Items tagged with: challenge
I'm excited to say that today, I finally setup jprbarry.com. And, I put my first real article there for the site.
Things learned From A 1 Month No Gaming Challenge #writing #challenge #webdev
Millions of Americans have taken antidepressants for many years. What happens when it’s time to stop?
Article word count: 9828
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19543941
Posted by laurex (karma: 6253)
Post stats: Points: 100 - Comments: 112 - 2019-04-01T15:01:58Z
#HackerNews #challenge #drugs #going #off #psychiatric #the
Laura Delano recognized that she was “excellent at everything, but it didn’t mean anything,” her doctor wrote. She grew up in Greenwich, Connecticut, one of the wealthiest communities in the country. Her father is related to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and her mother was introduced to society at a débutante ball at the Waldorf-Astoria. In eighth grade, in 1996, Laura was the class president—she ran on a platform of planting daffodils on the school’s grounds—and among the best squash players in the country. She was one of those rare proportional adolescents with a thriving social life. But she doubted whether she had a “real self underneath.”
The oldest of three sisters, Laura felt as if she were living two separate lives, one onstage and the other in the audience, reacting to an exhausting performance. She snapped at her mother, locked herself in her room, and talked about wanting to die. She had friends at school who cut themselves with razors, and she was intrigued by what seemed to be an act of defiance. She tried it, too. “The pain felt so real and raw and mine,” she said.
Her parents took her to a family therapist, who, after several months, referred her to a psychiatrist. Laura was given a diagnosis of bipolar disorder, and prescribed Depakote, a mood stabilizer that, the previous year, had been approved for treating bipolar patients. She hid the pills in a jewelry box in her closet and then washed them down the sink.
She hoped that she might discover a more authentic version of herself at Harvard, where she arrived as a freshman in 2001. Her roommate, Bree Tse, said, “Laura just blew me away—she was this golden girl, so vibrant and attentive and in tune with people.” On her first day at Harvard, Laura wandered the campus and thought, This is everything I’ve been working for. I’m finally here.
She tried out new identities. Sometimes she fashioned herself as a “fun, down-to-earth girl” who drank until early morning with boys who considered her chill. Other times, she was a postmodern nihilist, deconstructing the arbitrariness of language. “I remember talking with her a lot about surfaces,” a classmate, Patrick Bensen, said. “That was a recurring theme: whether the surface of people can ever harmonize with what’s inside their minds.”
During her winter break, she spent a week in Manhattan preparing for two débutante balls, at the Waldorf-Astoria and at the Plaza Hotel. She went to a bridal store and chose a floor-length strapless white gown and white satin gloves that reached above her elbows. Her sister Nina said that, at the Waldorf ball, “I remember thinking Laura was so much a part of it.”
Yet, in pictures before the second ball, Laura is slightly hunched over, as if trying to minimize the breadth of her muscular shoulders. She wears a thin pearl necklace, and her blond hair is coiled in an ornate bun. Her smile is pinched and dutiful. That night, before walking onstage, Laura did cocaine and chugged champagne. By the end of the party, she was sobbing so hard that the escort she’d invited to the ball had to put her in a cab. In the morning, she told her family that she didn’t want to be alive. She took literally the symbolism of the parties, meant to mark her entry into adulthood. “I didn’t know who I was,” she said. “I was trapped in the life of a stranger.”
Before Laura returned to Harvard, her doctor in Greenwich referred her to a psychiatrist at McLean Hospital, in Belmont, Massachusetts. One of the oldest hospitals in New England, McLean has treated a succession of celebrity patients, including Anne Sexton, Robert Lowell, James Taylor, and Sylvia Plath, who described it as “the best mental hospital in the US.” Laura’s psychiatrist had Ivy League degrees, and she felt grateful to have his attention. In his notes, he described her as an “engaging, outgoing, and intelligent young woman,” who “grew up with high expectations for social conformity.” She told him, “I lie in my bed for hours at a time staring at the wall and wishing so much that I could be ‘normal.’ ”
The psychiatrist confirmed her early diagnosis, proposing that she had bipolar II, a less severe form of the disorder. Laura was relieved to hear the doctor say that her distress stemmed from an illness. “It was like being told, It’s not your fault. You are not lazy. You are not irresponsible.” After she left the appointment, she felt joyful. “The psychiatrist told me who I was in a way that felt more concrete than I’d ever conceptualized before,” she said. “It was as though he could read my mind, as though I didn’t need to explain anything to him, because he already knew what I was going to say. I had bipolar disorder. I’d had it all along.” She called her father, crying. “I have good news,” she said. “He’s figured out the problem.”
[IMG]She began taking twenty milligrams of Prozac, an antidepressant; when she still didn’t feel better, her dose was increased to forty milligrams, and then to sixty. With each raised dose, she felt thankful to have been heard. “It was a way for me to mark to the world: this is how much pain I am in,” she said. Laura wasn’t sure whether Prozac actually lifted her mood—roughly a third of patients who take antidepressants do not respond to them—but her emotions felt less urgent and distracting, and her classwork improved. “I remember her carrying around this plastic pillbox with compartments for all the days of the week,” a friend from high school said. “It was part of this mysterious world of her psychiatric state.”
At parties, she flirted intently, but by the time she and a partner were together in bed, she said, “I’d kind of get hit with this realization that I was physically disconnected. And then I’d feel taken advantage of, and I would kind of flip out and start crying, and the guy would be, like, ‘What the heck is going on?’ ” Most antidepressants dampen sexuality—up to seventy per cent of people who take the medications report this response—but Laura was ashamed to talk about the problem with her psychiatrist. “I assumed he’d see sexuality as a luxury,” she said. “He’d be, like, ‘Really? You have this serious illness, and you’re worried about that?’ ”
During her junior year, her pharmacologist raised her Prozac prescription to eighty milligrams, the maximum recommended dose. The Prozac made her drowsy, so he prescribed two hundred milligrams of Provigil, a drug for narcolepsy that is often taken by soldiers and truck drivers to stay awake during overnight shifts. The Provigil gave her so much energy that, she said, “I was just a machine.” She was on the varsity squash team and played the best squash of her life. She was so alert that she felt as if she could “figure people out,” unpacking the details of their identities: she imagined that she could peer into their childhoods and see how their parents had raised them.
The Provigil made it hard for Laura to sleep, so her pharmacologist prescribed Ambien, which she took every night. In the course of a year, her doctors had created what’s known as “a prescription cascade”: the side effects of one medication are diagnosed as symptoms of another condition, leading to a succession of new prescriptions. Her energy levels rose and fell so quickly that she was told she had a version of bipolar disorder called “rapid cycling,” a term that describes people who have four or more manic episodes in a year, but is also applied, more loosely, to people who shift dramatically between moods. Sometimes Laura thought, Women who are happy and socialize like to buy dresses. She’d go to Nordstrom and buy two or three dresses. She recognized that this behavior was “textbook”—she had bought her own copy of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders—but the awareness didn’t prevent the purchases.
Laura felt that the pressures of her junior year were paralyzing, so she did not return for the spring semester. That summer, she kept a journal in which she outlined her personal goals: “overanalysis must go”; “stop molding myself to the ideal person for my surroundings”; “find some faith in something, in anything.” But the idea of returning to Harvard that fall made her so distressed that she thought every day about dying. She took the semester off, and, at her request, her parents drove her to a hospital in Westchester County, New York. A psychiatrist there wrote that she “presents with inability to function academically.” At the hospital, where she stayed for two weeks, she was put on a new combination of pills: Lamictal, a mood stabilizer; Lexapro, an antidepressant; and Seroquel, an antipsychotic that she was told to use as a sleep aid. Her father, Lyman, said, “I had no conviction that the drugs were helping. Or that they weren’t helping.”
Laura returned to Harvard and managed to graduate, an achievement she chalked up to muscle memory; she was the kind of student who could regurgitate information without absorbing it. Then she held a series of jobs—working as an assistant for a professor and for a state agency that issued building permits—that she didn’t believe would lead to a career. She experienced what John Teasdale, a research psychologist at the University of Oxford, named “depression about depression.” She interpreted each moment of lethargy or disappointment as the start of a black mood that would never end. Psychiatric diagnoses can ensnare people in circular explanations: they are depressed because they are depressed.
Over the next four years, her doctors tripled her antidepressant dosage. Her dosage of Lamictal quadrupled. She also began taking Klonopin, which is a benzodiazepine, a class of drugs that has sedative effects. “What I heard a lot was that I was ‘treatment-resistant,’ ” she said. “Something in me was so strong and so powerful that even these sophisticated medications couldn’t make it better.”
For a brief period, Laura saw a psychiatrist who was also a psychoanalyst, and he questioned the way that she’d framed her illness. He doubted her early bipolar diagnosis, writing that “many depressions are given a ‘medical’ name by a psychiatrist, ascribing the problem to ‘chemistry’ and neglecting the context and specificity of why someone is having those particular life problems at that particular time.” He reminded her, “You described hating becoming a woman.” Laura decided that “he wasn’t legit.” She stopped going to her appointments.
She rarely saw friends from high school or college. “At a certain point, it was just, Oh, my God, Laura Delano—she’s ill,” the friend from high school said. “She seemed really anesthetized.” Laura had gained nearly forty pounds since freshman year, which she attributes partly to the medications. When she looked in the mirror, she felt little connection to her reflection. “All I ever want to do is lie in my bed, cuddle with my dog, and read books from writers whose minds I can relate to,” she wrote to a psychiatrist. “That’s all I ever want to do.” She identified intensely with Plath, another brilliant, privileged, charismatic young woman who, in her journal, accuses herself of being just another “SELFISH, EGOCENTRIC, JEALOUS AND UNIMAGINATIVE FEMALE.” Laura said that, when she read Plath’s work, she “felt known for the first time.”
Laura found a psychiatrist she admired, whom I’ll call Dr. Roth. At appointments, Laura would enter a mode in which she could recount her psychic conflicts in a cool, clinical tone, taking pride in her psychiatric literacy. She saw her drugs as precision instruments that could eliminate her suffering, as soon as she and Dr. Roth found the right combination. “I medicated myself as though I were a finely calibrated machine, the most delicate error potentially throwing me off,” she later wrote. If she had coffee with someone and became too excited and talkative, she thought, Oh, my God, I might be hypomanic right now. If she woke up with racing thoughts, she thought, My symptoms of anxiety are ramping up. I should watch out for this. If they last more than a day or two, Dr. Roth may have to increase my meds.
The day before Thanksgiving, 2008, Laura drove to the southern coast of Maine, to a house owned by her late grandparents. Her extended family was there to celebrate the holiday. She noticed relatives tensing their shoulders when they talked to her. “She seemed muted and tucked away,” her cousin Anna said. When Laura walked through the house and the old wooden floorboards creaked beneath her feet, she felt ashamed to be carrying so much weight.
On her third day there, her parents took her into the living room, closed the doors, and told her that she seemed trapped. They were both crying. Laura sat on a sofa with a view of the ocean and nodded, but she wasn’t listening. “The first thing that came into my mind was: You’ve put everyone through enough.”
