BPA linked to behavior problems in girls: study

AFP
October 24, 2011

Girls who were exposed to the industrial chemical bisphenol A while in the womb showed more behavioral problems at age three than those whose moms had lower BPA levels, said a study released Monday.

Anxiety, depression and hyperactivity were seen more often in toddler girls whose mothers had high levels of the chemical in their urine while pregnant, said the research led by the Harvard School of Public Health.

“This pattern was more pronounced for girls, which suggests that they might be more vulnerable to gestational BPA exposure than boys,” said the study in the October 24 issue of the journal Pediatrics.

BPA is used in the manufacture of plastics and adhesives, and can be found in the lining of canned foods, some plastic bottles and containers, cashier receipts and dental fillings.

The analysis was done using data from 244 mothers and their children up to age three in the Cincinnati, Ohio area. The mothers’ urine samples were tested while pregnant at 16 and 26 weeks, and again at birth.

The children’s urine was tested at age one, two and three. BPA was found in 85 percent of the mothers’ urine and in 96 percent of the samples from the children.

The higher the BPA levels were while the mother was pregnant, the more likely the daughters were to experience behavioral problems by age three.

The same correlation was not seen in boys, nor was there any apparent link between behavior and levels of BPA in the children’s urine, said the data derived from questionnaires on child behavior filled out by the parents.

“None of the children had clinically abnormal behavior, but some children had more behavior problems than others,” said lead author Joe Braun, research fellow in environmental health at the Harvard School of Public Health.

The study reported that “increasing gestational BPA concentrations were associated with more hyperactive, aggressive, anxious, and depressed behavior and poorer emotional control and inhibition in the girls.”

The research appeared to support previous studies that have suggested a link between BPA exposure in the womb and child behavior, but is the first to show that in utero exposure is the critical window when altering effects may occur.

However, due to the small size of the sample, the study authors — who also included scientists at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital and Medical Center, and Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, British Columbia — said more research is needed.

“There is considerable debate regarding the toxicity of low-level BPA exposure, and the findings presented here warrant additional research,” said the study.

Funding for the study came from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the US Environmental Protection Agency and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences training.

Sleep Deprived? Avoid Using Nuvigil

Pricey Nuvigil competes with coffee—and has a lot more side effects. Nuvigil “may lead to limited physical or psychological dependence…” Cephalon also reports plenty of side effects ranging from headache, nausea, skin rashes, hallucinations and depression.

By
Bloomberg
August 14, 2011

Roger Greer, a 45-year-old water treatment plant worker from Coatesville, Pa., was surfing the Internet when he discovered that his constant fatigue had a medical name: shift work sleep disorder. The starting time of Greer’s job rotates weekly, leaving him sleepy on the job and ornery at home. The website had an ad suggesting he ask his doctor if an alertness pill made by Cephalon (CEPH), called Nuvigil, is right for him. A year later, “I don’t have those sleepy moments,” says Greer. “Now at 3 in the morning, the absolute worst time for anybody, I no longer have the fear of missing something here at work.”

Workers like Greer are prime targets for a Cephalon marketing campaign—on the Internet and radio, in doctors’ offices, and at community meetings—that aims to educate America’s 15 million shift workers about the disorder. For the drug maker, it’s a way to build brand recognition and sales for Nuvigil, a newer version of its blockbuster narcolepsy drug, Provigil, which loses patent protection next year. But the campaign has sparked concern by some doctors about whether a pharmaceutical solution is the best way to stay alert on the job. Nuvigil hasn’t been proved more effective than coffee, is classified as possibly addictive, and carries side effects that can be fatal, according to the drug’s label.

“We as a society rely too much on pills and medication,” says Robert Basner, director of Columbia University’s Cardiopulmonary Sleep and Ventilatory Disorders Center. “That’s not always the best approach. Caffeine is a very good wake-promoting agent, and it’s a lot cheaper.”

