paranoia and violent ideation, blood coming out of the walls, colleagues turning into skeletons in front of him. He signed up for it voluntarily. He believed he was helping develop a cure for schizophrenia. He was not told he was receiving LSD. He was not told he was a research subject in a CIA mind control program. The consent form he signed was a lie. I want you to read that or listen to that sequence carefully. Vulnerable person, an authority figure with institutional backing, a stated therapeutic purpose, a chemical intervention the subject did not understand and did not actually consent to. A document that satisfied the legal definition of consent while violating every meaningful version of it. Now tell me that sequence is unfamiliar. Every day in this country, patients are handed informed consent forms for psychiatric drugs. They're told their brain has a chemical imbalance or if not that, that this is somehow going to ease their suffering in a meaningful way or even some positive medicinal quality. They're told this usually by some clinician who has 15 minutes in a prescription pad. Dr. McFillin (06:57.966) They are not told that the chemical imbalance theory was never validated by a single biological test. They're not told that the clinical trials supporting the drug were funded by the manufacturer. They're not told about all the negative trials that were never published. They just signed the form. They filled the prescription. The consent form is real. What it conceals is not. And I'm not claiming here that the modern psychiatric intake process is identical to... Whitey Bulger situation and I'm not saying your psychiatrist is a CIA operative. I'm saying the architecture is the same. Institutional authority, therapeutic framing, chemical interventions, a subject who believes one thing is happening while something else is happening entirely. The researchers who designed MKUltra understood that architecture. They spent years refining it in the profession that absorbed their institutional legacy. has never once been required to account for what is inherited. Of all the figures who connect the CIA's covert programs to modern psychiatric care, none is more important or more disturbing than one man, Dr. D. Ewan Cameron. This was not a fringe character. This was not a scientist working in the shadows. He was the president of the American Psychiatric Association in 1952. He was the founding president of the World Psychiatric Association. He chaired the Department of Psychiatry at McGill University in Montreal. So by any professional measure, he was one of the most credentialed psychiatrists in North America, if not the most. He was also running MKUltra Subproject 68. Under CIA funding, laundered through a front organization called the Society for Investigation of Human Ecology, Cameron conducted what he called psychic driving experiments at McGill's Allen Memorial Institute. Here's what he did. He kept patients in chemically induced sleep for weeks, sometimes months. He erased their existing behavioral patterns through ECT, administered at rates 30 to 40 times the accepted clinical norm. And then he reprogrammed them by looping recorded messages through speakers built directly into their pillow helmets, sometimes for 16 hours a day. He called this de-patterning. Dr. McFillin (09:22.339) His own notes recorded that patients frequently lost the ability to remember who they were, where they lived, who their children were. Many never recovered. The patients did not know that they were CIA research subjects. Many did not know they were receiving experimental treatment at all. They came to Allen Memorial with stress, depressed mood, with the ordinary injuries of difficult lives. and they left as what Cameron called blank slates. Now here is what should make you stop and sit for this for a moment. This man was not expelled from the profession. He was not prosecuted. He received standing ovations. He published in peer reviewed journals. He mentored generations of psychiatrists. His methods Stripped of the CIA funding and the explicit coercive framing are recognizable ancestors of treatments that remain in clinical use today. The man who ran a CIA brainwashing program inside a major academic hospital was simultaneously shaping the values, the training, the professional culture, and the institutional identity of the entire psychiatric profession. Not from the outside, from the top. He did not infiltrate psychiatry, he'd let it. And the profession never looked back and asked what that meant for everything he helped build. Instead, it canonized him. Then it forgot him. Both of those things served the same purpose. The CIA did not use psychiatry as a cover. It helped build American psychiatry into what it became. And what it became was a system organized not around healing, but around the management of behavior, around the elimination of what they call symptoms rather than understanding human suffering, around returning people to function in the idea that they identify functioning, which in practice means returning them to a form of compliance to productivity, to the roles the social order requires them to fill as efficiently as possible. Dr. McFillin (11:45.56) And that is what social control looks like when it wears a clinical face. That of an authority figure, a medical professional. If you question why human suffering has been medicalized. It operates through the categories it creates. When the DSM defines a child who cannot sit still as disordered, it is not making a medical observation. It's making a social