She went to her bedroom and poured eighty milligrams of Klonopin, eight hundred milligrams of Lexapro, and six thousand milligrams of Lamictal into a mitten. Then she sneaked into the pantry and grabbed a bottle of Merlot and put the wine, along with her laptop, into a backpack. Her sisters and cousins were getting ready to go to a Bikram-yoga class. Her youngest sister, Chase, asked her to join them, but Laura said she was going outside to write. “She looked so dead in her eyes,” Chase said. “There was no expression. There was nothing there, really.”
There were two trails to the ocean, one leading to a sandy cove and the other to the rocky coast, where Laura and her sisters used to fish for striped bass. Laura took the path to the rocks, passing a large boulder that her sister Nina, a geology major in college, had written her thesis about. The tide was low, and it was cold and windy. Laura leaned against a rock, took out her laptop, and began typing. “I will not try to make this poetic, for it shouldn’t be,” she wrote. “It is embarrassingly cliché to assume that one should write a letter to her loved ones upon ending her life.”
She swallowed a handful of pills at a time, washing them down with red wine. She found it increasingly hard to sit upright, and her vision began to narrow. As she lost consciousness, she thought, This is the most peaceful experience I’ve ever had. She felt grateful to be ending her life in such a beautiful place. She fell over and hit her head on a rock. She heard the sound but felt no pain.
When Laura hadn’t returned by dusk, her father walked along the shoreline with a flashlight until he saw her open laptop on a rock. Laura was airlifted to Massachusetts General Hospital, but the doctors said they weren’t sure that she would ever regain consciousness. She was hypothermic, her body temperature having fallen to nearly ninety-four degrees.
[IMG]After two days in a medically induced coma, she woke up in the intensive-care unit. Her sisters and parents watched as she opened her eyes. Chase said, “She looked at all of us and processed that we were all there, that she was still alive, and she started sobbing. She said, ‘Why am I still here?’ ”
After a few days, Laura was transported to McLean Hospital, where she’d been elated to arrive seven years earlier. Now she was weak, dizzy, sweating profusely, and anemic. Her body ached from a condition called rhabdomyolysis, which results from the release of skeletal-muscle fibres into the bloodstream. She had a black eye from hitting the rock. Nevertheless, within a few days she returned to the mode she adopted among doctors. “Her eye contact and social comportment were intact,” a doctor wrote. Although she was still disappointed that her suicide hadn’t worked, she felt guilty for worrying her family. She reported having a “need to follow rules,” a doctor wrote. Another doctor noted that she did not seem to meet the criteria for major depression, despite her attempted suicide. The doctor proposed that she had borderline personality disorder, a condition marked by unstable relationships and self-image and a chronic sense of emptiness. According to her medical records, Laura agreed. “Maybe I’m borderline,” she said.
She was started on a new combination of medications: lithium, to stabilize her moods, and Ativan, a benzodiazepine, in addition to the antipsychotic Seroquel, which she had already been taking. Later, a second antipsychotic, Abilify, was added—common practice, though there was limited research justifying the use of antipsychotics in combination. “It is tempting to add a second drug just for the sake of ‘doing something,’ ” a 2004 paper in Current Medicinal Chemistry warns.
Shortly before Laura was discharged, she drafted a letter to the staff on her unit. “I truly don’t know where to begin in putting in words the appreciation I feel for what you’ve all done to help me,” she wrote. “It’s been so many years since I’ve felt the positive emotions—hope, mostly—that have flooded over me.” Unpersuaded by her own sentiment, she stopped the letter midsentence and never sent it.
Laura moved back home to live with her parents in Greenwich and spent her nights drinking with old friends. She told her psychiatrist, “I don’t feel grounded. . . . I am floating.” Her father encouraged her to “try to reach for one little tiny positive thought, so you can get a little bit of relief.” When she couldn’t arrive at one, he urged her, “Just think of Bitsy,” their cairn terrier.
When it was clear that positivity was out of reach, Laura began seeing a new psychiatrist at McLean, who embraced the theory that her underlying problem was borderline personality disorder. “It is unclear whether she has bipolar (as diagnosed in the past),” he wrote.
The concept of a borderline personality emerged in medical literature in the nineteen-thirties, encompassing patients who didn’t fit into established illness categories. Describing a borderline woman, the psychoanalyst Helene Deutsch, a colleague of Freud’s, said, “It is like the performance of an actor who is technically well trained but who lacks the necessary spark to make his impersonations true to life.” In 1980, the diagnosis was added to the DSM, which noted that “the disorder is more commonly diagnosed in women.” One of its defining features is a formless, shifting sense of self. An editorial in Lancet Psychiatry this year proposed that “borderline personality disorder is not so much a diagnosis as it is a liminal state.”
In 2010, Laura moved in with her aunt Sara, who lived outside Boston, and attended a day-treatment program for borderline patients. “It was another offering of what could fix me, and I hadn’t tried it,” she said. At her intake interview, she wore stretchy black yoga pants from the Gap, one of the few garments that allowed her to feel invisible. She said that the director of the program told her, “So, you went to Harvard. I bet you didn’t think you’d end up at a place like this.” Laura immediately started crying, though she knew that her response would be interpreted as “emotional lability,” a symptom of the disorder.
Laura had been content to be bipolar. “I fit into the DSM criteria perfectly,” she said. But borderline personality disorder didn’t feel blameless to her. Almost all the patients in Laura’s group were women, and many had histories of sexual trauma or were in destructive relationships. Laura said that she interpreted the diagnosis as her doctors saying, “You are a slutty, manipulative, fucked-up person.”
Laura sometimes drank heavily, and, at the suggestion of a friend, she had begun attending Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. Laura was heartened by the stories of broken people who had somehow survived. The meetings lacked the self-absorption, the constant turning inward, that she felt at the clinic, where she attended therapy every day. When Laura’s pharmacologist prescribed her Naltrexone—a drug that is supposed to block the craving for alcohol—Laura was insulted. If she were to quit drinking, she wanted to feel that she had done it on her own. She was already taking Effexor (an antidepressant), Lamictal, Seroquel, Abilify, Ativan, lithium, and Synthroid, a medication to treat hypothyroidism, a side effect of lithium. The medications made her so sedated that she sometimes slept fourteen hours a night. When she slept through a therapy appointment, her therapist called the police to check on her at her aunt’s house. “That really jolted something in me,” Laura said.
In May, 2010, a few months after entering the borderline clinic, she wandered into a bookstore, though she rarely read anymore. On the table of new releases was “Anatomy of an Epidemic,” by Robert Whitaker, whose cover had a drawing of a person’s head labelled with the names of several medications that she’d taken. The book tries to make sense of the fact that, as psychopharmacology has become more sophisticated and accessible, the number of Americans disabled by mental illness has risen. Whitaker argues that psychiatric medications, taken in heavy doses over the course of a lifetime, may be turning some episodic disorders into chronic disabilities. (The book has been praised for presenting a hypothesis of potential importance, and criticized for overstating evidence and adopting a crusading tone.)
Laura wrote Whitaker an e-mail with the subject line “Psychopharms and Selfhood,” and listed the many drugs she had taken. “I grew up in a suburban town that emphasized the belief that happiness comes from looking perfect to others,” she wrote. Whitaker lived in Boston, and they met for coffee. Whitaker told me that Laura reminded him of many young people who had contacted him after reading the book. He said, “They’d been prescribed one drug, and then a second, and a third, and they are put on this other trajectory where their self-identity changes from being normal to abnormal—they are told that, basically, there is something wrong with their brain, and it isn’t temporary—and it changes their sense of resilience and the way they present themselves to others.”
At her appointments with her pharmacologist, Laura began to raise the idea of coming off her drugs. She had used nineteen medications in fourteen years, and she wasn’t feeling better. “I never had a baseline sense of myself, of who I am, of what my capacities are,” she said. The doctors at the borderline clinic initially resisted her requests, but they also seemed to recognize that her struggles transcended brain chemistry. A few months earlier, one doctor had written on a prescription pad, “Practice Self-Compassion,” and for the number of refills he’d written, “Infinite.”
Following her pharmacologist’s advice, Laura first stopped Ativan, the benzodiazepine. A few weeks later, she went off Abilify, the antipsychotic. She began sweating so much that she could wear only black. If she turned her head quickly, she felt woozy. Her body ached, and occasionally she was overwhelmed by waves of nausea. Cystic acne broke out on her face and her neck. Her skin pulsed with a strange kind of energy. “I never felt quiet in my body,” she said. “It felt like there was a current of some kind under my skin, and I was trapped inside this encasing that was constantly buzzing.”
A month later, she went off Effexor, the antidepressant. Her fear of people judging her circled her head in permutations that became increasingly invasive. When a cashier at the grocery store spoke to her, she was convinced that he was only pretending to be cordial—that what he really wanted to say was “You are a repulsive, disgusting, pathetic human.” She was overstimulated by the colors of the cereal boxes in the store and by the grating sounds of people talking and moving. “I felt as if I couldn’t protect myself from all this life lived around me,” she said.
She began to experience emotion that was out of context—it felt simultaneously all-consuming and artificial. “The emotions were occupying me and, on one level, I knew they were not me, but I felt possessed by them,” she said. Later, she found a community of people online who were struggling to withdraw from psychiatric medications. They’d invented a word to describe her experience: “neuro-emotion,” an exaggerated feeling not grounded in reality. The Web forum Surviving Antidepressants, which is visited by thousands of people every week, lists the many varieties of neuro-emotion: neuro-fear, neuro-anger, neuro-guilt, neuro-shame, neuro-regret. Another word that members used was “dystalgia,” a wash of despair that one’s life has been futile.
When on the drugs, Laura said, “I never had a baseline sense of myself.”
Photograph by Levi Mandel for The New Yorker
For many people on the forum, it was impossible to put the experience into words. “The effects of these drugs come so close to your basic ‘poles of being’ that it’s really hard to describe them in any kind of reliable way,” one person wrote. Another wrote, “This withdrawal process has slowly been stripping me of everything I believed about myself and life. One by one, parts of ‘me’ have been falling away, leaving me completely empty of any sense of being someone.”
It took Laura five months to withdraw from five drugs, a process that coincided with a burgeoning doubt about a diagnosis that had become a kind of career. When she’d experienced symptoms of depression or hypomania, she had known what to do with them: she’d remember the details and tell her psychiatrist. Now she didn’t have language to mark her experiences. She spent hours alone, watching “South Park” or doing jigsaw puzzles. When her aunt Sara updated the rest of the family about Laura, the news was the same: they joked that she had become part of the couch. Her family, Laura said, learned to vacuum around her. Had she come from a less well-off and generous family, she’s not sure she would have been able to go off her medications. Others in her situation might have lost their job and, without income, ended up homeless. It took six months before she felt capable of working part time.
Laura had always assumed that depression was caused by a precisely defined chemical imbalance, which her medications were designed to recalibrate. She began reading about the history of psychiatry and realized that this theory, promoted heavily by pharmaceutical companies, is not clearly supported by evidence. Genetics plays a role in mental disorder, as do environmental influences, but the drugs do not have the specificity to target the causes of an illness. Wayne Goodman, a former chair of the F.D.A.’s Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee, has called the idea that pills fix chemical imbalances a “useful metaphor” that he would never use with his patients. Ronald Pies, a former editor of Psychiatric Times, has said, “My impression is that most psychiatrists who use this expression”—that the pills fix chemical imbalances—“feel uncomfortable and a little embarrassed when they do so. It’s kind of a bumper-sticker phrase that saves time.”
