30 January 2009


WHILE I AM AWAY, DELVING DEEPLY INTO RESEARCH for next great documentary — to be announced later — I thought I'd share a few of "my favorite things" until my return. As you have read in past blogs, poetry is one of my secret loves.

Here's a lovely one from the famed Chinese poet Li Yu. Enjoy.



Her hair: tied up with a ribbon

And fixed with a jade pin;

Her flowing robes,

soft and thin;

Between her adorned brows

a shallow furrow.

October: too much wind

Accompanied by rain

Beating on two or three

palm trees.

A helpless man

in an endless night.


Labels: , ,

28 January 2009


In the many dark days of researching for GENERATION RX, discovering the story of Christopher Pittman was a day I remember well. Here was a boy who had never been in trouble, with no criminal record — not even a blemish on his school records for bad behavior — but that all changed once he was placed on SSRI medication and committed one heinous act.

I will be writing about Christopher at length in an upcoming blog.

As you will see from the note below, I have been asked to spread the word regarding a petition that is being circulated to release Christopher from the Adult prison where he is being held.

"Hi Kevin,

My name is Janet Sisk and I am the founder of The Juvenile Justice Foundation, I came across your Blog and seen where you have information On Christopher Pittman. I have been working with his attorneys in hopes of Christopher gaining his freedom.

I visit Chris every Sunday since his transfer to adult prison and I consider him my son. I would like to ask you if you would consider putting a video up on your blog. It was made and sent to the FDA for a hearing on medication guide inserts and the dangers of SSRI’s and children it is about 5 minutes long.

My hope is to gain more signatures on his petition , so when we get a legislator to sponsor a children’s juvenile bill they may consider adding some of the amendments on Christopher’s Bill as well.

You can view it on YouTube under juvenilejustice2009 I copied the link and embedded info as well for you.

Thanks for bringing this issue to light , and exposing these dangerous drugs and side effects. This information needs to be brought into every household ."



27 January 2009


Dr. Ben Rall is one of the new generation of practitioners who understands that children are being over-drugged in America. Just a few weeks ago he hosted a screening of GENERATION RX in Sioux Falls, SD to a packed house.

Today, with the revelation that Drugs for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) can cause children to have hallucinations even when "taken as directed," KSFY-TV sought out Dr. Rall to get his take.

As it happened, Ben had a teenager in the office for a visit. Dr. Rall had helped ween this young man off a 14-drug concoction of ADHD meds, antidepressant meds and more.

THIS is how the "rubber hits the road," people. Use the information in GENERATION RX — to make citizens aware.

In other words, be like Dr. Ben Rall.

25 January 2009


Scientific knowledge and its successful applications have played a large role in making the United States of America a powerful nation and its citizens increasingly prosperous and healthy. The challenges that face the United States in the twenty-first century can only be met if this tradition is honored and sustained.

To that end, the U.S. government must adhere to high standards of scientific integrity in forming and implementing its policies. Breaches of this principle have damaged the public good and the international leadership of the United States. To meet its obligation to serve the public interest, the government must have reliable scientific work and advice at its disposal, and provide the public with reliable scientific information. This requires the government to provide federal scientists with the resources and the professional environment necessary to carry out their missions effectively and honestly. The government should also draw on the knowledge of federal scientists and of the larger scientific community to formulate public policy in an objective and transparent manner.

Scientists employed by government institutions commit themselves to serve the public good free from undisclosed conflicts of interest and to carry out science that is reliable and useful, while respecting statutory limitations such as national security laws. Therefore, government scientists should, without fear of reprisal or retaliation, have the freedom:

*to conduct their work without political or private-sector interference;
*to candidly communicate their findings to Congress, the public, and their scientific peers;
*to publish their work and to participate fully in the scientific community;
*to disclose misrepresentation, censorship, and other abuses of science; and
*to have their technical work evaluated by scientific peers.