Cephalon is spending $3.6 million on radio ads pitching Nuvigil, plus about $490,000 annually on the Internet effort and informational booths at community events. That’s a small percentage of the $1.1 billion in annual sales that will be at risk after Provigil goes off-patent. Israel’s Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (TEVA) agreed in May to buy Cephalon for $6.2 billion in part because of Nuvigil’s prospects. The drug’s sales are growing at a 50 percent annual rate.

Bethany Young, a 27-year-old Teas Valley (W. Va.) medical technologist, was given free samples of Nuvigil after complaining to her new doctor that she couldn’t focus during her 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. hospital shifts. During six years of night work, she struggled to get out of bed, gained 60 pounds, and developed hypothyroidism. At first the drug made her feel euphoric. Soon that effect began to melt away after an hour, replaced by feelings of anxiety and stress, she says, and when she tried to stop using it after a few months, she initially couldn’t. “I was getting hooked on it. I couldn’t quit. This drug is the devil. It was for me, anyway.”

Cephalon says that because medications like Nuvigil “may lead to limited physical or psychological dependence, we encourage physicians to follow patients closely.” The company also reports plenty of side effects that can accompany Nuvigil use, ranging from headache, nausea, and skin rashes to hallucinations and depression.

Cephalon’s media campaign is its first to widely trumpet alertness pills by stressing the recognition of shift work disorder by doctors and sleep experts, who estimate the malady may affect one in four shift workers. Although Cephalon doesn’t claim Nuvigil works better than other approaches, the company says that between 2007 and 2009 it studied 359 shift workers for six weeks and found 77 percent of those who took Nuvigil said they were more alert for the last part of their shift and the drive home, compared with 57 percent given a placebo.

“What we are doing is educating doctors and the public about this disorder,” says Charles Altman, Cephalon’s senior medical director. “Doctors often don’t ask patients what hours they work. In our 24/7 society, it doesn’t matter if you are a nurse or an information technology worker or in finance, we are called upon more and more to work odd hours that are against the grain of the way our internal clock works.”

Critics, however, say the diagnosis of shift work sleep disorder is so broad that people with irregular hours who have trouble staying awake at night can get the pills even without trying non-drug strategies first. “It’s not a diagnosis that is crisp and determined by clear-cut, objective data, which opens it up to criticism,” says Lois Krahn, chair of psychiatry at the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Ariz. “When [patients] have done everything they can to get more sleep, and they still have trouble staying awake, that’s when drug therapy comes in.”

Besides the ad push, Cephalon is using pricing to lure users. At $12 a pill, Nuvigil sells for $5 less than its older sibling. Cephalon also is providing consumers with coupons for free trials and help with insurance co-pays to spur use of the newer drug. The strategy is paying off, with the number of Nuvigil prescriptions written in late June almost equaling those for Provigil. “It’s growing very nicely,” says Cephlon’s Altman.

Provigil was first approved for sale in 1998 as a treatment for narcolepsy, a rare condition in which patients unexpectedly fall asleep in the middle of the day. Provigil kept them awake, without the dangers of stimulants. Sales, which surged as people without the condition also used it, topped $500 million annually after the pill won clearance for shift work disorder in 2004. Nuvigil was introduced in 2009, two years after it was approved for narcolepsy, shift work disorder, and sleep apnea. It had sales of $186 million in 2010, and analysts say it could hit $577 million in 2015.

Sleep experts say Cephalon’s radio ads in 21 big U.S. cities may educate patients with symptoms that employers and family members often don’t understand. Still, doctors say simply handing struggling shift workers a prescription would be a mistake without trying lifestyle changes, such as strategic naps or wearing sunglasses on the drive home to limit exposure to light. Explains Douglas Moul, staff physician at the Cleveland Clinic Sleep Center: “We want to treat the real condition, rather than just papering over the symptoms with a medication that can just keep people awake longer.”