Dorian Deshauer, a psychiatrist and historian at the University of Toronto, has written that the chemical-imbalance theory, popularized in the eighties and nineties, “created the perception that the long term, even life-long use of psychiatric drugs made sense as a logical step.” But psychiatric drugs are brought to market in clinical trials that typically last less than twelve weeks. Few studies follow patients who take the medications for more than a year. Allen Frances, an emeritus professor of psychiatry at Duke, who chaired the task force for the fourth edition of the DSM, in 1994, told me that the field has neglected questions about how to take patients off drugs—a practice known as “de-prescribing.” He said that “de-prescribing requires a great deal more skill, time, commitment, and knowledge of the patient than prescribing does.” He emphasizes what he called a “cruel paradox: there’s a large population on the severe end of the spectrum who really need the medicine” and either don’t have access to treatment or avoid it because it is stigmatized in their community. At the same time, many others are “being overprescribed and then stay on the medications for years.” There are almost no studies on how or when to go off psychiatric medications, a situation that has created what he calls a “national public-health experiment.”
Roland Kuhn, a Swiss psychiatrist credited with discovering one of the first antidepressants, imipramine, in 1956, later warned that many doctors would be incapable of using antidepressants properly, “because they largely or entirely neglect the patient’s own experiences.” The drugs could only work, he wrote, if a doctor is “fully aware of the fact that he is not dealing with a self-contained, rigid object, but with an individual who is involved in constant movement and change.”
A decade after the invention of antidepressants, randomized clinical studies emerged as the most trusted form of medical knowledge, supplanting the authority of individual case studies. By necessity, clinical studies cannot capture fluctuations in mood that may be meaningful to the patient but do not fit into the study’s categories. This methodology has led to a far more reliable body of evidence, but it also subtly changed our conception of mental health, which has become synonymous with the absence of symptoms, rather than with a return to a patient’s baseline of functioning, her mood or personality before and between episodes of illness. “Once you abandon the idea of the personal baseline, it becomes possible to think of emotional suffering as relapse—instead of something to be expected from an individual’s way of being in the world,” Deshauer told me. For adolescents who go on medications when they are still trying to define themselves, they may never know if they have a baseline, or what it is. “It’s not so much a question of Does the technology deliver?” Deshauer said. “It’s a question of What are we asking of it?”
Antidepressants are now taken by roughly one in eight adults and adolescents in the U.S., and a quarter of them have been doing so for more than ten years. Industry money often determines the questions posed by pharmacological studies, and research about stopping drugs has never been a priority.
Barbiturates, a class of sedatives that helped hundreds of thousands of people to feel calmer, were among the first popular psychiatric drugs. Although leading medical journals asserted that barbiturate addiction was rare, within a few years it was evident that people withdrawing from barbiturates could become more anxious than they were before they began taking the drugs. (They could also hallucinate, have convulsions, and even die.)
Valium and other benzodiazepines were introduced in the early sixties, as a safer option. By the seventies, one in ten Americans was taking Valium. The chief of clinical pharmacology at Massachusetts General Hospital declared, in 1976, “I have never seen a case of benzodiazepine dependence” and described it as “an astonishingly unusual event.” Later, though, the F.D.A. acknowledged that people can become dependent on benzodiazepines, experiencing intense agitation when they stop taking them.
Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or S.S.R.I.s—most prominently Prozac and Zoloft—were developed in the late eighties and early nineties, filling a gap in the market opened by skepticism toward benzodiazepines. S.S.R.I.s were soon prescribed not just for depression but for the nervous ailments that the benzodiazepines had previously addressed. (There had been other drugs used as antidepressants, but they had often been prescribed cautiously, because of concerns about their side effects.) As Jonathan Metzl writes, in “Prozac on the Couch,” S.S.R.I.s were marketed especially to female consumers, as drugs that would empower them at work while preserving the kind of feminine traits required at home. One advertisement for Zoloft showed a woman in a pants suit, holding the hands of her two children, her wedding ring prominent, next to the phrase “Power That Speaks Softly.” Today, antidepressants are taken by one in five white American women.
Concerns about withdrawal symptoms emerged shortly after S.S.R.I.s came to market, and often involved pregnant women who had been told to discontinue their medications, out of concern that the drugs could affect the fetus. A 2001 article in the Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience chronicled thirty-six women who were on either antidepressants, benzodiazepines, or a combination of the two, and who stopped taking the drugs when they became pregnant. A third of the patients said they felt suicidal, and four were admitted to a hospital. One had an abortion, because she no longer felt capable of going through with the pregnancy.
Internal records of pharmaceutical manufacturers show that the companies have been aware of the withdrawal problem. At a panel discussion in 1996, Eli Lilly invited seven experts to develop a definition of antidepressant withdrawal. Their findings were published in a supplement of the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry that was sponsored by Eli Lilly and was highly favorable to the company’s own product, Prozac, which has the longest half-life of all the S.S.R.I.s; the drug clears slowly from the body. The panelists observed that withdrawing from other antidepressants was more likely to lead to “discontinuation reactions,” such as agitation, detachment, “uncharacteristic crying spells and paralyzing sadness.” “Although generally mild and short-lived,” one paper in the supplement explained, “discontinuation symptoms can be severe and chronic.” The panel defined “discontinuation syndrome” as a condition that could be “rapidly reversed by the reintroduction of the original medication.”
Shortly after the Eli Lilly panel, SmithKline Beecham, which manufactured Paxil, distributed a memo to its sales team accusing Eli Lilly of “trying to hide” the withdrawal symptoms of its products. “The truth of the matter is that the only discontinuation syndrome Lilly is worried about is the discontinuation of Prozac,” the memo said. In another internal memo, SmithKline Beecham instructed staff to “highlight the benign nature of discontinuation symptoms, rather than quibble about their incidence.”
Guy Chouinard, a retired professor of psychiatry at McGill and at the University of Montreal, who served as a consultant for Eli Lilly for ten years and did one of the first clinical trials of Prozac, told me that when S.S.R.I.s came on the market he was thrilled to see his patients, previously crippled by self-doubt and fear, living tolerable and fulfilling lives. Chouinard is considered one of the founders of psychopharmacology in Canada. In the early two-thousands, he began to see patients who, after taking certain antidepressants for years, had stopped their medications and were experiencing what he described as “crescendo-like” anxiety and panic that went on for weeks and, in some cases, months. When he reinstated their medication, their symptoms began to resolve, usually within two days.
Most people who discontinue antidepressants do not suffer from withdrawal symptoms that last longer than a few days. Some experience none at all. “The medical literature on this is a mess,” Chouinard told me. “Psychiatrists don’t know their patients well—they aren’t following them long-term—so they don’t know whether to believe their patients when they say, ‘I’ve never had this experience in my life.’ ” He thinks that withdrawal symptoms, misdiagnosed and never given time to resolve, create a false sense that patients can’t function unless they go back on their drugs.
Giovanni Fava, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Buffalo, has devoted much of his career to studying withdrawal and has followed patients suffering from withdrawal symptoms a year after stopping antidepressants. A paper published last month in a journal he edits, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, reviewed eighty studies and found that in nearly two-thirds of them patients were taken off their medications in less than two weeks. Most of the studies did not consider how such an abrupt withdrawal might compromise the studies’ findings: withdrawal symptoms can easily be misclassified as relapse. Fava’s work is widely cited, yet he said that he has struggled to publish his research on this topic. To some degree, that makes sense: no one wants to deter people from taking drugs that may save their life or lift them out of disability. But to avoid investigating or sharing information on the subject—to assume that people can comprehend the drugs’ benefits and not their limits—seems to repeat a pattern of paternalism reminiscent of earlier epochs in the history of psychopharmacology.
[IMG]“Let me start by saying no one is a bigger feminist than me.”
David Taylor, the director of pharmacy and pathology at the Maudsley Hospital, in London, and the author of more than three hundred peer-reviewed papers, told me, “It is not as though we haven’t been burned by this before.” If he hadn’t experienced antidepressant withdrawal himself, Taylor said, “I think I would be sold on the standard texts.” But, he said, “experience is very different from what’s on the page.” Taylor described his own symptoms of withdrawal, from the antidepressant Effexor, as a “strange and frightening and torturous” experience that lasted six weeks. In a paper published last month in Lancet Psychiatry, he and a co-author reviewed brain imaging and case studies on withdrawal and argued that patients should taper off antidepressants over the course of months, rather than two to four weeks, as current guidelines advise. Such guidelines are based on a faulty assumption that, if a dose is reduced by half, it will simply reduce the effect in the brain by half. The paper asserts that the increasing long-term use of antidepressants “has arisen in part because patients are unwilling to stop due to the aversive nature of the withdrawal syndrome.” But, Taylor told me, his research “wouldn’t stop me from recommending an antidepressant for someone with fully fledged major depression, because the relief of suffering is of a different order of magnitude than the symptoms when you stop taking them.”
In the fifth edition of the DSM, published in 2013, the editors added an entry for “antidepressant discontinuation syndrome”—a condition also mentioned on drug labels—but the description is vague and speculative, noting that “longitudinal studies are lacking” and that little is known about the course of the syndrome. “Symptoms appear to abate over time,” the manual explains, while noting that “some individuals may prefer to resume medication indefinitely.”
Three months after Laura stopped all her medications, she was walking down the street in Boston and felt a flicker of sexual desire. “It was so uncomfortable and foreign to me that I didn’t know what to do with it,” she said. The sensation began to occur at random times of day, often in public and in the absence of an object of attraction. “It was as if that whole part of my body was coming online again, and I had no idea how to channel it,” she said. “I felt occupied by this overwhelming power.” She had never masturbated. “I was, like, Why do people like this? It didn’t make sense.”
When she was thirty-one, she began a long-distance relationship with Rob Wipond, a Canadian journalist. Both of them became emotional when talking with me about Laura’s sexuality. Laura told me, “I felt like a newborn. I hadn’t ever figured out what my body was meant to be.” Rob said, “She was open and awake. Everything was new to her. We were, like, ‘Well, gee, what is this sexuality thing—what shall we do?’ ”
For years, Laura had been unable to have stable relationships—a symptom, she’d assumed, of borderline personality disorder. “I honestly thought that, because I was mentally ill, the numbness was just part of me,” she told me. “I looked at beautiful sex scenes in movies, and it never crossed my mind that this was in the cards for me.” Now she wondered about the effects of the many medications she had been taking. “On this very sensory, somatic level, I couldn’t bond with another human being,” she said. “It never felt real. It felt synthetic.”