judgment. It is deciding that the child's behavior falls outside the range that institutions can accommodate and it is locating the problem inside the child rather than inside the institution. When the DSM defines grief lasting more than two weeks as a depressive disorder requiring treatment, it's not protecting the grieving person, it's protecting everyone around them from the discomfort of witnessing unresolved pain. The drugs they prescribe that they call medicine They don't heal these. It manages the expression of it. It makes the person potentially easier to be around, easier to employ, easier to manage. Cameron de-patterned his patients because he wanted blank slates, minds emptied of their existing contents and refilled with something more useful to the people in charge. Modern psychiatry does not need to induce sleep for months to accomplish something functionally similar. It is a diagnostic manual, a pharmaceutical arsenal, a reimbursement structure that rewards speed over depth, a cultural narrative so thoroughly embedded that those who come and seek out psychiatric care arrive already half convinced that their suffering is a brain disease, it's a medical problem, and the person with the prescription pad is their best hope. So the de-patterning is slower now, it's gentler. It is consensual in the technical sense of the word, but consider what it produces. A person who has been told for years that their emotional reactions are symptoms, that their distress is a brain imbalance, that their sensitivity is a disorder, that person eventually stops trusting their own perceptions. They stop reading their anxiety as meaningful information. Dr. McFillin (14:09.21) They stop understanding their mood as a signal that something real potentially needs to change. They learn to manage their inner life rather than listen to it, which is my major point in a lot of aspects of my work. They become, the precise sense Cameron would have recognized, easier to handle. A person who does not trust their own mind is a person who will keep looking for an authority to trust instead. They are easily controllable. easily influenced. That is not a side effect of the system. That is the system working as designed. In 1973, CIA Director Richard Helms ordered the destruction of MK-Ultra files. It was an act of obstruction, deliberate erasure of evidence executed before congressional scrutiny arrived. The Church Committee convened in 1975 and worked with what remained. What they found was damning enough to produce public outrage and new intelligence oversight structures. What they could not find because it had been burned was the full scope of what had been done. Dr. McFillin (15:23.62) When you destroy evidence before an investigation, you are not simply hiding the past, you are controlling the future. You are determining which questions can be asked, which connections can be made, and which conclusions are available to the people trying to understand what happened. The church committee found enough to confirm that the program existed that had violated the rights of American citizens and that had operated with the knowledge and funding of the United States government. that confirmation produced hearings, public statements, and a set of structures for oversight. None of those oversight structures applied to the private sector. None of them applied to the pharmaceutical companies. None of them applied to academic medical research. None of them applied to the psychiatric profession. None of them followed the researchers who spent two decades learning how to alter human behavior through chemical means. when those researchers return to their university positions, their hospital appointments, their consulting arrangements, their grant applications, their work for industry. Dr. McFillin (16:31.76) The psychiatrist and psychopharmacologist who participated in MKUltra sub-projects continued their careers. The techniques for inducing anxiety, depression, behavioral compliance through chemical means had been refined across two decades of funded research. The pharmaceutical compounds screened for behavioral effects had generated scientific papers. Most were published without their CIA origins disclosed. So think about what that means for the scientific literature that followed. The studies that shaped prescribing practices, the papers that established which drugs quote unquote worked and how. The foundational research that medical students were taught and that clinicians used to make treatment decisions for their patients. A portion of that literature was produced by researchers whose methods, questions, and institutional funding had roots in covert government programs designed to control human behavior. papers did not say that. The papers said what papers always say, methods, results, conclusions, citations. The readers had no way to know what they were reading. The entire apparatus of evidence-based medicine rests on the assumption that the evidence was generated honestly, that the questions being asked were clinical rather than strategic, that the people doing the research were trying to understand how to help patients rather than how to manage populations. Now that assumption is compromised at the foundational level. then everything built on top of it's compromised as well. Not necessarily corrupted in every detail, but unreliable in ways that cannot be traced because the records that would allow you to trace them were burned. We do know... about the whole in chemical imbalance theory as it relates to the use of psychiatric drugs, but we do