The bottom line: Sales of Cephalon’s shift work disorder drug, Nuvigil, are growing 50 percent annually. Critics say the pills may be overprescribed.

Oxford Professor: Poison water to medicate population

Oxford professor Julian Savulescu says fluoridation demonstrates how populations of the future could be mass-medicated through pharmacological ‘cognitive enhancements’ added to the water supply.

Aaron Dykes

In a 2008 paper titled, “Fluoride and the Future: Population Level Cognitive Enhancement,” Oxford bioethics professor Julian Savulescu claims that water fluoridation may be key to the “future of humanity.” He argues that “fluoridation may not merely be about tooth decay… [but] the drive to be better.”

Drugging the population’s water supply, Savulescu claims, is a form of “enhancement” that can pave the way to a future where mental abilities and other functions could be improved with drugs. Savulescu writes:

“Fluoridation is the tip of the enhancement iceberg. Science is progressing fast to develop safe and effective cognitive enhancers, drugs which will improve our mental abilities. For years, people have used crude enhancers, usually to promote wakefulness, like nicotine, caffeine and amphetamines. A new generation of more effective enhancers is emerging modafenil, ritalin, Adderral and ampakines and the piracetam family of memory improvers.”

But once highly safe and effective cognitive enhancers are developed – as they almost surely will be – the question will arise whether they should be added to the water, like fluoride, or our cereals, like folate. It seems likely that widespread population level cognitive enhancement will be irresistible.

The dream Savulescu argues for is based upon the lie that fluoridation of the public water supply has been a tremendous human advancement. Supporting that lie is the boasted claim by the Center for Disease Control that water fluoridation ranks among the top 10 public health achievements of the 20th Century. Instead, fluoride has been linked with neurological effects, thyroid problems, bone cancer and even crippling-blindness. What’s more, much of it is not even the common-but-toxic sodium fluoride, but an industrial waste derivative known as hydrofluosilicic acid– in an estimated 2/3 of the fluoridated public water in the U.S. and known to be very deadly.

null

Savulescu is flawed to hope fluoride can pave the way to an alchemically-”improved” society, especially where forced-medication is involved. The vision is distinctly like that of Brave New World, wherein author Aldous Huxley predicts a future dictatorship where people “learn to love their servitude.” What Huxley terms in the novel “Soma” would most likely come in reality in the form of numerous drugs that would tackle individual happiness, and the larger complacency of the masses at large. Solidified by a Scientific Dictatorship, a pharmacologically-treated population would be rendered very unlikely to ever revolt against the regime in power.

There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution.”

A ‘scientific’ form of control doesn’t necessarily imply the rise of enlightenment or technological innovation, but rather the guaranteed control of its population through a tested understanding of human behavior– including breaking point, resistance, anger– and the the ability to systematically stay one-step or many more ahead of what anyone might do.

DRUGS AND CHEMICALS ALREADY IN OUR FOOD & WATER

So could “cognitive enhancers” like Ritalin, Prozac and other chemically-engineered drugs be added to the water supply in the future to make humans better, smarter or faster? Or could they make humans docile, complacent and dangerously subservient?

Such proposals are already underway, and what’s more, whether intentional or not, spiked water supplies are already affecting populations in the U.S. and across the globe.

Huxley stated:

Kurt Nimmo reported in December 2009 on a newspiece advocating adding lithium to the water supply as a mood stabilizer:

Japanese researchers, according to Georgiou, are “investigating whether trace amounts of lithium can just change the mood in a community enough — in a really positive way without having the bad effects of lithium — to really affect the mood and decrease the suicide rate.”

Moreover, the AP exposed in 2008 that pharmaceutical drugs were found in the majority of the United States’ water supply. According to the AP, at least 46 million people are affected by the issue.

