The Sandy Hook Massacre: The Official Cover-up Continues. Who and/or What Messed up Adam Lanza’s Brain?

It will soon be the first anniversary of the school shooting massacre at Sandy Hook. With plenty of family and friend evidence that Adam Lanza had indeed been on brain-altering psychiatric drugs in the recent past and, with the abundant knowledge that such psychiatric drugs can, by themselves, cause aggression, depression, anxiety, mania, sleep deprivation, psychoses, impulsive thoughts, hallucinations, suicidality and homicidality, there has been a steady obstruction of justice from the Connecticut authorities by the failure to reveal to the public the crucial evidence contained in Adam Lanza’s autopsy report, toxicology report, medical/psychiatric in-patient and out-patient records and his pharmacy records.

There has been so much frustration about getting to the truth of this matter (and the matter of many of the other psych drug related mass shootings), that AbleChild, a non-profit organization designed to raise public awareness regarding the psychiatric labeling and drugging of children, and the risks of mandatory mental health screening, sued to state of Connecticut to obtain the information.

Also recently there was a brief blurb that I heard but once on my PBS station concerning the long-awaited report on the Sandy Hook shootings by Connecticut State’s attorney Stephen Sedensky. As feared, the report failed to provide answers to these essential questions: 1) what brain-altering drugs did Adam Lanza take during his brief life; 2) what addictive, brain-altering drugs might Adam Lanza have quit taking that might have caused devastating withdrawal symptoms; 3) who was his psychiatrist; 4) what were the psych drugs that local pharmacies dispensed to Adam Lanza or his mother?

 Mr Sedensky did not answer these questions and the coroner who promised to do thorough toxicology studies on Lanza has refused to reveal the results, apparently claiming that to do so might cause some people to stop their psych drugs.

The radio report that I heard only once, vaguely suggested that Lanza had refused to take recommended medications, but it did not reveal any evidence for that statement.

 So, just like the official withholding of pertinent evidence of past crimes like the JFK assassination, the MLK assassination, the RFK assassination and the demolitions of the three World Trade Center towers on 9/11/01, the government is willing to be an accessory to a crime by withholding evidence, altering evidence at the crime scene or covering-up for the real perpetrators.

The best essay on this subject was written by the author of  Psyched Out: How Psychiatry Sells Mental Illness and Pushes Pills that Kill, Kelly Patricia O’Meara, one of my favorite investigative journalists who frequently writes about the ethics and dark underbellies of Big Medicine, Big Psychiatry and Big Pharma. I offer it below in its entirety.

More about O’Meara’s book and many others with similar themes can be found at: https://secure.cchr.org/store/book/psyched-out.html.

Gary G. Kohls, MD

*     *    *

 “Sandy Hook ‘Investigation’ Fails to Deliver Answers – Here’s Why”

By Kelly Patricia O’Meara

 Since Lanza is deceased, there is no physician/patient privilege and, at a minimum, they should identify the psychiatrist and what the psychiatrist communicated to them about the course of treatment Lanza received”– Jonathan Emord, Constitutional Attorney

Published November 27, 2013 and posted at: http://www.cchrint.org/2013/11/27/sandy-hook-investigation-fails-to-deliver-answers-heres-why/

 Connecticut State’s Attorney, Stephen J. Sedensky III, has released the long-awaited report on the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Unfortunately, the report is woefully inadequate by virtue of Sedensky’s failure to ask the appropriate question—did Adam Lanza have a history of psychiatric drug use?

  Although it is abundantly clear from the outset that Sedensky believes that shooter, Adam Lanza, “had significant mental health issues…,” the State’s Attorney hides behind constraints of non-existent “privacy law limits” for his stated inability to provide the public with information about Lanza’s psychiatric drug use—a possible motive for his homicidal behavior, considering psychiatric drugs are well documented to cause violence, mania, psychosis, aggression and homicidal ideation.

According to the report, “efforts were made within the limits of privacy laws to gather information on medical consultations and/or treatments the shooter was involved with over the course of his years in Newtown.” But Jonathan Emord, the attorney representing the non-profit organization, AbleChild, in its efforts to have Lanza’s autopsy, toxicology, and prescription drug records publicly disclosed, doesn’t buy the excuse.

 “Since Lanza is deceased,” explains Emord, “there is no physician/patient privilege and, at a minimum, they should identify the psychiatrist and what the psychiatrist communicated to them about the course of treatment Lanza received.” (See more about HIPAA here.)

Actually, the State of Connecticut long has stone-walled all attempts to make public Lanza’s psychiatric/medication history and had no problem revealing its reasons. In September, the Connecticut Assistant Attorney General, Patrick B. Kwanashie, was questioned during the AbleChild Freedom of Information hearing regarding the request to release Lanza’s toxicology report. Kwanashie explained that the release of the report “would cause a lot of people to stop taking their medications.”  What medications? If Lanza wasn’t taking medications, why would this be a concern to the Attorney General’s office?

