Newspaper and internet articles

Is Minister Kathleen Lynch responsible for two more deaths?

Trust me Does Kathleen Lynch’s inaction make her partly responsible for the recent deaths of John Deegan and Deirdre Keenan?

This week the Irish Independent reported that John Deegan, a 53 year old farmer had shot and killed himself and his 51 year old partner Deidre Keegan. Both families are said to be ‘very shocked by what had happened’. It seems that this is another Irish case of murder/suicide, one in a long list of awful tragedies, and happening with increasing regularity.

Today the Independent reported that Mr Deegan had been suffering from depression and more importantly: “It is understood that Mr Deegan had been on medication prescribed by a doctor during the past couple of months.” The experts will say that incidents like this are enormously complex and that no-one knows the complexities or intent behind the perpetrator’s reasoning. What the experts won’t say is that these drugs can cause suicide, homicide, aggression, mania and akathisia (a known precursor to suicide and/or homicide). The dangerous period is upon starting, discontinuing and changing dosage (up or down). These are adverse effects of prescription drugs which are not widely known but the truth is, Minister Lynch, the person with responsibility for mental health, does know. She is well aware of the side-effects of prescription drugs.

The facts: Two experts met with Minister Lynch in Leinster House last May. Professor David Healy told Minister Lynch that SSRIs were causing people to kill themselves and kill others. He said that drug induced death ‘is the leading cause of death Minister Kathleen Lynch. Picture courtesy of Irish Election Literaturewithin the mental health field‘. Declan Gilsenan, assistant State Pathologist for over 30 years, told her of his ‘intuition’ that SSRI’s are causing suicides and that more people have died by suicide as a direct result of seeking help, than those who didn’t. He said in his 30-year experience carrying out post-mortems, he had seen way too many suicides of people who had just started on SSRI antidepressants. So you would think that Minister Lynch would have acted immediately in order to stop any more unnecessary deaths; nope, it doesn’t seem so! Despite both experts offering their services to stop the rising deaths, nothing has been done. It seems that upsetting psychiatry’s ‘medical model’ or pharma’s ‘apple cart’ isn’t an option.

Another issue is whether Mr Deegan was monitored when first prescribed these drugs. Was he warned of the risks/side-effects of SSRI’s in advance of prescription? These are two simple recommendations, among others, set down by the Irish Commission of Human Rights last year.

Co-incidentally, a few days before this latest tragedy happened, Prof Healy published this blog: Prescription-only Homicide and Violence. He also did a report for Shane’s Inquest which might be of interest, here. The Irish Government cannot cry foul at this stage, or say they were not aware, as the information below proves otherwise:

The Dáil; Here

The Seanad (Senate); Here

Leinster House; Here

IHRC RecommendationsHere

As for Kathleen Lynch, James Reilly and the latest Irish Government: In my opinion they are putting the pharmaceutical industry’s interests before the interests of the people they purport to serve.


10 thoughts on “Is Minister Kathleen Lynch responsible for two more deaths?”

  1. “Minister Lynch, the person with responsibility for mental health, does know.”

    Fine. Has Minister Lynch EVER offered for publication, just Exactly What, the ‘Mental Health’ she’s responsible for Is?

    And I do Not want to hear about what it Isn’t. Could Minister Lynch please condescend to the Irish Citizens (at least) who Pay her salary, and describe for them What constitutes this mysterious entity we’re all of us – world wide – just Dying to know the Official Characteristics of?

    Who is it, in Ireland, who is actually, ‘Mentally Healthy’?

    Does it work the same way in Ireland that it works in California, where protectionist trade guilds have Bought, Corrupt, Leftist Democrats (oops, just saw her poster) to let Everyone who buys a medical work license (and Sells mind & mood altering, murder and suicide causing drugs) “Off the Hook”?

    To Officially, and Illegally, ‘cover-up’ their career and life wrecking ‘Mental Illness’ paper trail?

    Or is the Democrat Left in Ireland answerable to some Higher standard of legal & moral impeccability than the Democrat Left in California?


    1. Hi D,
      The Democratic Left party no longer exists after it merged into the Labour Party. The photo is particularly old. Doesn’t really matter which party she represents, she is the Minister with responsibility for mental health; she knows people are dying from prescription drugs and has done nothing. I agree, who is mentally healthy? Is there any such thing? Not sure I know. Not too sure that I’m the right one to ask!


      1. “Doesn’t really matter which party she represents,”

        Amen to that. This deal brokering between politicians of All stripes has plunged us into Governance by consensus where the Rule of Law can go suck an egg wherever it runs afoul of mega-corporate profits.