The New York Times sums in ‘There are drugs in the drinking water. Now what?‘ that: “There are traces of sedatives in New York City’s water. Ibuprofen and naproxen in Washington, D.C. Anti-epileptic and anti-anxiety drugs in southern California… But how bad is it, exactly?”

The U.S. Geological Survey lists the “emerging contaminants in the environment” and specifically notes what is affecting the water supply. Contaminating compounds range from herbicides to pharmaceuticals, endocrine disruptors and household chemicals.

New research has also uncovered the presence of chemicals known as Antiandrogens that are finding their way into the water supply. Paul Joseph Watson writes:

Antiandrogens used in pesticides sprayed on our food have also been identified as “endocrine disruptors” that have been “demonstrated to induce demasculinization in rats.”

More shockingly, population control advocates like White House Science Advisor John P. Holdren have advocated adding sterilants to the water supply. He wrote about it alongside Population Bomb author Paul Ehrlich in their 1977 book Ecoscience.

“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control.”

“It must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.”

Spreading disease, like “enhancements” or sterilization, could be the intention of food or water additives. In 2002, The Melbourne Age reported on Nobel Peace Prize winning microbiologist Sir Macfarlane Burnet’s plan to help the Australian government develop biological weapons for use against Indonesia and other “overpopulated” countries of South-East Asia. From the article:

Sir Macfarlane recommended in a secret report in 1947 that biological and chemical weapons should be developed to target food crops and spread infectious diseases. His key advisory role on biological warfare was uncovered by Canberra historian Philip Dorling in the National Archives in 1998.

“Specifically to the Australian situation, the most effective counter-offensive to threatened invasion by overpopulated Asiatic countries would be directed towards the destruction by biological or chemical means of tropical food crops and the dissemination of infectious disease capable of spreading in tropical but not under Australian conditions,” Sir Macfarlane said.

Alex Jones recently exposed the fact that all the adulterated and dangerous chemical additives in our food and water are put there intentionally as put of a larger eugenics program.

The potential to use food and water as a weapon of mass-medication has long been used in times of war, under the principle of attrition and destabilization. Lord Bertrand Russell has underscored this concept rather bluntly in how it applies to societies living under the scientific age:

“Scientific societies are as yet in their infancy. . . It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible.” – The Impact of Science on Society, 1953

“Ordinary men and women will be expected to be docile, industrious, punctual, thoughtless, and contented. Of these qualities probably contentment will be considered the most important. In order to produce it, all the researches of psycho-analysis, behaviourism, and biochemistry will be brought into play. – Education in a Scientific Society p.251

CHEMICAL LOBOTOMY: ENLIGHTENMENT IN A BRAVE NEW WORLD

It’s a brave new world indeed where Oxford professor Julian Savulescu argues for the “Ethics of Enhancement.” In his 2002 paper, “Genetic interventions and the ethics of enhancement of human beings,” Savulesco argues for using gene therapy and drug therapy to make “happier, healthier people.” It could mean adding both mental-boosting and mood-enhancing chemicals to the things everyone eats or drinks.

It is interesting that Savulescu mentions fluoride alongside “cognitive enhancements,” as many critics have pointed towards the use of fluoride in Nazi concentration camps to keep the inmates passive, and questioned whether a docile population is a hidden purpose of the water fluoridation campaigns in the United States and post-war Western world. Further, fluoride is a basic ingredient in both Prozac, which is the leading brand-name for Fluoxetine (FLUoxetene Hydrochloride) as well as Sarin nerve gas (Isopropyl-Methyl-Phosphoryl FLUoride), which are fundamentally mind-altering substances.

Fluoride isn’t the only controversial substance Savulescu terms as an advance in human civilization. He touts the widespread use of Prozac and points to the use of Modafenil, an amphetamine, to keep Air Force pilots alert during missions in Iraq. Savulescu is also a proponent of most types of genetic-enhancement that have been proposed. He sees experiments like the genetically-engineered “supermouse” as a model for the potential supermen of the future.