not know what we do not know. So now we come to 1980, seven years after the files were burned, five years after the church committee hearings. The American Psychiatric Association releases the DSM-3, the most consequential document in the history of American mental health. It replaced a loosely organized psychoanalytically influenced framework with a new system Dr. McFillin (18:51.139) of discrete operationally defined diagnostic categories, categories that maps cleanly onto specific pharmaceutical interventions, categories that could be reliably assigned in a brief clinical encounter, or I don't say reliably assigned, mean, the categories were created to make it rather simple, categories that an insurance company could reimburse and drug companies could target by you know, creating drugs for them. Because listen, you do not bring a drug to market for the typical struggles of living, right? Being a human can be quite difficult. You bring a drug to market because you medicalize it. You created a medical condition and now the drug can be used to quote unquote treat that medical condition. And I think the timing of this is not a conspiracy, it's a consequence. The infrastructure built under MKUltra needed a delivery system to reach the general population. The DSM-3 provided the architecture. The pharmaceutical industry provided the products. The insurance system provided the funding mechanism. And the psychiatric profession, which had never been required to examine its own institutional inheritance, provided the so-called credibility. Within a decade, you getting into the 1990s, SSRIs began being prescribed to tens of millions of Americans on the basis of a biological theory that was never validated. The serotonin hypothesis, the idea that depression was caused by insufficient serotonin, correctable by drugs, that increased its availability in the brain. The theory was not derived from sound science. The research was reverse engineered to support the theory. Scientists observed that certain drugs affected serotonin levels and then concluded without evidence that depression must therefore involve a serotonin deficiency. I mean, this was of course pushed on the American public through mainstream media. It's the equivalent of observing that aspirin reduces fever including concluding that fever is caused by an aspirin deficiency. The profession knew this, the internal literature acknowledged the hypothesis was unproven. It was communicated anyway, millions of times. Dr. McFillin (21:10.213) funded heavily by the pharmaceutical industrial complex. And then clinicians just became trained by this model as did everyone who grew up in this era. I mean, it's just like a mind control. It just infiltrated our collective consciousness. We started using these things. People are off their medicine. They have a chemical imbalance. I mean, it's used in everyday life. And what happens is a population that believes that suffering is neurological will not examine the conditions producing that suffering. It will manage the symptoms and return to whatever they identify as functioning, back to school, back to work. It will attribute its anxiety to a brain disorder rather than what's going on in their life. They'll take the drugs, they'll tolerate the side effects, and they'll come back in three months for the follow-up appointment. The population is manageable in a way that a population asking harder questions is not. Let me bring this into the present because I want to be absolutely precise about the record. I'm not making ideological claims. I'm reading the data. In 2022, we know the systematic review published in Molecular Psychiatry, co-authored by Joanna Moncrief and colleagues who I've had on the show. The conclusion was unambiguous. There is no evidence that depression is associated with lower serotonin levels or activity. So what happens when you artificially induce this reaction and response? You suppress the natural production of such a key neurochemical that has this lasting effects throughout the entire body. Many of us don't know. We just know the consequences of it, which are horrific. That finding confirmed to what researcher Irving Kirsch had documented years earlier, which in a meta-analysis of every clinical trial submitted to the FDA for the approval of four major antidepressants. And remember, that's just the clinical trials that were submitted to the FDA. The ones that don't work, they don't submit to the FDA. In just those, 82 % of the drug response was replicated by placebo. And so what that means in statistical realms here, folks, is Dr. McFillin (23:34.885) There is no clinical difference between the drug and a placebo. Now, the drug of course has horrific side effects. The adverse reactions are potentially fatal. We know that just taking the drug one time can lead to a chronic sexual dysfunction. I mean, it's absolutely astounding, you know, what we've accepted as a culture. The FDA data which Irving Kirch was able to receive was through the Freedom of Information Act. So these were not cherry pick studies. They were the complete record. And so the serotonin hypothesis, the promoted scientific foundation upon which 40 years of antidepressant prescribing was built, does not hold up. And yet, although the Moncrief paper has been downloaded millions of times, prescribing rates have not changed. So we should sit with that for a moment. The foundational theory is wrong. The science has said so publicly, but nothing's changed. The FDA has placed a black box warning on every SSRI and SNRI sold in the United