 “This report is a politically correct rendition that is safe for the administration,” explains Emord, “but it does not give the public a complete explanation. This is not surprising given their behavior throughout the litigation with AbleChild. They essentially took the same position that is the conclusory statement in this report—at the time of the event there is no evidence that Lanza was under any medication—and that doesn’t answer the ultimate question.”

In fact, Lanza’s apparent life-long mental health status is repeatedly referred to throughout the report, as Sedensky writes, “as an adult he did not recognize or help himself deal with those issues.” As an adult? What about ever? Did Lanza take medication at any time in his life?

 The report explains that, “investigators found no evidence to suggest the shooter had taken any medication that would affect his behavior or by any means to explain his actions on December 14, 2012.”

“No evidence to suggest the shooter had taken any medication that would affect his behavior…?” This statement does not answer the question. Was, or wasn’t, Lanza on any medication? And, who decided what medication would, or would not, affect Lanza’s behavior? The psychiatrist who prescribed it?

Further into the report, Sedensky explains, “reportedly the shooter did not drink alcohol, take drugs, prescription or otherwise, and hated the thought of doing any of those things.” Emord doesn’t see this as a definitive statement on whether or not Lanza took drugs. “The fact that the State’s Attorney says he (Lanza) expressed a refusal to take the drugs,” explains Emord, “indicates at least the possibility of prior experience of taking drugs.”

 Beyond that, Sedensky does not provide the source for this statement, which is contradictory on a number of levels. First, a CBS “60 Minutes” report interviewing friends of Nancy Lanza, Mark and Louise Tambascio, said Lanza was being medicated for Asperger’s, stating, “I know [Adam Lanza] was on medication and everything…” Additionally, the Washington Post reported that an unnamed former neighbor of the Lanza’s recalled Adam as “a really rambunctious kid” who “was on medication.”

 Although Lanza had mental health issues early in life, it wasn’t until 2005, when Lanza began middle-school, that he was diagnosed with Asperger’s Disorder. In 2006, “Tutoring, desensitization and medication” were recommended for Lanza but, according to Sedensky, “the shooter refused to take suggested medication….”

 Again, Sedensky does not provide the source of this information, and it also is contradictory to statements made by friends and neighbors of Nancy Lanza. Furthermore, what was the recommended medication? Did Lanza have an adverse reaction and then refuse to take the medication?

 It is also at this time that Sedensky acknowledges “the shooter’s mother noted that there were marked changes to the shooter’s behavior….”  “Marked changes” after Lanza was diagnosed and recommended to take medication that he “reportedly” didn’t take?

Because there are no privacy issues, who are Lanza’s “mental health professionals?” How many psychiatrists “evaluated” Lanza throughout his life? How many mental health diagnoses had Lanza received prior to the Asperger’s diagnosis? How many medications had Lanza been prescribed throughout his life?

 clip_image002

  This is important information that the State’s Attorney should have, and could have, provided. For the sake of argument, let’s assume Lanza had been prescribed the antipsychotic drug, Fanapt, to treat his Asperger’s.  Frequent side effects of this drug include restlessness, aggression and delusions. Other known side effects include hostility, paranoia, confused state, mania, panic attacks, impulse-control disorder and delirium. Is Sedensky even aware of these adverse reactions?

  Lanza’s mental health/medication history is key to establishing some reasonable explanation for this tragic event.  That the State of Connecticut has gone to extraordinary lengths to quash any and all legal efforts to have Lanza’s toxicology, psychiatric and medication records, only adds validity to the importance of this information.

 Of course, it’s anyone’s guess why the State failed to ask the appropriate questions. Perhaps there is more at stake than simply getting to the truth. Emord, intimately familiar with the State’s on-going refusal to release Lanza’s complete mental health/medication record understands the implications.

“I think,” says Emord, “there is a complicated set of inputs into the creation of this report. Undoubtedly, the Medical Examiner contributed and expressed interest in the report being designed one way, as did law enforcement. All the things that are put into the report have political complications, ramifications for public policy, adoption of laws, the entire gun control debate nation-wide, and they are writing it aware of the potential for political fallout.”

Whatever the reason, failing to address the obvious question is a disservice to the families of the victims and the people of Newtown.

 Kelly Patricia O’Meara is an award winning former investigative reporter for the Washington Times, Insight Magazine, penning dozens of articles exposing the fraud of psychiatric diagnosis and the dangers of the psychiatric drugs – including her ground-breaking 1999 cover story, Guns & Doses, exposing the link between psychiatric drugs and acts of senseless violence. O’Meara spent sixteen years on Capitol Hill as a congressional staffer to four Members of Congress. She holds a B.S. in Political Science from the University of Maryland.

Copyright Kelly Patricia O’Meara 2013


Comment on Global Research Articles on our Facebook page

Become a Member of Global Research


Articles by: Dr. Gary G. Kohls

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. The Centre of Research on Globalization grants permission to cross-post Global Research articles on community internet sites as long the source and copyright are acknowledged together with a hyperlink to the original Global Research article. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: [email protected]

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: [email protected]