  2. You see, there’s this Legal Issue with all of these drugs, at least in the States, and it doesn’t seem to be getting the sort of play it needs to get:

    And Wiki, while not the be all end all source for Legal definitions, has an apt summation:

    “Traditionally, the word racket is used to describe a business (or syndicate) that is based on the example of the protection racket and indicates a belief that it is engaged in the sale of a solution to a problem that the institution itself creates or perpetuates, with the specific intent to engender continual patronage.”

    “A solution to a problem the institution itself creates,”

    And since AERs like Psychotic Disorder are reported voluntarily in the States:

    “The median under-reporting rate across the 37 studies was 94% (interquartile range 82-98%). ”

    “with the specific intent to engender continual patronage.”

    Life Long Drug Addiction.

    Life Long kind of puts the Kibosh on generating a for real, for actual, state of ‘Mental Health’, doesn’t it?

    And Thanks for the Trust Me, I’m a Politician jpg, Leonie.


  3. Leonie, you are indefatigable. If anyone brings about an overturn of the collaborationist Irish Medicines Board, a puppet of the drug companies, and of the cosy consensus that taking psychotropic drugs is good for you, it is you. Chapeaux!!!


    1. Thanks Basil,
      I could do nothing less for Shane, and I could spend the rest of my days trying to repay Michael Corry. Knowing he believed in Shane from the start, before I even knew myself, before I met with the wall of so called ‘experts’, will always mean so much. Knowing you are still there fighting for the underdog and against the very dangerous ‘medical model’ means so much too.
      Thank you.


  4. Hi Leonie,
    Thanks for this informative post.
    I read the article you linked, “Killer’s mental health : clue in murder of mother of six” on the newly launched website of The Independent.
    There is a part of that report that I wanted to ask your opinion about; it’s the section that details statements by witnesses who last saw the pair alive in the pub located across the road from the guest-house (owned by the same family) where the deaths actually occurred:
    – It reads:
    “When last seen alive, at around 1 o’clock on Monday morning in the Stonehaven pub, across the road from the guest-house B&B and owned by the same family, the couple were said by locals to have been in good form.
    Regulars in the pub said the couple had been chatting with locals during the night and seemed to be enjoying themselves.”

    Do you think that the discourse in the paraphrased quotes: “to [be] in good form” and “seemed to be enjoying themselves” are indicative of alcohol consumption? Y’know, polite and on the Q-T?
    Both of the statements are suggestive: “seemed to be”, i.e. from a distant perspective? Onlookers viewing the couple’s evening, etcetera, as it appeared.

    In the rural town where I was born, in a likewise provincial area not unlike Carlow, someone perceived in-public “to be enjoying oneself” in a bar setting; or someone who seems to “be in good form” (again) in a public-house after-hours setting, would be synonymous to someone enjoying a drink? Would it not?
    I’m asking you for your opinion. After all, it would be socially somewhat irreverent in provincial discourse to suggest that a recently, as-yet unburied, deceased person would have been consuming alcohol, the night of their death? Openly, the the papers and all. As though that would have been some king of … factor?

    I’m asking also because –in the diction of the state-broadcaster of Ireland– I once saw a report citing statistics created by the Central Statistics Office, or the most recent ‘Census’ (I’m not sure) that –more and more– Irish inhabitants were taking to “socialising at home”.
    And to my absolute astonishment, while watching the report I slowly began to realise that the news anchorman was talking about alcohol consumption, retail statistics and figures on how often Ireland inhabitants stated that they were ‘going outside’ of the homestead to consume alcohol. The term being used in the report was “to socialise” … as though ‘to socialise’ means ‘to consume alcohol’, or so? Or even that the two terms are in any way exclusively synonymous with one another?

    At that moment, I realised that the Irish state-news editors (who write the script for the anchorwo/men to read off the Auto-Queue) were using the word “socialising” as a replacement term for ‘consuming alcohol’. And later I noticed that the report was about falling VAT revenue in the pubs, bars and nightclub sector (ie. drinking &c.)?

    Can you identify with that choice of terminology (to be ‘in-good-form’ & ‘enjoying themselves’) as a possible substitutes for consuming alcohol, ie. merrymaking, without apparent difficulty etc.?
    Do you know anything about what the “bijsluiter” of these drugs (assuming they are the ssri type) says about consuming of alcohol whilst ingesting the prescribed chemicals? (I don’t know what the term in English, but ‘bijsluiter’ is the paper-instructions that come with all prescriptions from physicians; youknow, with the warnings and instructions &cetera listed out on a leaflet).



    1. Hi Mcula,
      I see where you’re coming from but I don’t think so really. Various journalists would have gone into the pub and found out exactly what this couple had to drink. They would have been only too happy to report if overindulgence had been a factor in these deaths, so therefore I doubt if it was in this case. David Healy has reported lately that SSRIs can multiply the effects of alcohol…
      Any help?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s