States. That warning is clear that these drugs can increase the risk of suicidal thinking and behavior. It's not my claim, that's the FDA's label. There's documented association between antiprescent use and acts of violence against others. There are studies linking SSRI withdrawal to states of agitation, hostility, and impulsivity that the prescribing physician never mentioned and the patient never anticipated. I myself stood before the FDA advisory committee and presented this evidence. documents in the official record showing evidence of permanent developmental harm to infants exposed to SSRIs and utero. The evidence did not change prescribing guidelines. It did not produce a mainstream news story that was critical of the use of the drug for pregnant women. Instead, I personally was attacked for pathologizing emotional states of postpartum women, which wasn't true. Dr. McFillin (25:55.421) The drugs continue to be prescribed to pregnant women at rates that have increased every year. The machine does not require active suppression of the truth. It makes the truth economically inconvenient, professionally costly, and culturally invisible. It accomplishes all three with very quiet efficiency. And nothing exposes the social control function of modern psychiatry more clearly than what we have done to American children. In 1980, attention deficit disorder did not exist as a diagnostic category. That year, the DSM-3 introduced it, and with it, the conceptual foundation for the most successful drug marketing campaign in medical history. Well, no, I would say Zoloft and pushing antidepressants is probably the most successful, but the use of Adderall now is certainly getting there. In 2003, 7.8 % of American children had received an ADHD diagnosis. By 2011, that jumped up to 11%. That's a 42 % increase in eight years. By 2022, that figure reached 7 million children, approximately half. receive stimulant drugs, some as young as four years old. Definitely less. 91 % of prescriptions written for children aged three to five are classified as off-label, meaning they lack FDA approval for that age group. And I've personally been reviewing data on psychiatric drug prescriptions issued to children under the age of one. Not toddlers, infants. And I'll be publishing that shortly on my sub stack. DrMcPhillan.substack.com, it's under radically genuine. And I think what it shows should end careers and produce congressional investigations. It won't, but if we were in a just world where we had politicians that served their constituents, it certainly would. But let me make the clinical argument right now because it matters on its own terms. Look carefully at which behaviors we are quote unquote, medicating. Dr. McFillin (28:12.242) Difficulty sitting still, distractibility, impulsivity, emotional intensity, restlessness. Now ask yourself the harder question. Whose problems are those behaviors? They're not the child's problem in any meaningful clinical sense. They're the institution's problem. They are the classroom's problem. They are the problem of the system that requires children to sit motionless for six hours, attend to abstract material disconnected from their experience, suppress every biological impulse toward movement, play, and self-direction that our species spent millions of years developing. And that's not even mentioning the fluorescent lighting. That's not mentioning the food that's fed in the cafeteria. ADHD diagnoses are highest in states with some of the most rigid academic accountability structures. They are lowest in countries with educational systems that are built around movement, play, and child-directed learning. Boys are diagnosed at roughly three times the rate of girls. Of course, not because boys have defective brains, but because the behaviors that define the disorder in the DSM map almost perfectly onto the behaviors that disrupt classrooms organized around compliance. Say we give boys the ADHD diagnosis, we give girls the SSRI and the depression diagnosis. We're not treating diseases. We are suppressing inconvenient behavior. We are medicating the children who most visibly reveal the failures of our institutions. We're teaching those children, five, six, seven, eight, nine years old, that the problem lives inside their brain, that they are broken, and that the relief comes in a capsule taken before school. Think about the long arc of that lesson. A child who is told at age eight that their energy and the intensity of their... quote unquote symptoms of a brain disorder will spend the rest of their life measuring their inner experience against this standard that they're taught. You know, there's something wrong with them. They will not learn that their sensitivity, their emotions are a signal that's worth listening to. They will learn that it's a man you, it's a malfunction to be man to be managed. They will grow up and become adults who believe that. Dr. McFillin (30:35.815) Suffering is a neurological condition and the prescription pad is their answer. To say it bluntly, they become customers for life. and they will be entirely prepared for what the system has waiting for them. The artichoke researchers discussed using chemicals to produce long-range behavioral modification, substances that would operate over time and shape how subjects respond to their environment. They framed this as covert technology of control. We built an overt one. We aimed it at children. We called it mental health care. Dr. McFillin (31:18.161) I want to describe this mechanism carefully because I think people hear arguments like