Laura bought a book about women’s sexuality, and learned how to give herself an orgasm. “It took so long and I finally figured it out, and I just broke down in tears and called Rob, and I was, like, ‘I did it! I did it! I did it!’ ”
She felt fortunate that her sexuality had returned in a way that eluded other people who were withdrawing from drugs. Although it is believed that people return to their sexual baseline, enduring sexual detachment is a recurring theme in online withdrawal forums. Audrey Bahrick, a psychologist at the University of Iowa Counseling Service, who has published papers on the way that S.S.R.I.s affect sexuality, told me that, a decade ago, after someone close to her lost sexual function on S.S.R.I.s, “I became pretty obsessive about researching the issue, but the actual qualitative experience of patients was never documented. There was this assumption that the symptoms would resolve once you stop the medication. I just kept thinking, Where is the data? Where is the data?” In her role as a counsellor, Bahrick sees hundreds of college students each year, many of whom have been taking S.S.R.I.s since adolescence. She told me, “I seem to have the expectation that young people would be quite distressed about the sexual side effects, but my observation clinically is that these young people don’t yet know what sexuality really means, or why it is such a driving force.”
Laura felt as if she were learning the contours of her adult self for the first time. When she felt dread or despair, she tried to accept the sensation without interpreting it as a sign that she was defective and would remain that way forever, until she committed suicide or took a new pill. It felt like a revelation, she said, to realize that “the objective in being alive isn’t the absence of pain.” She remembered identifying with a sad little bubble pictured in a popular advertisement for Zoloft—the bubble is moping around, crying and groaning, until it takes the medication and starts to bounce while birds sing—and became increasingly aware that her faith in the drugs’ potential had been misplaced. “I never felt helped by the drugs in the sense that I have meaning, I have purpose, I have relationships that matter to me,” she said. Overprescribing isn’t always due to negligence; it may also be that pills are the only form of help that some people are willing to accept. Laura tried to find language to describe her emotions and moods, rather than automatically calling them symptoms. “The word I use for it is ‘unlearn,’ ” she said. “You are peeling off layers that have been imposed.”
Laura still felt fondness for most of her psychiatrists, but, she said, “the loss of my sexuality is the hardest part to make peace with—it feels like a betrayal. I’ve discovered how much of the richness of being human is sexuality.”
She wrote several letters to Dr. Roth, her favorite psychiatrist, requesting her medical records, because she wanted to understand how the doctor had made sense of her numbness and years of deterioration. After a year, Dr. Roth agreed to a meeting. Laura prepared for hours. She intended to begin by saying, “I’m sitting in front of you and I’m off all these drugs, and I’ve never felt more vibrant and alive and capable, and yet we thought I had this serious mental illness for life. How do you make sense of that?” But, in Dr. Roth’s office, Laura was overwhelmed by nostalgia: the familiar hum of the white-noise machine, the sound of the wind sucked inside as Dr. Roth opened the front door. She had always loved Dr. Roth’s presence—the way she would sit in an armchair with her legs folded, cradling a large mug of coffee, her nails neatly polished. By the time Dr. Roth walked into the waiting room, Laura was crying.
They hugged and then took their usual positions in Dr. Roth’s office. But Laura said that Dr. Roth seemed so nervous that she talked for the entire appointment, summarizing the conversations they’d had together. It was only when Laura left that she realized she had never asked her questions.
Laura started a blog, in which she described how, in the course of her illness, she had lost the sense that she had agency. People began contacting her to ask for advice about getting off multiple psychiatric medications. Some had been trying to withdraw for years. They had developed painstaking methods for tapering their medications, like using grass-seed counters to dole out the beads in the capsules. Laura, who had a part-time job as a research assistant but who still got financial help from her parents, began spending four or five hours a day talking with people on Skype. “People were so desperate that, when they found someone who had gotten off meds, they were just, like, ‘Help me,’ ” she said.
David Cope, a former engineer for the Navy, told me that Laura’s writings “helped keep me alive. I needed to know that someone else had gone through it and survived.” In the process of withdrawing from Paxil, Ativan, and Adderall, he felt detached from emotional reactions that had previously felt habitual. “The way I would explain it to my wife is, I know that I love her,” he told me. “I know that I care for her. I know that I would lay down my life for her. But I don’t feel love. There’s no emotional-physical response: the sense of comfort and tingly love when you smell your spouse’s hair—I don’t have that.”
Angela Peacock, a thirty-nine-year-old veteran of the war in Iraq, told me, “I want to be Laura when I grow up.” Peacock had been on medications for thirteen years, including the “P.T.S.D. cocktail,” as it has become known: the antidepressant Effexor, the antipsychotic Seroquel, and Prazosin, a drug used to alleviate nightmares. “I never processed the trauma of being a twenty-three-year-old at war, and how that changed my view of humanity,” she said. “I just pressed Pause for thirteen years.”
Laura realized that she was spending her entire workday on these conversations. Because she needed to become financially self-reliant, she began charging seventy-five dollars an hour (on a sliding scale) to talk to people. Few psychiatrists are deeply engaged with these questions, so a chaotic field of consultants has filled the void. They are immersed in what Laura describes as “the layperson withdrawal community,” a constellation of Web forums and Facebook groups where people who have stopped their psychiatric medications advise one another: Surviving Antidepressants, the International Antidepressant Withdrawal Project, Benzo Buddies, Cymbalta Hurts Worse. The groups offer instructions for slowly getting off medications—they typically recommend that people reduce their doses by less than ten per cent each month—and a place to communicate about emotional experiences that do not have names. For many people on the forums, it was impossible to separate the biochemical repercussions from the social ones. The medicines worked on their bodies, but they also changed the way people understood their relationships and their social roles and the control they had over elements of their lives. A common theme on the forums is that people felt that at some point, having taken so many medications for so long, they’d become disabled—and they were no longer sure if this was due to their underlying disorder, the effect of withdrawing from their medications, or the way they had internalized the idea of being chronically ill.
[IMG]Peter Gordon, a Scottish psychiatrist who has worked for the National Health Service for twenty-five years, told me that he has struggled to find doctors to help him with his own process of withdrawal, so he turned to the online communities, which he believes are “changing the very nature of the power balance between patient and doctor.” He went on Paxil twenty-one years ago, for social anxiety, and has tried to go off several times, using a micropipette to measure a small reduction of the liquid form of the medication each month. It has not worked. Each time, he said, “I find my temperament different. I am not an angry person—I am gentle, I am affectionate, I am open—but in withdrawal I found that these qualities were less clear. I was more irritable. I was critical of my wife and focussed on things I wouldn’t normally care about.” He continued, “I personally find it really hard to try to capture that experience in words, and, if I’m finding it difficult to translate it into words, how are the studies going to capture it? There’s going to be an additional loss from words to quantifiable ratings. We are trained to understand the evidence base as paramount—it is the primary basis for mental-health prescriptions around the world, and I fully subscribe to it—but this evidence base can never be complete without listening to the wider story.”
After consulting with people on the phone for nearly five years, Laura worked with Rob Wipond and a physician’s assistant named Nicole Lamberson to create an online guide for people who wanted to taper off their pills. There were few precedents. In the late nineties, Heather Ashton, a British psychopharmacologist who had run a benzodiazepine-withdrawal clinic in Newcastle, had drafted a set of guidelines known as the Ashton Manual, which has circulated widely among patients and includes individual tapering schedules for various benzodiazepines, along with a glossary of disorienting symptoms. “People who have had bad experiences have usually been withdrawn too quickly (often by doctors!) and without any explanation of the symptoms,” Ashton wrote.
Laura’s Web site, which she called the Withdrawal Project, was published online in early 2018 as part of a nonprofit organization, Inner Compass Initiative, devoted to helping people make more informed choices about psychiatric treatment. She and Rob (whom she was no longer dating) created it with a grant from a small foundation, which gave her enough money to pay herself a salary, to hire others who had consulted with people withdrawing from medications, and to cull relevant insights about tapering strategies. “Anecdotal information is the best we have, because there is almost no clinical research on how to slowly and safely taper,” Laura said. The Web site helps people withdrawing from medications find others in the same city; it also offers information on computing the percentage of the dosage to drop, converting a pill into a liquid mixture by using a mortar and pestle, or using a special syringe to measure dosage reductions. Lamberson, who had struggled to withdraw from six psychiatric medications, told me, “You find yourself in this position where you have to become a kitchen chemist.”
Swapnil Gupta, an assistant professor at the Yale School of Medicine, told me that she is troubled that doctors have largely left this dilemma to patients to resolve. She and her colleagues have embarked on what she describes as an informal “de-prescribing” initiative. They routinely encounter patients who, like Laura, are on unnecessary combinations of psychiatric medications, but for different reasons: Laura saw her therapists as gurus who would solve her problems, whereas poor or marginalized patients may be overtreated as they cycle in and out of emergency rooms. Yet, when Gupta, who works at an outpatient clinic, raises the idea of tapering off patients’ medications, she said, some of them “worry they will lose their disability payments, because being on lots of meds has become a badge of illness. It is a loss of identity, a different way of living. Suddenly, everything that you are doing is yours—and not necessarily your medication.”
Gupta, too, is trying to recalibrate the way she understands her patients’ emotional lives. “We tend to see patients as fixed in time—we don’t see them as people who have ups and downs like we all do—and it can be really disconcerting when suddenly they are saying, ‘See, I’m crying. Put me back on my meds.’ ” She said, “I have to sit them down and say, ‘It’s O.K. to cry—normal people cry.’ Just today, someone asked me, ‘Do you cry?’ And I said, ‘Yes, I do.’ ”
In the fall of 2018, a few days after Thanksgiving, Laura’s sister Nina texted me: “10 years to the day, Laura has some news for you that may be a great ending to your story.” The previous year, Laura had moved to Hartford to live near a new boyfriend, Cooper Davis, and his four-year-old son. Now they had just returned from spending the holiday with her family in Maine. Standing in the kitchen of their second-floor apartment, Laura told Cooper that wood and thin plastic utensils can’t go in the dishwasher. He asked if a number of different household items were safe for the dishwasher, before saying he had one last question and pulling an engagement ring out of his pocket. Cooper had been planning to propose for several weeks, and he hadn’t realized that the moment he’d chosen was precisely a decade after her suicide attempt.
Laura had met Cooper, who works at an agency that supports people with psychiatric and addiction histories, two years earlier, at a mental-health conference in Connecticut. Cooper had been given Adderall for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder at seventeen and had become addicted. As an adolescent, he said, he was made to believe “I am not set up for this world. I need tweaking, I need adjusting.”
His work made him unusually welcoming of the fact that people in various states of emotional crisis often want to be near Laura. A few months after they were engaged, Bianca Gutman, a twenty-three-year-old from Montreal, flew to Hartford to spend the weekend with Laura. Bianca’s mother, Susan, had discovered Laura’s blog two years earlier and had e-mailed her right away. “I feel like I’m reading my daughter’s story,” she wrote. Susan paid Laura for Skype conversations, until Laura told her to stop. Laura had come to think of Bianca, who had been diagnosed as having depression when she was twelve, as a little sister navigating similar dilemmas.
While Bianca was visiting, a friend from out of town who was in the midst of what appeared to be a manic episode was staying at an Airbnb a few houses down the street. Laura was fielding phone calls from the woman’s close friends, who wanted to know what should be done, but the only thing Laura felt comfortable advising was that the woman get some sleep—she had medications to help with that—and avoid significant life decisions. The woman had been traumatized by a hospitalization a few years earlier, and Laura guessed that “she came here because she didn’t want to be alone, and she knows that I would never call the cops on her.”