We call on Congress and the executive branch to codify these freedoms, to establish stronger means for gathering scientific advice, and to take concrete steps to enhance transparency, so as to create conditions conducive to a thriving scientific enterprise that will serve our democracy with integrity and bring the full fruits of science to all Americans and to the world.

For more information on Scientific Freedom and the Public Good and the related report Federal Science and the Public Good: Securing Independent Science in Policymaking, visit www.ucsusa.org/scientificfreedom.

Labels: ,

17 January 2009


“Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men.”
— Martin Luther King, Jr.

TO THOSE OF YOU WHO KNOW ME or my work, it’s common knowledge that I admire Martin Luther King, Jr. immensely. He was front-and-center in my documentary on race relations called THE WAR WITHIN and the driving force behind my comparative analysis of the Civil Rights movement and the Health Freedom movement in LET TRUTH BE THE BIAS. In 2005 he appeared in my documentary WE BECOME SILENT, a film about Codex Alimentarius that was narrated by the internationally revered actress, Dame Judi Dench.

As it happens so often with artists, the title for WE BECOME SILENT came as an inspiration in the middle of the night. It was 3:00 a.m., I believe, and I was in the midst of 17-20 hour days worth of editing — and determined to produce an honest film about the dangers of Codex and the deleterious effects of “free trade.” As I began to doze deeper into my well-earned slumber, I heard Dr. King’s voice say, “Our lives begin to end the moment we become silent about things that matter.”

Spaced out and disoriented, I sat straight up in bed. The words I heard the strongest were we become silent, and a few hours later, after at least one cup of coffee, I discerned that these three words would make a great title for the film. They had been whispered to me in the middle of the night because they directly correlated to the scheming of governments, big business, bureaucrats and other dirty dealers who incessantly try to assert their will over the rest of us. Their collective goal is to eliminate medical freedom of choice and to keep the status quo in tact. Then — as now — they wanted us to simply shut up. With the FDA ‘walking point,’ they tried mightily to achieve their monopolistic goals through regulations, by banning health books from health food stores, through ridiculous undercover sting operations and guns-draw raids at holistic clinics, and yes, even through legislative means.

So once again — in the middle of the night — Dr. King played a role in my professional and personal life by helping to align my values and to put the struggle for medical freedom of choice into perspective. People loved the title WE BECOME SILENT, so it is only fitting to give credit where credit is due.

On this day, we should also humbly acknowledge that there is much more work to do.

I am reminded of something that occurred during a screening of LET TRUTH BE THE BIAS in 1994. There’s a scene in the documentary where hordes of armed policemen—with batons at the ready and with the strength of a football team pushing a blocking ‘sled’ — push dozens of African Americans backwards. Elderly men, women and children are forced to the ground—and are trampled in the ensuing melee. While this scene was playing out, I heard someone comment rather loudly, “Hey, this guy must be a LIBERAL” — as if showing the struggle for basic human rights was somehow a liberal issue.

The comment from my countryman made me chortle, albeit sadly.

As a humanistic writer, I have often been compelled to take the path less traveled — to follow my innate sense of right and wrong. As one who vividly recalls the assassination of Dr. King in 1968, I can say categorically that many of the ideals he put forth during his short time on this planet are indelibly branded into my heart and soul.

Those same ideals of dignity and personal sovereignty apply to the health freedom movement also, and we should all honor Dr. King for blazing a peaceful trail to positive change. We can learn from not only his courage in challenging injustices, but from his unyielding vision of equality.

“Life's most persistent and urgent question,” said Dr. King, “is, 'What are you doing for others?'”

Amen, Reverend Dr. King. Amen. Your words are an inspiration — on any day.

12 January 2009


MENTION THE WORD ‘NANO’ to North Americans and most would reflexively think of the little mp3 player made famous by Steve Jobs and Apple Inc. That is about to change. Today, nanoparticles are being touted in almost every kind of product imaginable, from toothpaste and ‘anti-aging’ face creams to roofing materials.