However, all of these “enhancements” come with risks. Genetically-engineered foods have proved deadly and dangerous; gene-splicing has proved to have unforeseeable consequences; fluorides and pharmaceutical chemicals pose dangers of addiction, brain damage, cancer or other problems.

Savulescu poses the potential to “enhance” a.k.a. “control” behavior: “If the results of recent animal studies into hard work and monogamy apply to humans, it may be possible in the future to genetically change how we are predisposed to behave. This raises a new question: should we try to engineer better, happier people?” p. 7-8

NOT UTILIZING ENHANCEMENTS COULD BE ‘WRONG’

He goes on to argue that while many have raised questions about the moral and ethical dilemmas of biological enhancement, NOT enhancing could be most wrong. In this scenario, not feeding offspring “enhanced” food additives could be considered as an offense:

First Argument for Enhancement: Choosing Not to Enhance Is Wrong – Consider the case of the Neglectful Parents. The Neglectful parents give birth to a child with a special condition. The child has a stunning intellect but requires a simple, readily available, cheap dietary supplement to sustain his intellect. But they neglect the diet of this child and this results in a child with a stunning intellect becoming normal. This is clearly wrong.”

“But now consider the case of the Lazy Parents. They have a child who has a normal intellect but if they introduced the same dietary supplement, the child’s intellect would rise to the same level as the child of the Neglectful Parent. They can’t be bothered with improving the child’s diet so the child remains with a normal intellect. Failure to institute dietary supplementation means a normal child fails to achieve a stunning intellect. The inaction of the Lazy Parents is as wrong as the inaction of the Neglectful parents. It has exactly the same consequence: a child exists who could have had a stunning intellect but is instead normal. Some argue that it is not wrong to fail to bring about” p. 10

Savulescu’s vision is distinctly “transhumanist” a branch of the eugenics movement which seeks to improve the human species to the point that highly-gifted individuals would transcend into a new & improved proto-human species– becoming godlike creatures with unique creative potential and abilities. Transhumanism was first termed by UNESCO founder Julian Huxley in 1952, the grandson of Charles Darwin’s partner at the Royal Society of Science, T.H. Huxley.

“I believe in transhumanism”: once there are enough people who can truly say that, the human species will be on the threshold of a new kind of existence, as different from ours as ours is from that of Pekin man. It will at last be consciously fulfilling its real destiny.
-Julian Huxley, 1957

LIBERAL EUGENICS: “VOLUNTARY” ENHANCEMENTS THROUGH MASS-MEDICATED WATER

That philosophy of Transhumanism, moreover, is necessarily rooted in the Eugenics movement of the early 20th Century that was led by the scientific elite of the Royal Society, which included Charles Darwin, his cousin Francis Galton and Thomas H. Huxley. This circle and their allies floated Utopian visions for a scientifically- and eugenically- engineered society that would be progressive and even transformative, theoretically producing a ‘better’, albeit tightly-authoritarian society (science demands control, in that sense).

Savulescu identifies with much of this “liberal Eugenics,” defensibly separate from Nazi eugenics because there is ‘no belief in only one gene-type’ and because its measures remain “voluntary.”

“What was objectionable about the eugenics movement, besides its shoddy scientific basis, was that it involved the imposition of a State vision for a healthy population and aimed to achieve this through coercion.” p. 21

However, proposals to add medication to the population’s water supply are involuntary, and would violate individual rights. It would be mass-medication, and avoiding the substances treated with it would be costly, burdensome and difficult to do with any finality. Savulescu apparently views compulsory water treatment in the same vein as compulsory vaccinations, and anything else that can be justified on a public health care basis, even when such treatments prove not to be healthy at all.