mine and assume I'm saying there is a coordinated conspiracy, a room of people who meet and decide to harm the public. That's not my argument, although I certainly don't dismiss that as possibility. My argument is different and I think it is actually more disturbing. The mental health industrial complex is not a conspiracy. It's something more durable than that. It is a system of interlocking incentives that produce mass drugging as its natural output without requiring anyone to intend harm. So walk through it with me. The pharmaceutical industry funds the majority of clinical trials for psychiatric drugs. They design those trials, they control the data. It funds medical education. It sponsors the conferences where psychiatrists and physicians earn their continuing education credits and employs the key opinion leaders who establish prescribing norms. It helped write through consultants with undisclosed financial conflicts of interest, the DSM criteria that define what constitutes a disorder and what requires treatments. The DSM contains no biological tests, no blood draws, no brain scans. It is a consensus document produced by a committee vote. And it has expanded the boundaries of mental illness with every successive addition until the majority of Americans now qualify for a diagnosable condition at some point in their lives. The insurance system reimburses a medication management visit in 15 minutes. It reimburses psychotherapy at a fraction of that rate and only when attached to a billable DSM diagnosis. So this is about economic incentives. economics push clinicians towards diagnosis and prescription rather than toward understanding the circumstances and producing a better outcome, right, to respond more effectively to the struggles that exist in your life. The FDA requires that drugs demonstrate efficacy above placebo in just two clinical trials, just two, regardless of how many failed trials were conducted before those two. Dr. McFillin (33:37.342) The negative results, the buried data, the harms that emerged in post-marketing surveillance, these are managed, minimized, and when possible, suppressed. Every component of a system is self-reinforcing. The manufacturer funds the trials, the trials support the drugs, the drugs get a diagnosis to attach to, the diagnosis gets reimbursement, the clinician gets a 15-minute appointment structure that makes prescription the only practical response, and the patient gets a story about their brain that makes them a reliable returning customer. No one in this system has to intend harm. The harm is structural. It is the output of the incentive architecture and the profession sitting at the center of it has never been required to examine the institutional inheritance that shaped it. The inheritance of Cameron, of MKUltra, two decades of government funded research and the behavioral control that was absorbed into academic medicine. before most practicing psychiatrists were born. And let me state the connections I am making plainly because I want to be precise about what I am and am not claiming. I'm not claiming the CIA is running your psychiatrist. I'm claiming this. Project Artichoke wanted to know whether chemicals could produce a emotional and behavioral response in unwitting subjects. We know how the pharmaceutical system that medicates anxiety and mood at a mass scale in a population has been systematically stripped through economic, institutional, and cultural forces of the conditions of genuine well-being. So, like, we no longer understand emotions in a meaningful way. Dr. McFillin (35:29.712) MKUltra worked through academic medicine, using the credibility of research institutions to launder covert behavioral research. The pharmaceutical industry works through academic medicine, using the credibility of research institutions to launder commercially motivated science. Cameron erased his patient's identity. He called it therapeutic. Modern psychiatry tells patients their suffering is a lifelong brain disease requiring indefinite medication. They call that treatment. The CIA wanted to produce compliant, manageable, and even disoriented subjects. The mental health industrial complex produces as a routine outcome, populations that are sedated and medicated, labeled and trained to understand that their suffering is a personal neurological malfunction rather than a rational response to conditions that are genuinely harming them. Those people are less likely to organize, less likely to demand accountability, less likely to trust their own perceptions of what is being done to them, less likely to resist. The files were burned in 1973. The methods didn't. That's what I'm claiming. I'm not asking you to take that on faith. I'm asking you to read the document yourself, follow the money, draw your own conclusions. I've been in this system for 20 years, been in the psychiatric hospital, community mental health, juvenile justice, private practice. sat across I guess would be thousands of people who were suffering and I understand the impulse toward any intervention that promises relief. I understand why patients might turn to the prescription because suffering is real and the desire to end it is entirely human. What I am asking is not that you distrust your suffering, I'm asking that you distrust the story you were told about what your suffering means. When Dr. McFillin (37:34.673) A human being is anxious. It's not a malfunction. It's information. It's your nervous system telling you that something in your life, your relationships, your environment, your sense of safety and