Nanoparticles were first heralded twenty years ago by K. Eric Drexler, an MIT graduate, who wrote a book called Engines of Creation. This landmark book announced the coming of these “molecule-sized machines,” as Drexler put it. These ‘machines’ were termed “nanoparticles” and Drexler predicted that they would change the world in rather Utopian ways.

Nanotechnology, he said, would not only produce extremely reliable, uniform, recyclable, inexpensive, and "smart" products, but would also be able to identify and destroy cancer cells; break toxic pollutants down into harmless components, and perhaps most exciting of all, would supplant the earth's petroleum-based manufacturing industry and replace it with more energy-efficient, precise, and environmentally safe methods.

Among the most intoxicating prospects for nanotech is the potential for the widespread expansion of solar technologies, especially ones that would utilize the entire light spectrum of the sun in order to deliver more solar energy to tens of millions of homes throughout North America. It is complicated stuff, but suffice it to say that current solar technologies are using a mere 15-20% of the sun’s available energy. So instead of solar panels, billions of these nanoparticles would become part of the roof’s coating. They would not only reflect the red, green, and blue light that current solar panels transform into energy, but this revolutionary roofing material would attract the entire color spectrum of the sun, thereby increasing the energy output by three to four times over their modern day solar cousins.

If this dramatic vision of the future comes to pass, however, many scientists, academics and others fear that nanotechnology will unleash a torrent of unknown consequences on the environment — and human health. Now is the time, they argue, for nanotechnology to be studied — and regulated before it is “hijacked by industry.”

Unlikely as it may seem, the $200 billion global cosmetics industry is one of the emerging players in the burgeoning field of nanotechnology. Cosmetics giant L’Oreal already ranks sixth among nanotechnology patent holders with nearly 200 nanotechnology patents. According to the Centre for the Study of Environmental Change at Lancaster University in Britain, the cosmetics industry as a whole holds the largest number of patents for nanoparticles, including “toothpaste, sunscreen, shampoo, hair conditioner, lipstick, eye shadow, after shave, moisturizer or deodorant.” Furthermore, the report claims that “industry is leading the way” in researching and implementing the use of nanomaterials.

In 2004, the UK’s Royal Society delivered a report stating that “while nanotechnology may offer many benefits both now and in the future,” there is an immediate need to “address uncertainties about both the health and environmental effects of nanoparticles.” Five years later, despite these concerns, there are still no regulations that specifically cover their manufacture and marketing to consumers.

The truth is, millions of us are guinea pigs. In addition to lotions and the aforementioned products, we are unknowingly using hundreds of other nano-enhanced commercial products daily. These include some pharmaceutical-based nutritional supplements, processed meats, chocolate drinks, and baby food, to name but a few. According to an eye-opening report by Friends of the Earth from 2006, nanomaterials have also been widely adopted in packaging such as antibacterial kitchenware and other food containers, not to mention an array of chemicals used in agriculture.

Lastly, in a world where security has become of paramount concern to all governments, Ian Kerr, Research Chair in Ethics, Law and Technology at the University of Ottawa has raised one other potentially frightening scenario involving nanotechnology. Kerr says that governments could spy on its own people by utilizing these technologies — and that there is very little we can do about it. Called “human-area networking,” Kerr claims that the human body could become a conduit for electronic transmissions of all kinds. He postulates that the government could program people with information, affect one’s behavior and give them instructions — ala the Manchurian Candidate. What’s worse is that some of these tracking devices, it appears, would be ingestible. "We are entering a new era in privacy. Current concepts of consent will not be adequate," says Mr. Kerr in one of the grandest understatements of our era.

As I have explored nanotechnology over the past three years, I’ve often imagined how mankind could be aided if these tiny Nanos could bring forth life-changing innovations to both energy and medicine. I have also pictured several sobering future-world scenarios — 21st century apparitions that go far beyond George Orwell’s most terrifying visions.

At the very least, nanotechnology should be labeled on all consumer products; studied and debated by skeptics — not just industry; and ultimately regulated before multinational corporations and governments unleash nanoparticles indiscriminately throughout the world.