“Some interventions, however, may still be clearly enhancements for our children and so just like vaccinations or other preventative health care.” p. 27

Additionally, while the figures of “liberal eugenics” which Savulescu looked up to often espoused semi-tolerant “voluntary” proposals, it was always clear that the long-term vision encompassed measures of control ‘for the betterment of all’ that could not function under voluntary or ‘democratic’ conditions. What’s more, eugenical laws passed in the 1920s and 1930s in the United States and Britain– some of which weren’t repealed until the late 1970s– gave the State authority over forcible sterilization and beyond. Thus, these “voluntary” enhancement-visionaries have already crossed the line of trust and betrayed the fact that they mean to control with force.

Advancements and innovations in science, technology and health have obvious potential benefits, but with kind of dangerous ideology driving the science policy, public health is at a serious risk. Worse still, driving the population into that system has been an intentional scheme by certain ideologues. We cannot flirt with ushering a Brave New World knowing its sweet poison is certain despotism.

Psychiatric Meds 101: A Surprising Discovery

Shane Ellison M. Sc.

I ask questions with period marks to shorten conversations. I avoid eye contact with strangers in fear (maybe it’s anxiety) that I might learn too much about them. I secretly think that Metallica would be making better music if they went back to bludgeoning themselves with party drugs and alcohol, instead of “therapy.” I’m trying to master the Law of Un-attraction to shield myself from a “real job,” small homes and junky cars. And, I’m constantly giving my children advice, only to give it to myself.

Psychiatry, can your drugs help me?

Perhaps these questions are what motivated me to pursue a career as a drug design chemist, winning multiple awards for my work. Nothing gets me more excited than drugs and how they affect the body (except my wife’s abs). I’ve studied their molecular anatomy, risked life and limb to mix and match explosive chemicals in a round bottom flask, and even sold my soul to Big Pharma in exchange for a lab bench and chemical hood.

During this time, I’ve made some surprising discoveries about psychiatric meds, which include antidepressants, antipsychotics, stimulants, and anti-anxiety drugs. Understanding what I’ve learned will protect you from the flood of side effects that are now being discovered at breakneck speeds, courtesy of the myriad of patients taking them in the name of mental health.

Your Own Personal Hell

Antidepressants strive to increase the levels of a “coping” molecule known as serotonin in the brain. It supposedly helps us find happiness when it’s covered in an avalanche of nastiness. But, it’s never been proven. Still, the drugs attempt to boost serotonin by “selectively” stopping the “reuptake” among brain cells. This is where the whole SSRI acronym came from – “selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor.” It’s a slick name, but a stupid idea. Nothing is selective in the body.

While trying to block the reuptake of serotonin, antidepressants can also prevent its release and that of another brain compound known as dopamine. The areas of the brain responsible for release and reuptake of these neurotransmitters are so damn similar (after all, they work on the same molecule) that an antidepressant drug isn’t smart enough to understand which one it is supposed to work on. So it does what any dumb drug would do, it blocks both. That’s why users usually carry a glassy stare in their eye. Fully under the psychiatric spell, they’ve tuned out.

Deep sadness, fear, anger and aggression can set in over time. By removing serotonin and dopamine from the brain, long-term antidepressant users can’t find or feel happiness. Instead, they may become buried in the avalanche of nastiness. And if you can’t find or feel happiness in life, what’s the point? What’s going to stop you from snapping your own neck or spraying bullets on your classmates? Not much when you live in your own personal antidepressant hell.

Think this is all opinion?

According to the FDA, antidepressants can cause suicidal thoughts and behavior, worsening depression, anxiety, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility, impulsivity, aggression, psychotic episodes and violence. Some even cause homicidal ideation according to the manufacturers. Many long-term antidepressant users will tell you they no longer feel normal emotions—they’re numb, like zombies.

But the side effects of these drugs aren’t limited to hijacking your feelings and emotional state, causing violent and psychotic states. Physical side effects occur too and include abnormal bleeding, birth defects, heart attack, seizures and sudden death. Over one hundred and seventy drug regulatory warnings and studies have been issued on antidepressants, to sound the alarm on these side effects.