purpose, it requires attention. Maybe there's some things to face. Drugging that signal is not addressed what the signal is pointing to. It silences the alarm and leaves the fire burning. Of course, you know, when you feel sad for a prolonged period of time or empty and you're struggling, it's not a serotonin deficiency. science has said so. What depression often is, is a rational response to genuinely depressing circumstances. Circumstances that deserve to be examined, challenged, and changed, not managed and returned to. In some cases, your entire lifestyle is only going to produce a depressed mood. And it is that lifestyle that requires the change. Children being drugged for ADHD are not broken, they're children. Many of them are the most sensitive, most creative and most perceptive amongst us. Some of more active children who turn out to be, you know, amazing entrepreneurs or innovators or, you know, working with their physical hands mechanically. They are children who cannot be folded into institutions built for a different kind of human. The failure is the institutions. It's how we've created our public education system. And here's a question I want you to carry out of this episode. Who benefits from keeping people this way? Who benefits when 80 million Americans believe their suffering is genetic? When they attribute their anxiety, their brain rather than the conditions producing the anxiety, when they manage the symptoms and return to function rather than asking why the conditions keep Dr. McFillin (39:28.872) producing people who cannot function, right? These situations of... you know, working in conditions where you don't get enough light, not enough pay to actually support your family. Both parents have to be outside the home, kids raised in daycares, all these things that have kind of continued to increase in American society. Follow the funding, read the buried trials, ask your doctor why first line treatment for any emotional struggles, a chemical that we know produces a range of adverse consequences and physical dependency. then decide whether what we have built looks anything like medicine at all. The church committee was trying to answer the same question 50 years ago. They burned the files before anyone could finish asking it. And we're still asking it. That's the work of this podcast. It's the work of this community that follows this podcast. We're not going to stop asking. We have to look back in history because if we're not aware of what was done generations before, we lose those people who ask the questions. We age out of it and we just assume it to be normal. My job here, I think, is to question what you accept to be normal. What we now just easily hand over to a medical authority, we accept the diagnosis, we accept the drug. Why? Because of course we just have to trust them. but we have no idea about the background, about what led to that doctor attaining these belief systems. Dr. McFillin (41:13.631) We have to demand informed consent. There's a lot of people out there who say, well, we have an over-prescription problem in the United States. Well, I'm one of the few that say there's no valid scientific reason to ever prescribe an SSRI, especially to children. especially to children. Dr. McFillin (41:42.12) And we don't provide healthcare anymore. It's just this distorted sick care system of drugging symptoms where our best and our brightest are working on, you know, what amounts to a factory system, a conveyor belt of prescriptions over and over and over again, an entire industry that is funding it. We use algorithms. People, corporate medicine allows for eight to 10 minute appointments and then you move through the conveyor belt. We're have to create something new folks. And I do want that to be part of my platform. I do want to discuss more and more about what requires it. But at first we have to shine the light on the dark and we have to ask questions like, why are we going to the doctor so much anyway? And that's a whole nother episode. about how we've been pushed through fear into preventative care where we bring this idea of illness and sickness into our consciousness where it's pushed. by the media, right? The reason why the pharmaceutical companies fund the major news outlets as advertisers is because they control the news, right? So we all have this really perverse way of like thinking about the human experience. And it's just a matter of time before we're diseased and we do everything we can to try to prevent that disease. We even celebrate it, you know. Think about what is done in October for breast cancer awareness month. Do have any evidence of that decreasing cases of breast cancer? No, that's exactly what it's going to do. It increases the amount of breast cancer cases. then, know, you're mass conditioned into genetic determinism. If you have this specific gene, then enter into this. You have to receive this treatment to prevent it from happening. Dr. McFillin (43:51.667) It's sad what's happened to our system, but we are awakening and Dr. McFillin (44:01.609) The only way we awaken is through honesty and integrity. So please take a look at my sub stack where I go deeper on all these topics. There's a full mind control series there. This article or this art, one of the articles that I created was part of this episode here today. The documentations, the sources, the clinical analysis, all of it. And my work doesn't have advertisers. There's no sponsors. There's no institutional. funding. It's supported entirely by people who believe it matters. Stay awake. Thank you.