Come to think of it, though, that’s exactly what’s happening right now.

Labels: , , , , ,


Believe it or not, I used to make a few TV commercials for a living.

Here was one using the late great Robert Jr. Lockwood, the blues master -- in the only TV commercial he ever participated in!

It's a hoot!

05 January 2009


A FEW MONTHS AGO I described New York Times science correspondent Gardiner Harris as “a man on a mission.” Harris, you may recall, had reported on bogus data in drug trials, ghostwriters replacing researchers in medical journals, and even conflicts-of-interest between the drug companies and the psychiatric medicine machine in Washington. For a brief time, Harris’ stories seemed to indicate that he was the new Sheriff in the nation’s capital — and that he would help deliver a knockout punch to the profiteers whose scandalous ways had been ignored for too long by the medical establishment.

I am sad to report that it must have been a brief mirage — a blip in the career of Gardiner Harris, who for some strange and seemingly contradictory reasons, put forth legitimate reporting on the use of psychiatric medicines.
But a few weeks later, Mr. Harris has told me that he has no interest in investigating the claims made in my film, which reveal the true depths of the deception, collusion and corruption at FDA. Even though he asked me not once, but twice to send him a DVD of GENERATION RX, Harris told me this morning that he wouldn’t be watching the film — and that he never requested to see the documentary in the first place. “I only communicated with you because you were persistent,” he claimed.

How very honorable of you, sir.

I admit to being persistent in my work, but three emails and one phone call over a five week span is not exactly like holding a 24/7 vigil outside of the N.Y. Times offices. I didn’t pressure Mr. Harris in any way, so the rest of his claim is utter nonsense. He did, in fact, request to see GENERATION RX and in fact emailed me his address and contact information weeks ago — including his cell phone and direct business line. Would he have supplied this private information if he had not expressed interest in seeing my film? I think not.

As you know by now, GENERATION RX uncovers the shoddy science behind the drugging of children with psychiatric medications. Mr. Harris’ own reporting has proven that drug company payoffs do exist — and that their “independent” researchers have been quietly lining their pockets for years now. I have written about this repeatedly — and it is front and center in GENERATION RX. After reading some of Harris’ articles, I thought he would be interested in the bigger picture. . .it seemed like common sense.

But when I provided Harris with the direct link to blatant conflicts-of-interest by three FDA officials — particularly as they pertain to psychiatric drugs — the New York Times reporter, the man I hailed as being “on a mission” to obliterate back room deals, simply whimpered and feigned disinterest.

What I told Harris should have concerned him — in fact it should have piqued his interest. What the film shows is that Thomas Laughren MD, the Director of the Division of Psychiatry Products at the Food and Drug Administration is clearly guilty of concealing information about the dangers of Prozac and other SSRIs dating back 22 years. “As you will see," I told Harris, "the film clearly proves that Dr. Laughren was not only aware of the Prozac side effects, but helped strategize with Lilly to conceal the facts. For 22 years, if not more, Dr. Laughren has been part of one of the most blatant coverups in FDA history. How many people have died as a result?”

Today Harris claimed that he has “seen quite a bit of evidence” about the FDAs Laughren covering up the side effects of Prozac and other SSRI drugs, but that he will NOT be pursuing that story.

Why? Because it came from a documentary filmmaker and not the New York Times?

Either he watched GENERATION RX and decided the issue was too hot to handle — or he truly does have this "evidence" and refuses to report on the deep corruption within the FDA. If it’s the latter, why is he protecting Tom Laughren — a man who may be responsible for more antidepressant deaths in the U.S. than anyone else in the federal government?

While it is troubling to consider, perhaps Mr. Harris doesn’t want to threaten his “insider’s status” at “Club D.C.” Because as all journalists inside the beltway know, you’ve got to play the game if you want to be fed exclusives on Washington’s juiciest stories. It’s one thing to report on some nasty drug companies and their paid researchers, but it’s quite another to investigate the ghosts inside the perpetual money machine in government.