Laura and Bianca spent the weekend taking walks in the frigid weather and having leisurely conversations in Laura’s small living room. Bianca, who is barely five feet tall, moved and talked more slowly than Laura, as if many more decisions were required before she converted a thought into words. She had been on forty milligrams of Lexapro—double the recommended dose—for nearly nine years. She’d taken Abilify for six years. Now, after talking to Laura, Bianca’s father, an emergency-medicine doctor, had found a pharmacy in Montreal that was able to compound decreasing quantities of her medication, dropping one milligram each month. Bianca, who worked as an assistant at an elementary school, was down to five milligrams of Lexapro. Her mother said, “I often tell Bianca, ‘I see you coping better,’ and she’s, like, ‘Calm down, Mommy. It’s not like being off medication is going to wipe me clean and you’re going to get the daughter you had before’ ”—the hope she harbored when Bianca first went on medication.
Bianca, who had reddish-blond hair, which she’d put in a messy bun, was wearing a bulky turtleneck sweater. She sat on the couch with her legs curled neatly into a Z—a position that she later joked she had chosen because it made her feel more adult. Like Laura, Bianca had always appreciated when her psychiatrists increased the dosage of her medications. She said, “It was like they were just matching my pain,” which she couldn’t otherwise express. She described her depression as “nonsensical pain. It’s so shapeless and cloudy. It dodges all language.” She said that, in her first conversation with Laura, there was something about the way Laura said “Mm-hmm” that made her feel understood. “I hadn’t felt hopeful in a very long time. Hopeful about what? I don’t know. Just hopeful, I think, because I felt that connection with someone.” She told Laura, “Knowing that you know there’s no words—that’s enough for me.”
At my request, Laura had dug up several albums of childhood photographs, and the three of us sat on the floor going through them. Laura looked radically different from one year to the next. She had had a phase of wearing pastel polo shirts that were too small for her, and in this phase, when Laura was pictured among friends, Bianca and I struggled to tell which girl was her. It wasn’t just that she was fatter or thinner; her face seemed to be structured differently. In her débutante photos, she looked as if she were wearing someone else’s features. Bianca kept saying, “I don’t see you.”
Since I’d known Laura, she had always had a certain shine, but on this day she seemed nearly luminous. She had taken a new interest in clothes and was wearing high-waisted trousers from Sweden with a tucked-in T-shirt that accentuated her waist. When Cooper returned to the house, after an afternoon with his family, she exclaimed, “Oh, Cooper is back!” Then she became self-conscious and laughed at herself.
I told Laura that I was wary of repeating her sister’s sentiment that marriage was the end of her story. She agreed. “It’s not, like, ‘Laura has finally arrived,’ ” she said. “If anything, these trappings of whatever you want to call it—life?—have made things scarier.” She still felt overwhelmed by the tasks of daily life, like too many e-mails accumulating, and she cried about five times a week. She was too sensitive. She let situations escalate. Cooper said that his tendency in moments of tension was to get quiet, which exacerbated Laura’s fear that she was not being heard. She did not see a therapist—she felt exhausted from years of analyzing her most private thoughts—but, she said, “If I actually sat in front of a psychiatrist and did an evaluation, I would totally meet the criteria for a number of diagnoses.” But the diagnostic framework no longer felt meaningful to her.
Perhaps we all have an ugly version of ourselves that, in our worst moments, we imagine we’ve become: when Bianca felt hopeless, she thought, mockingly, This is you. How could you possibly think otherwise, you poor thing? Laura’s thought was: You are not a legitimate person. You don’t deserve to be here. In many of our conversations, Laura said, she was trying to ignore the thought: Who do you think you are, speaking with this journalist? Shut up and go away. She said, “And yet we’re also having this conversation and I’m totally present in it.”
Bianca said, “It’s like your darkness is still there, but it’s almost like it’s next to you as opposed to your totality of being.”
Laura agreed that she was experiencing “the stuff of being alive that I just had no idea was possible for me.” But, she said, “it’s not like I’m good to go. Literally every day, I am still wondering how to be an adult in this world.” ♦
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 104 - Loop: 427 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 45
#Queen #not #valid #monarch, Revised Edition!
#Challenge of #Jurisdiction!
The "Queen" and her bloodline are not valid monarchs!
In the beginning there was: God!
The True and first and foremost power and authority comes FROM God and God ONLY!
God has a son named: Jesus Christ,
Jesus Christ ordained Prophets and Apostles,
Now at no point in time from since when God created the Earth to this very minute, this very second, did any of these TRUE Powers ever lay hands upon and ordain a King or Queen!
And IF God has ever called an individual to be a King or Queen, ( Rare ) then that said individual would need to obey the laws of God in order to maintain their title! / And if they are not acting in accordance with the laws of God, it then becomes a must needs that they step down or be violently removed!
Thus the Kings and Queens that are up on the Earth today have no true power over anyone!
I am a freeborn flesh and blood man, and blessed living Soul serving God only!
I am not subject to any entity anywhere, ( With the exception of: God our Heavenly Father. )
Whereas it is my understanding that I am not obliged to obey the orders of any one claiming to be a Queen or King or those acting on behalf of such an insane entity, as no one who does make preposterous claims that abandon and erode the concept of equality has any authority over me,
Whereas it is my understanding equality before the law is paramount and mandatory!
( IE: You can put a crown upon your head and dress in fancy attire with Gold and Jewels and sit upon a fancy throne all you like! But just remember, the poor man down the street with the Corn Cob Pipe is your Brother and is Equal unto you in God's eyes! )
( Those that have a crown upon their heads must have had some of that Imperial Margarine! LOL! http://youtu.be/GvVduWJSjX0 )
Some people try to argue that we as Latter-day Saints have in: The Articles of Faith,
12, We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
That is an Article of Faith, NOT a Commandment!
And Yes, I have faith, in God!
But that does not mean to follow orders blindly!
Think For Yourself, Question Authority!
In all things we are to use Sense and Sensibility!
Subject means slave!
And we are not slaves but we are free in God!
Some may also argue, We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man,
Yes! And I am ALL for a Just and Righteous government!
But what we have in so called "power" now is not that!
What we have in government now is a band of Gadianton robbers!
( The Gadianton robbers, according to the Book of Mormon, were a secret criminal organization in ancient America. )
( A Gadianton Robber is someone who uses force, secrecy, and deceit to obtain power over other men. Gadianton Robbers lie, bribe, cheat, steal, make secret pacts and agreements, hold secret meetings to plan unethical and sometimes illegal actions, and worse, IE: Corrupt Government Agents! )
I say, whereas it is my understanding that the Bible warns all players and actors of de facto courts "judge not lest you be judged", and,
Whereas it is my understanding that the people in the government are merely playing roles, and,
Whereas I AM NOT PLAYING!
So, if, the Queen of England made it a "law" that the "subjects" may no longer wear pants, and the LDS Church is for modesty, What would you do?
You would see a bunch of crazy fools going around wearing no pants!
Well, Me I would be wearing pants and Praising God above in Heaven!
As I said, In all things we are to use Sense and Sensibility!
There are two very important precedents that were established with
this case that need to be studied in detail. There was a preliminary
argument presented to the court to challenge both the jurisdiction and
the sovereignty of Elizabeth Battenberg/Mountbatten, which was based
on two distinct points. The first point being she was knowingly, and
with malice aforethought, coronated on a fake stone in 1953 and thus
has never been lawfully crowned.
She has been pretending to be the monarch for over 58 years.
In actual fact the Coronation is a binding oath and a contract,
requiring the monarch's signature. Which brings us to the second
At that Coronation ceremony, Elizabeth signed a binding contract,
before God and the British people, that she would do her utmost to
maintain The Laws of God. This she solemnly swore to do, with her
hand placed on the Sovereign's Bible, before kissing The Bible and
signing the contract. Please note well that in The Law of God, found
in the first five books of The Bible, man-made legislation is strictly
The very first time that she gave "royal assent" to any piece of
man-made legislation, she broke her solemn oath with God and with the
British people and she ceased to be the monarch with immediate effect.
To date, she has broken her oath thousands and thousands of times,
which is a water-proof, iron-clad, undeniable FACT. She is therefore
without question not the monarch, but instead is a criminal guilty of
high treason among her other numerous crimes.
All of the courts in the U.K. are referred to as HM courts or "her
majesty's" courts, which means every judge draws their authority from
her. All cases brought by the state are "Regina vs. Xxxxxxx", which
means they are all brought in the name of the queen. So if she isn't
really the monarch, then she doesn't have the authority or the
jurisdiction to bring a case against anyone else. And neither do any
of "her majesty's" courts or judges.
Bearing in mind the legal maxim that no man can judge in his own
cause, it should be crystal clear that no judge in the Commonwealth
could lawfully rule on a challenge to the jurisdiction and sovereignty
of the monarch. It is a question of their own authority, so they are
obviously not impartial to the outcome. That is why the ONLY way the
question of jurisdiction can lawfully and impartially be decided is by
a jury. And that is exactly why John Anthony Hill requested a jury
trial to decide his challenge to the jurisdiction and sovereignty of
No judge under any circumstances can deny someone their right to
request a jury trial. No judge can lawfully rule in their own cause.
That doesn't mean they won't try, it only means that when they do,
they are committing a criminal act (just as Judge Jeffrey Vincent
Pegden did at John Anthony Hill's trial) and that their decision is
immediate grounds for an appeal and for a citizen's arrest. The fact
that the court and its corrupt judge tried to ignore this particular
point is proof that they are well aware they have no lawful authority.
** That is one of the reasons why this is a landmark case. If everyone
began using this defence tomorrow, in all of the Commonwealth courts
and in the United States, the entire legal system could be brought to
its knees in a matter of weeks if not days. **
The signed by E2 coronation oath (Exhibit 1) and the Bible she swore on at that Coronation (Exhibit 2) clearly orders judges and lawyers to obey the
Laws of God.
These two factual pieces of evidence ought to be presented at the start, as defence in every single victimless case, or those in progress, where you have been wrongfully charged, and to proceed forth Lawfully.
To make this perfectly clear, the way is available with the two pieces of evidence to shift the cases to begin to use only God's Laws which demands a trial by jury, to proceed forth maintaining only God's Laws with judges roles clearly defined.
Whilst E2 is committing treason, explained in full detail in the Lawful Argument, the signed oath orders obedience to all subjects to maintain only the Laws of God.
Judges/lawyers have taken an oath (B.A.R.), thus ordered to comply to Exhibit 1, and Exhibit 2 (Bible), and it is as simple as that. People lacked awareness of that which was in place, and there for people to use, but didn't know. We know now.
( For those of you in the United States who may be thinking "hey, we
aren't a Commonwealth country, why would this affect us?" all you
really need to know is that these three little letters:- B.A.R., stand
for the British Accreditation Registry. It doesn't matter whether it
is the Australian BAR or the Canadian BAR or the American BAR
association; they ALL report to the British monarch, who is the head
of the BAR. )
** So thanks to John Anthony Hill and this amazing precedent, we now all
know a peaceful way to bring the system down. If enough people ACT
and use this simple, bullet-proof defence, we can put an end to this
insanity and injustice. All that is required now is for YOU to spread
the word to as many as possible so that this peaceful rebellion can
begin immediately. Or you can watch the last remnants of your
freedoms swept away as the Global Elite plunge the entire world into
bankruptcy and WW3 to usher in their "New World Order". **
By now some of you may be beginning to see the Light at the end of
this very dark tunnel and are so enthusiastic about putting this
simple plan into motion that you may have forgotten there was a second
precedent set during this landmark case.
** All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
-- Edmund Burke. **
Please note that the living woman Elizabeth Battenberg/Mountbatten actually has no jurisdiction or sovereignty over anything!
If enough people joined together to fight E2, the Illuminati would topple like a frail stack of cards.
I am for Laws serving God!
( Note: This brings to head another hairy issue, in that with this accreditation comes a grant of royal title, that of Esquire. All members of the BAR are entitled to the use of Esquire after their
name, whether they chose to disclose this or not.
This brings every said lawyer in conflict with the US Constitution as far as eligibility for public office in the United States.
Royal title is in conflict with eligibility for holding office in the federal government:
Article I, Section 9 -
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall,
without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or
The War of 1812 was actually fought ove the original 13th Amendment which put teeth into Section 9 above--a whole other story... )
( It is Not uncommon for insane lawyers to think they are normal and others are crazy.
U.S. Lawyers have sworn allegiance to the Supreme Court of a given
State, and subsequently to the British Accreditation Registry which
oversees the whole judicial circus.
Each time you've been admitted to the B.A.R. you swore an oath of
allegiance to the Crown Court,
never questioning what the B.A.R. stood for, even after thirty-two
years. The B.A.R. has been right in front of your face all along.
B.A.R. = BRITISH.
You've said I'm a danger. I am a danger to lawyers, judges, the Crown,
anyone else supporting a criminal "legal" system.
No-one is, or ever was, permitted to make-up any rules/laws to rule people. IT IS Wrong. Period. )
Issues" are to be decided by a jury (community ), never ever by a judge using made-up rules.
American judges having sworn the Judicial Oath before God, which is, to serve only God; thus an oath not Lawful and null and void if not serving God. Associations with the B.A.R. effectively allows for both Exhibits 1 and 2, ordering God's Laws in the Courts. It's quite
simple; either you maintain the oath you took, or you must step down and allow the people to practice their God-given rights.
I don't have to prove The Law. It is there and as a lawyer, B.A.R. member, you swore on a Bible.
Which is exactly the point. You are ordered to keep that oath "you" took, then swore to maintain.
The Bible does not command one must know God to follow The Law. Yet it is The Law.
Odd you are not aware of the oath you took, and apparently in numerous States, on Biblical Law.
Clearly you are threatened. God's Law is for humans. The Lawful Defence explains in detail, needing to be read over and over till it sinks in, because the extent of a Rothschild brainwashing is obviously very extensive.
I understand you are threatened. Criminals usually are when caught red-handed.
Video: Coronation of Queen Elizabeth the Second in 1953 (Part 2/7)
In reference to Landmark Case, isn't it interesting? I have noticed on most websites that when someone speaks the truth, there is always and attorney keeping a watching eye on what is being written to the point that when the truth comes out to awaken people about facts, these attorneys jump in (as they do in any court scenario) and they either attack what has been presented or attack the one who is presenting the information, as delusional or frivolous.
However we know as fact that every lawyer speaks in a 'foreign tongue' (code) usually with marbles in their mouth and will most certainly attempt to profit from people's misery, a legal mercenary for hire. Everything an attorney or lawyer in court scenario presents is always hearsay, they never have first hand personal knowledge of any fact and for the most part present 'joint the dots' evidence. I would never want to take on this profession of being a lawyer, why?
Because it is one of only two professions that Christ condemns. When an attorney speaks out as something being rubbish or delusional then it is time to pay attention to what he doesn't what you to pay attention to. The other critical point to make is that in order to 'apply the substantive Law' you need lawful money, i.e silver or gold coin to pay any debt. While we use 'legal tender', currency, as money we deal in fictions only and trumped up charges, this, is the reality.
The Law cannot be applied when we use legal tender so now the attorneys deal in procedures only and make attempts to contract with any 'victim' by agreement of his or her default responses or conduct using construed/implied conduct that is taken under 'judicial notice' that a victim must have agreed with the prosecution because they either 'argued' or failed to respond to a 'charge' and therefore must be 'agreeing' to be guilty by their conduct.
Christ tells us how we can win these legal/fictional cases, 'agree with your adversary quickly while you are on the way with him', in other words, they key is to come to an agreement in the private and then bring that into the court for ratification and not for re-deterimation. Information that you present here Henry in relation to this case is very important so that people can protect themselves from these vultures in the legal system who operate as Satan do, they accuse the angels night and day with trumped up charges!
Thank you for this very revealing piece of writing.
( The Bible says about law(s) it is in (KJV) Deuteronomy 4:2 "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you." So now you have heard it. God's "command" to His people Israel, )
In the Biblical Law which Elizabeth swore to uphold, Deuteronomy 4:2 says: "Ye shall not ADD unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought]from it"
So, Elizabeth made a legally binding contract which says she promises not to make new laws. This means that the very first time she gave "royal assent" to pass new legislation in the UK, she was in breech of contract, as that would add more laws, when she swore NOT to do that.
Since the contract Elizabeth made is what entitles her to the "crown", and the authority of that position, when she broke that contract, she lost her crown and therefore her power to legally and lawfully bring criminal cases against people.
Elizabeth Mountbatten, also known by the aliases: Elizabeth Windsor and Elizabeth the Second, who has never officially been crowned, because she was crowned sitting upon a fake Stone of Destiny, AND She was not crowned by TRUE Power and authority from God! ( See: 17 Points of the True Church! )
** Throne is the Throne of David that is to be inherited by Christ, during the Second-Coming, very soon according to Nostradamus. **
The monarch is prohibited from using their position for personal material gain of any kind and from making up their own laws and taxes and economic policies; either themselves or their politicians. To prove this FACT, I will quote you the relevant clauses of (contract):-
Deuteronomy 17:14 When thou art come unto the land which the "I AM" thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that [are]about me;
17:15 Thou shalt in any wise set [him]king over thee, whom the "I AM" thy God shall choose: [one]from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger (a Gentile) over thee, which [is]not thy brother.
17:16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt (slavery - employees under man-made laws), to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the "I AM" hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way. 17:17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.
17:18 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this Law in a book out of [that which is] before the priests the Levites ( The first five Books in The Bible):
17:19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the "I AM" his God, to keep all the words of this Law and these Statutes, to DO them:
17:20 That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the Commandment (Covenant), [to]the right hand (right-wing politics), or [to]the left (left-wing politics): to the end that he may prolong [his]days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel.
How then is it possible that Elizabeth Mountbatten, who is also known by the aliases "Windsor" and "QE 2", is the richest woman on Earth, whilst hundreds of thousands of British people are homeless, with millions living in relative poverty, and she has political parties of both left and right, in her illegal democracy? It is because the TRUTH about the British people's true identity has been purposely hidden from them, by the monarchy, so that the people would not read The Covenant; relate it to themselves and demand that the monarchy gives back the wealth it has defrauded the people out of, by using its own illegal laws and taxes.
Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not ADD unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought]from it, that ye may keep the Commandments of the "I AM" your God which I COMMAND you.
Elizabeth Mountbatten swore on and kissed the Sovereign's Holy Bible that contains The Law and verses just quoted, at her fraudulent coronation, "to faithfully serve God and the people for the rest of her life". Faithfully serving God means obeying Him and His Law, and, the first time she gave "Royal Assent" to any piece of legislation, she broke that solemn Coronation Oath and so was no longer the sovereign, with immediate effect, even if she had been crowned on the real Coronation Stone and had ever really been the sovereign, which she never was and is not.
The British monarchy knows full well that it is descended from David and that the Stone of Destiny is Jacob's Pillar and the Throne of David because they have ample evidence in their possession*. Why else then would they have hidden the TRUTH from the people, except in order to rip them off under their own laws. It cannot possibly be that they are ashamed of the fact that they are descended from David!?
The monarchy does not want the people to learn and keep The Covenant and God's Laws, or they would teach The Covenant in school. They want people to obey their laws, under which they can keep the people in poverty and slaves to them and their friends. Employee is only a modern polite word for slave.
For those who might claim that they are Christians and that The Laws no longer apply, I will quote you Christ's own words on this subject:-
Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy The Law, or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no way pass from The Law, till all (the prophecies) be fulfilled.
The next sick joke is that the monarch claims to be "Defender of The Faith", whilst doing the opposite of everything that Jesus said!
Thousands of British people are homeless; some reduced to living in cardboard-boxes and shop-doorways; whilst the queen, who claims to be head of the so called "christian church" and also the richest woman on Planet Earth; not only knows about it, but sees it and allows it to continue. Christ says that ALL rich people will burn in Hell-Fire (Luke 16:19-31; / Matthew 19:23-24). How then is it possible; if the Church of England serves Christ; for the richest woman on Earth to be the head / leader of the Faith that says rich people are evil and will burn in Hell-Fire, and that he/she who would be the leader must be the servant of all (Matthew 20:25-28; 23:11-12)? It is totally illogical!!! The church and monarchy obviously do not serve Christ; they serve mammon (Satan and his materialism). "Know a tree by the fruit it bears - Matthew 7:16-21, by their fruits will you know whether they be good or evil."
If just Elizabeth Mountbatten's wealth was redistributed back to the people, not counting all the others who have flourished under her and her predecessors' laws, there would be something like £15,000 for every man; woman and child in Britain. An average family of four would be roughly £60,000 better off. If we include all the other parasites as well, that figure would be at least doubled. How many people having thousands of pounds would be out stealing, or living in cardboard boxes?
God prohibited the British and all who love Him from serving lords (baalim) and told the people there is only one Lord and to serve only Him.
Judges 2:11 And the children of Israel (the British) did evil in the sight of the "I AM", and served lords (baalim):
2:12 And they forsook the "I AM" God of their fathers, which brought them out of the land of Egypt (slavery under man-made laws), and followed other gods, of the gods of the people that [were]round about them, and bowed themselves unto them (including lords), and provoked the "I AM" to anger.
There are at least 1200 members of the British "House of Lords", including the heads of the churches, who help to govern over and keep the British people down and poor. Need I say more?
God is punishing the British monarchy and little by little bringing it down and showing its and its politicians' evil in the eyes of the people and overturning it for the last time, as God prophesied through Ezekiel:-
Ezekiel 21:27 I will overturn, overturn, overturn, it (the Throne of David): and it shall be no [more], [overturned]UNTIL he come whose Right it is; and I will give it [him - Shiloh/Christ (Genesis 49 v 10)].
When Christ sits upon the Stone of Destiny, as prophesied through Ezekiel and is inaugurated as the King of all of the British people and of kings, the British Davidic monarchy will be finished; The Covenant reinstated and the wealth redistributed, Amen - JAH.