Perhaps Mr. Harris simply doesn’t have the courage to go that far.

Finally, I am not alone in my disappointment over Mr. Harris’ journalistic ethos. J.B. Handley is a contributor to a fantastic blog and news site called “The Age of Autism.” http://www.ageofautism.com/ For years, Handley, Kim Stagliano, Dan Olmsted, and others have been reporting links between vaccinations and autism in their “Daily Web Newspaper of the Autism Epidemic.”

J.B. Handley crossed paths with Gardiner Harris recently. It’s safe to that neither enjoyed the experience.

“I've probably talked to a hundred or so reporters in my time.” Mr. Handley wrote on his Dec. 15th blog, “and he (Harris) is unquestionably the biggest jackass I have ever encountered.”

He accused Harris of “being snide, cynical, wildly biased, dismissive, and arrogant,” and Handly also revealed an email Harris apparently wrote scolding those who doubt the supreme safety of vaccines. “Scaring parents away from life-saving medicines is no way to improve this terrible situation.” Harris wrote. “I have met parents who lost their children to vaccine-preventable diseases, and they are haunted. If you had your way, there would be far more of these haunted souls. I hope to prevent that from happening."

GARDINER HARRIS, as it turns out, is “a man on a mission,” as I wrote earlier. He has somehow embraced a dual journalistic identity: one that slaps the hands of academics and shills who profit from unreported drug company incomes — while the other Harris refuses to write about or investigate serious charges against a FDA bigwig who has colluded for 20+ years with drug companies to hide serious adverse events from the public. And he did so while overseeing the largest increase in the use of psychiatric medications in history.

Meanwhile, Harris castigates the cause of actress Jenny McCarthy, J.B. Handley, Kim Stagliano, Dan Olmsted and others. He criticizes them merely for telling the ‘other side of the story’ about how vaccines have caused autism and death. Conversely, Harris also correctly reported that the bipolar drugs being used by millions of kids are no more effective than placebo.

Perhaps we can simply call this ‘bipolar reporting’ by one of the nation’s most revered — but seriously flawed newspapers. As naive as it must make me sound, it hurts me to realize how selective American media has become about reporting “the truth.” Since I studied journalism during the Watergate era, I really believed that journalists would never compromise the truth, nor wield power on behalf of the powerful or protect corrupt public officials.

Those ideals crashed to Earth again today, thanks to Mr. Harris. At least I know now that he is no hero — but just another reporter trying to scoop the competition — and play the Washington game.

Sometimes he reports the truth — and sometimes he buries it — or at least doesn’t pursue it.

While I acknowledge again that Harris has revealed ghostwriting scandals, the use of bogus data in drug trials, cover-ups and conflicts of interest in medicine as a whole, he seems unwilling to take the final step that all great journalists must in order to truly serve the public.

That is to report the whole truth — no matter what the costs.

When we produced GENERATION RX, we enjoyed no security — and we put ourselves at great risk. Yet we investigated every lead and unveiled many shocking and horrible truths along the way. We did so, as I’ve said so often, for a simple ideal called “informed choice.”

Harris and his comrades, meanwhile, enjoy the protection of the mighty New York Times and its’ phalanx of lawyers. And look around the web, friends, and you’ll see that Thomas Laughren of FDA is still the “go-to” guy when a quote is needed about psychiatric medications.

His word is reported as Truth — and in Washington, the beat goes on.

But I have one piece of advice for Mr. Harris. Please refrain from telling parents and others who have been victimized by this unbelievable spike in Autism, ”If you had your way, there would be far more of these haunted souls.”

If you had bothered to watch GENERATION RX, you would have seen plenty of “haunted souls” in there as well, Mr. Harris; beings who’d like to look Tom Laughren in the eyes. But since you are a big time reporter for a world-famous newspaper, I guess you can simply ignore that information.

After all, it’s anecdotal, right? They’re only people.

Go accept your Pulitzer.

Labels: , , , , , ,