- The fourth and final overturn began on Christ-mas Day in 1950 when God inspired and Christ assisted four Scottish Nationalists to remove the real Lia Fail / Stone of Destiny / Coronation Stone from Westminster Abbey for Him and replace it with the fake (Stone of Scone).
"Privately we learned that he (George 6th) had a superstitious fear that the loss portended the end of his dynasty."
George 6th must have known, as must his daughter Elizabeth, that the stone that was left at Arbroath Abbey on 11th April 1951 was a Scottish sandstone fake and that she was cursed by God and never really crowned. She must also have known the prophecy, as did her great, great grandmother Queen Victoria, who said that if Christ came to take the Throne, she would immediately step down and give it to its rightful owner, and everyone of them knew it down to George 6th. It is unthinkable that George 6th would not also have taught this to his children - that Christ would come one day and rightfully claim the British Throne, in fulfillment of prophecy.
Elizabeth 2 who is descended from the royal line of David from the tribe of Judah, was then fraudulently crowned on that fake stone in 1953, so in actual fact was never officially crowned queen of Britain in the eyes of God; as God Himself prevented her from being, by having the Stone taken from her.
To save or open the Lawful Challenge document in Microsoft Word compatible processing software click: Challenge.doc.
LAWFUL ARGUMENT AGAINST JURISDICTION & SOVEREIGNTY
1. Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg's Fraudulent Coronation.
The person who purports to be the queen has never, in fact, rightfully or Lawfully been crowned as the Sovereign. This knowledge stems from the fact that the Coronation Stone / The Stone of Destiny / Bethel / Jacob's Pillar that Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg was crowned upon is a fake. The real Coronation Stone; made from Bethel porphyry, weighing more than 4cwt. (458lbs.) according to the BBC telex in the film "The Coronation Stone", (Covenant Recordings), and Ian R. Hamilton Q.C. in three of his books: "No Stone Unturned" (pages 36, 44), "A Touch of Treason" (page 50) and "The Taking of The Stone of Destiny" (pages 27, 35); was removed from Westminster Abbey at 04:00 hrs on the 25th of December in 1950, by his group of four Scottish Nationalist students, which included and was led by Ian Robertson Hamilton himself. The other three were Alan Stuart, Gavin Vernon and Kay Matheson, as stated in his books. Further details at: http://jahtruth.net/stone.htm .
The Real Coronation Stone ("National Treasure No. 1"), was taken to Scotland where, in Glasgow, it was handed over to Bertie Gray to repair it, and was later hidden by industrialist and philanthropist John Rollo in his factory, under his office-floor, according to Ian R. Hamilton's books – "No Stone Unturned" and "The Taking of The Stone of Destiny", and the factory-manager, when I visited him.
A fake stone copy had previously been made in 1920 by stone-mason, Bertie Gray, for a prior plan to repatriate the Coronation Stone, and it was made of Scottish sandstone from a quarry near Scone in Perthshire, weighing 3cwt. (336lbs.). The conspirators had used it to practice with, before going to London to Westminster Abbey to remove the real Coronation Stone from the abbey. It was that fake stone copy which was placed on the High Altar Stone at Arbroath Abbey, at Midday on the 11th April of 1951, wrapped in a Scottish Saltyre (St. Andrew's Flag – Dark blue with white diagonal cross on it) and found by the authorities, then transported to England, where it was used for the "queen's" coronation, according to Bertie Gray's children in a Daily Record Newspaper article.
Link to Daily Record article,
The stone upon which Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg was crowned weighs exactly 3cwt (336lbs.) as attested to by Historic Scotland in their official booklet titled "The Stone of Destiny", "Symbol of Nationhood", obtainable from Edinburgh Castle, published by Historic Scotland, (ISBN 1 900168 44 8), who have had the stone that she was crowned on in their care, in Edinburgh Castle, since it was returned to Scotland by John Major's Conservative government in 1996.
As previously stated, the genuine Coronation Stone weighs more than 4 cwt. (458lbs.), but the one that Elizabeth A. M. Battenberg was crowned on, that has been on display in Edinburgh Castle since 1996, weighs 336lbs, not 458lbs., and thus cannot be the genuine Coronation Stone, for that and other reasons, that I will go into in great and minute detail later, during the hearing on 9th May 2011.
Therefore, never having been Lawfully crowned, she has NO authority to put the defendant on trial and the judge has NO authority to try him, because the judge's "authority" comes from her.
Further, and without prejudice to the above...
2. Some of Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg's other Crimes.
Sample Crimes/Points of Law:-
1. Mrs. Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg/Mountbatten; un-Lawfully residing in Buckingham Palace, London; also known by the criminal aliases Windsor and QE2, was knowingly and willfully, with malice-aforethought, fraudulently crowned on a fake Coronation Stone / Lia Fail / Stone of Destiny / Bethel / Jacob's Pillar on June 2nd in 1953, and has been fraudulently masquerading as the rightful British Sovereign/Crown for the last 58 years, which the Defendant can prove beyond doubt, and is a major part of why the fraudulent British so-called "crown" is attacking the Defendant with this false, malicious, frivolous, ridiculous and politically motivated charge. It is Mrs. Elizabeth A. M. Battenberg who should be arrested and charged; for her innumerable acts of high-treason against God and Christ, Whose "church" she falsely claims to head and in defiance of Whom she had herself fraudulently crowned, and Whom she has continued to rule in defiance of, and in opposition to, ever since; not the Defendant.
2. Allowing people to legislate in defiance of God's Law (Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32) that she swore and affirmed, in writing, to maintain to the utmost of her power (Exhibit 1), and, in many cases, actually reversing what The Law states into being the very opposite of it. She has fraudulently imprisoned and punished people for enforcing The Law themselves as God commands them to do, and thus un-Lawfully prevented or deterred others from doing so. She has given Royal-Assent to 3,401 Acts of Parliament (as of 24/03/2011) and thus broken The Law against legislating 3,401 times. The very first time she gave "Royal-Assent" to ANY "Act of Parliament", or any other piece of legislation, or allowed Parliament or anyone to legislate, she broke her Coronation Oath and was thus no longer the monarch, with immediate effect, even if she had been Lawfully crowned in the first-place, which she most definitely was not.
Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the Commandments of the Lord your God which I COMMAND you.
11:1 Therefore thou shalt love the Lord thy God, and keep His charge, and His Statutes, and His Judgments, and His Commandments, always.
12:8 Ye shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes.
12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
A Bill MUST have Royal Assent before it can become an Act of Parliament (law).
3. Allowing the forming of political parties and demon-crazy (democracy) to divide, weaken, conquer and ruin the people (Deuteronomy 5:32, 17:20; Matthew 12:25).
Deuteronomy 5:32 Ye shall observe to do therefore as the Lord your God hath commanded you: ye shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left.
17:20 That his (the Sovereign's) heart be NOT lifted up ABOVE his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the Commandment, [to]the right hand, or [to]the left…
Matthew 12:25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:
4. Removal of the death-penalty that is prescribed as the deterrent for capital crimes in The Law that she swore to maintain to the utmost of her power; e.g. Sodomy (Deuteronomy 23:17; Leviticus 20:13); Pedophilia; Rape; Murder; Adultery; etc., thus encouraging these crimes, that are now legion.
Deuteronomy 23:17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.
Leviticus 20:13 If a man lie also with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Etc., etc., etc.
5. Actually encouraging and promoting sodomy, by legalizing it, then further enacting un-Lawful anti-discrimination legislation, promoting it in schools, and giving knighthoods to high-profile sodomites in the music, film and fashion industries, instead of having them Lawfully executed as a deterrent to others.
Music - Elton John
Film - Ian McKellen of Stonewall; John Gielgud
Fashion – Norman Hartnell knighted 1977 and Hardy Amies knighted 1989.
6. Enriching herself in defiance of God's Law that she swore to uphold, at the expense of her subjects, driving them into debt-slavery (Egypt), poverty and homelessness (Deuteronomy 17:14-20). Including the collecting of graven-images and expensive jewellery (her famous art and Fabergé collections, etc.)
Deuteronomy 17:14 When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me;
17:15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, WHOM THE LORD THY GOD SHALL CHOOSE (see Psalm 2): [one]from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.
17:16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt (slavery under man-made laws), to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the Lord hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.
17:17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.
17:18 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this Law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites:
17:19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words of this Law and these Statutes, to DO them:
17:20 That his heart be NOT lifted up ABOVE his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the Commandment, to the right hand, or to the left…
7. Legalising, facilitating and engaging in usury/interest, that has caused the ruin, bankruptcy and debt-slavery of the entire nation. http://jahtruth.net/greeneco.htm
Deuteronomy 23:19 Thou shalt not lend upon usury/interest to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury:
8. Ignoring the "Year of Release," where all debts are forgiven/cancelled every seven years, and the "Year of Jubilee" every fifty years, where all property is redistributed back to its owner and the wealth shared out, so that there will be no poor amongst the people.
Deuteronomy 15:1 At the end of every seven years thou shalt make a release.
15:2 And this is the manner of the release: Every creditor that lendeth ought unto his neighbour shall release it; he shall not exact it of his neighbour, or of his brother; because it is called the Lord's release.
15:4 Save when (to the end that) there be no poor among you; …
Leviticus 25:10 And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim Liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a Jubilee unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family.
9. Elizabeth A. M. Battenberg has also broken God's Law by allowing the EU, which is not the British people's racial brother, but is a stranger, to rule over you / us, in contravention of Deuteronomy 17:15.
Deuteronomy 17:14 When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that [are]about me;
17:15 Thou shalt in any wise set [him]king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: [one]from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest NOT set a stranger over thee, which [is]not thy brother.
Deuteronomy 7:2 And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, [and]utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them:
7:3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.
7:4 For they will turn away thy son from following Me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.
7:5 But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.
7:6 For thou [art]an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto Himself, above all people that [are]upon the face of the earth.
7:7 The Lord did not set His love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye [were]the fewest of all people:
7:8 But because the Lord loved you, and because He would keep the Oath which He had sworn unto your fathers, hath the Lord brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.
7:9 Know therefore that the Lord thy God, He [is]God, the faithful God, which keepeth Covenant and mercy with them that love Him and keep His Commandments to a thousand generations;
7:10 And repayeth them that hate (or disobey) Him to their face, to destroy them: He will not be slack to him that hateth (or disobeyeth) Him, He will repay him to his face.
7:11 Thou shalt therefore KEEP the Commandments, and the Statutes, and the Judgments, which I command thee this day, to DO them.
7:12 Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these Judgments, and keep, and do them, that the Lord thy God shall keep unto thee The Covenant and the mercy which He sware unto thy fathers:
7:13 And He will love thee, and bless thee, and multiply thee: He will also bless the fruit of thy womb, and the fruit of thy land, thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep, in the land which He sware unto thy fathers to give thee.
7:14 Thou shalt be blessed above all people: there shall not be male or female barren among you, or among your cattle.
7:15 And the Lord will take away from thee all sickness, and will put none of the evil diseases of Egypt, which thou knowest, upon thee; but will lay them upon all [them]that hate thee.
7:16 And thou shalt consume all the people which the Lord thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them: neither shalt thou serve their gods; for that [will be] a snare unto thee.
7:17 If thou shalt say in thine heart, These nations [are]more than I; how can I dispossess them?
7:18 Thou shalt not be afraid of them: [but]shalt well remember what the Lord thy God did unto Pharaoh, and unto all Egypt (and pharaoh ruled the whole known world at that time);
7:19 The great temptations which thine eyes saw, and the signs, and the wonders, and the mighty hand, and the stretched out arm, whereby the Lord thy God brought thee out: so shall the Lord thy God do unto all the people of whom thou art afraid.
7:20 Moreover the Lord thy God will send the hornet among them, until they that are left, and hide themselves from thee, be destroyed.
7:21 Thou shalt not be affrighted at them: for the Lord thy God [is]among you, a mighty God and terrible.
7:22 And the Lord thy God will put out those nations before thee by little and little: thou mayest not consume them at once, lest the beasts of the field increase upon thee.
7:23 But the Lord thy God shall deliver them unto thee, and shall destroy them with a mighty destruction, until they be destroyed.
7:24 And He shall deliver their kings into thine hand, and thou shalt destroy their name from under heaven: there shall no man be able to stand before thee, until thou have destroyed them.
7:25 The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt not desire the silver or gold [that is] on them, nor take [it]unto thee, lest thou be snared therein: for it [is]an abomination to the Lord thy God.
7:26 Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house, lest thou be a cursed thing like it: [but]thou shalt utterly detest it, and thou shalt utterly abhor it; for it [is]a cursed thing.
8:1 All the Commandments which I command thee this day shall ye observe to do, that ye may live, and multiply, and go in and possess the land which the Lord sware unto your fathers.
8:2 And thou shalt remember all the way which the Lord thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, [and]to test thee, to know what [was]in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep His Commandments (Law), or not.
God warned His people, YOU, the British-Israel people ( http://jahtruth.net/britca.htm ), in the Revelation/Apocalypse to John, to come out of the Mother of Harlots', abominable (Rev. 17:5) Babylonian ( http://jahtruth.net/robab.htm ) Market System:-
Revelation/Apocalypse 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, COME OUT of her, MY people, that ye take not part in her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues (punishment).
10. She has allowed Witchcraft and condoned it - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1284449/100-UK-servicemen-class-pagans-MoD-reveals.html- and Satanism - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3948329.stm - in her/the realm and in her/the armed forces.
Exodus 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
Deuteronomy 18:9 When thou art come into the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations.
18:10 There shall not be found among you [any one] that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, [or]that useth divination, [or]an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a WITCH,
18:11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a WIZARD, or a necromancer (medium).
18:12 For all that do these things [are]an abomination unto the Lord: and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee.
18:13 Thou shalt be perfect with the Lord thy God (Matt. 5:48).
Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven IS perfect.
Deuteronomy 32:15 But the Beloved waxed fat, and rebelled: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered [with fatness]; then he forsook God [which]made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation.
32:16 They provoked Him to jealousy with strange [gods], with abominations provoked they Him to anger.
32:17 They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new [gods that] came newly up, whom your fathers feared not.
Revelation/Apocalypse 21:7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my (adopted) son.
21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and SORCERERS, and idolaters, and ALL LIARS, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with Fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
She has given an O.B.E. to Joanne "Jo" Rowling (J. K. Rowling), who promotes witchcraft, thus herself condoning the promotion of witchcraft, and the poisoning of the minds of the nation and its children.
The other and major part of witchcraft/sorcery, that she has also allowed, and probably actually invested in, is the chemical and pharmaceutical industry that is slowly poisoning the nation through chemical-fertilizers, pesticides, chemtrails, vaccines, etc., and other pharmaceutical products/medicines/poisons (witches' brews / potions) in order to maximize their profits, because they do not make any money from healthy people. That is why there are more sick people every year and a correspondingly higher NHS budget, rather than less sick people and a correspondingly shrinking NHS budget. The NHS, doctors and pharmacists are therefore obviously harming the population, not healing it. http://www.rense.com/general34/quotes.htm http://jahtruth.net/heal.htm
Note well that it states in Revelation/Apocalypse 21:8 "ALL LIARS shall have their part in the lake which burneth with Fire and Brimstone . . ." and the word Parliament means "Speaking Lies" from the French words Parler which means to speak, and mentir which means to tell lies. Also the word Politics, poly meaning many; tics are blood-sucking parasites; thus politics means many blood-sucking parasites.
11. Each and every single one of the above crimes carries the death-penalty, with public execution; under The Law that she swore to maintain to the utmost of her power; for not doing so, along with all those who likewise reject The Law of God — Deuteronomy 17:8-13, 27:26; Malachi chapter 4.
Deuteronomy 17:8 If there arise a matter too hard for thee in Judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the Lord thy God shall choose;
17:9 And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and enquire; and they shall show thee The Sentence of Judgment:
17:10 And thou shalt do according to The Sentence, which they of that place which the Lord shall choose shall show thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee:
17:11 According to The Sentence of The Law which they shall teach thee, and according to the Judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline to do The Sentence which they shall show thee, and turn not away from it to the right hand, nor to the left.
17:12 And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thus thou shalt put away the evil from Israel.
17:13 And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously (in thinking they are a law unto themselves).
27:26 Cursed be he (like Elizabeth) that confirmeth not all the words of this Law to DO them.
Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy The Law, or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill (in the Greek Original – pleroo = to fully preach it).
5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no way pass from The Law, till ALL (the Prophecies) be fulfilled.
5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least Commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the Kingdom of heaven.
5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes (lawyers) and Pharisees (politicians), ye shall in no case enter into the Kingdom of heaven.
James 2:10 He who breaks the least of these Commandments and teaches others to do so is guilty of all.
The renowned English jurist Sir William Blackstone famously stated, "No enactment of man can be considered law unless it conforms to the law of God."
All of The Law references quoted are copied from the Sovereign's Bible (Exhibit 2) upon which Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg's Coronation Oath (Exhibit 1) was sworn (all emphasis mine), containing God's Law that she swore to maintain to the utmost of her power. It is a special large print and specially bound edition of the king James Authorised Version (1611) of the Holy Bible, that she placed her right hand upon, swore the Coronation Oath upon and then kissed, before she signed the Coronation Oath (Exhibit 1).
12. Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg is therefore not only massively in breach of contract, but also massively in breach of The Law, and thus is not only NOT the Lawful Sovereign, never has been, and thus has NO jurisdiction to prosecute me, but is also a criminal, guilty of capital crimes, that carry the death-penalty, according to The Law she swore to maintain to the utmost of her power. That Perfect Royal Law of Liberty was given by God to the British-Israel peoples to protect the British-Israel peoples from exploitation, oppression, poverty and harm, and which God has warned the British-Israel peoples to return to, with dire consequences for failure to do so. Her obscene wealth and that of her relatives, cronies and accomplices must be seized and shared out amongst the poor and homeless.
Malachi 4:1 For, behold, the Day cometh, that shall burn like an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave of them neither root nor branch (nothing).
4:2 But unto you that fear My name shall the Sun of Righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.
4:3 And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in The Day that I shall do [this], saith the Lord of hosts.
4:4 Remember ye (and return to) The Law of Moses My servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, [with]the Statutes and Judgments.
4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the Prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful Day of the Lord:
4:6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse (see verse 1).
13. The person who purports to be queen was, in fact, as proven above, never rightfully nor Lawfully the Sovereign/Crown. Therefore the Crown/Prosecution/Regina has NO authority to put the defendant on trial and the judge has NO authority to try him, because the judge's authority comes from her.
14. In addition, without prejudice to the above, based on God's Law that she swore to maintain to the utmost of her power (Exhibit 1) the "queen" is in breach of contract. She has amongst other things accumulated a large amount of personal wealth and done many other things that are expressly forbidden, some of which are listed above, and so she has breached her contract with God and the British-Israel people. Therefore, even if, which is not admitted, the "queen" was genuinely crowned, the breach of contract disqualifies her from sitting and renders null and void proceedings instituted in her name.
It is therefore of the utmost importance that Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg ( Reptilian, Saurian, Alpha Draconian, Usurper ) be arrested! And step down or be violently removed!
The photo was developed with Affinity Photo.
It was straightened and cropped, then converted to black and white. The intention was to reduce the flood of information due to the many many small and colourful details within the picture. Finally, a split toning with light sepia tones was added to give the whole thing a softer look.
- The original RAW picture has been created by Frank Nitsch, who is also the copyright owner.
- The original RAW picture is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/).
- The original RAW picture can be found at https://nextcloud.webo.hosting/s/W9Pam4ajDReTSbc
- This picture was developed from the original RAW picture and is distributed under the same license as the original RAW picture.
- NOTE: no additional legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits may be applied to this picture.
#diaspoRAW #photography #Fotografie #Foto #photo #Wettbewerb #challenge #mywork
It's time for another "Theme Of The Month" challenge. You may join in at any time. All you have to do is take a picture that matches the theme of the month and tag it with the corresponding hashtags - Oh and please share 😀
To give you more freedom of choice, I'll make two suggestions
> Theme Of The Month #TTM March is: "Colorful" or "Edible"
> Hashtag is: #TTM0319
Photo Credit: it's me neosiam (CC0) @Pexels.com
Please don't forget to use the #TTM and #TTM0319 hashtags in your post so I, and everyone else, can find your theme of the month contributions easily and like / comment them
#art #challenge #mywork #photography #photo #camera #Kunst #Wettbewerb #Fotografie #Foto #Kamera
It's time for another "Theme Of The Month" challenge. You may join in at any time. All you have to do is take a picture that matches the theme of the month and tag it with the corresponding hashtags.
To give you more freedom of choice, I'll make two suggestions
Theme Of The Month #TTM March is: "Colorful" or "Edible"
Hashtag is: #TTM0319
Photo Credit: it's me neosiam (CC0) @Pexels.com
Please don't forget to use the #TTM and #TTM0319 hashtags in your post so I, and everyone else, can find your theme of the month contributions easily and like / comment them
#art #challenge #photography #photo #camera #Kunst #Wettbewerb #Fotografie #Foto #Kamera
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19248104
Posted by PeterZaitsev (karma: 252)
Post stats: Points: 133 - Comments: 36 - 2019-02-25T18:37:40Z
#HackerNews #100k #challenge #connections #mysql
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 100 - Loop: 368 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 39
Developed with Capture One and finished with Affinity Photo.
I went for a natural look, reduced some highlights brought up some shadows and added a bit of luminosity. Some grass was added in the bottom right corner and I cropped a bit in to bring the building a little closer to the eye of the beholder.
- The original RAW picture has been created by @Justin Pletzfeld, who is also the copyright owner.
- The original RAW picture is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/).
- The original RAW picture can be found at https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1FKlPQ2go8STvU39FflIN_m73Up7jB0-X?usp=sharing.
- This picture was developed from the original RAW picture and is distributed under the same license as the original RAW picture.
- NOTE: no additional legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits may be applied to this picture.
#diaspoRAW #photography #Fotografie #Foto #photo #Wettbewerb #challenge