For Elephant Use Only

Psychiatrists prescribe antipsychotic meds such as Zyprexa and Seroquel, for anything from schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, delusional disorder, psychotic depression, autism or anything else they can think of, even “pervasive developmental disorder,” which is perfect for boosting sales because it targets children who suffer from irritability, aggression, and agitation. It’s a shame ‘cause these drugs are good for nothing but sedating irate elephants, not curing psychiatric disease.

According to a study published in Psychological Medicine, antipsychotic drugs cause brains to shrink – they lessen brain matter and volume. Originally designed for those deemed “schizophrenic,” the drug companies came up with a brilliant marketing campaign to sell these drugs to a much wider market—unsatisfied antidepressant users. You’ve probably seen the ads—if your “depression medication” isn’t working, then don’t blame the drug; you may just have bipolar disorder!”

Once swallowed, antipsychotics sail through the blood stream where they’re carried to the brain. Like a giant oil spill, antipsychotics cover the brain in a medicinal slick, where brain wave transmission is blocked. Users become devoid of normal brain activity. Motivation, drive and feelings of reward are shunted. If psychiatry considers this a “treatment,” they’re the crazy ones.

If you’ve ever seen someone who has suffered from the “spill” courtesy of following doctor’s orders, you can’t mistake one of the most common side effects, it’s called Akathisia. Involuntary movements, tics, jerks in the face and the entire body can become permanent side effects for antipsychotic users.

Antipsychotics also cause obesity, diabetes, stroke, cardiac events, respiratory problems, delusional thinking and psychosis. Drug regulators from the U.S., Canada, United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa warn that they can also lead to death. I wouldn’t be surprised if psychiatrists considered this a cure…

Use This to Jump The Grand Canyon

If you’re going to attempt to jump your scooter over the Grand Canyon, or ride your snowboard off Kilimanjaro, stimulants are great. They flood the brain with dopamine and trigger an inhuman surge of adrenaline, responsible for making you believe life is grand, despite eminent death. Outside of that, you’re either a speed freak, a college student trying to learn an entire semester of Biology 101 in 4 hours, or a fifth grader “following doctor’s orders.”

Top stimulants being prescribed today are nothing more than a mix of amphetamines packaged into trade names like Adderall, Dexedrine and Ritalin. Street thugs sell it as meth, poor man’s cocaine, crystal, ice, glass and speed. It’s no wonder kids are now abusing Ritalin, Adderall and these drugs more than street drugs, they’re cheaper to get and they’re “legal,” hence the term kiddie cocaine.

Even the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) categorizes Ritalin in the Schedule ll category, meaning a high potential for abuse—just like cocaine and morphine. All of them have the same effects regardless of how they’re named: Central nervous system overload leading to heart attack and/or heart failure. And kids are dropping faster than Meth Heads at Raves…

I’m not exaggerating.

Eleven international drug regulatory agencies and our own FDA has issued warnings that stimulants like Ritalin cause addiction, depression, insomnia, drug dependence, mania, psychosis, heart problems, stroke and sudden death.

Bash Your Head in with Anti-Anxiety Drugs

If you’re not man enough for a drug that could sedate an elephant like antipsychotics, then psychiatrists will prescribe anti-anxiety meds, particularly benzodiazepines. Choosing between the two is akin to deciding whether or not you should be hit in the head with an aluminum bat or a wooden one; anti-anxiety meds being the latter.

Discovered in the stinky chemistry labs of Hoffman La Roche in 1955, anti-anxiety meds aim to trigger sleep receptors in the brain, just slightly. So, rather than being riddled with anxiety, you are put to sleep, halfway. It’s “treatment,” and psychiatrists have been “practicing it for decades.” But, it has yet to work, because drugging your problems away is more dangerous than anxiety. The use of anti-anxiety meds is coupled with a host of nasty side effects such as seizures, aggression and violence once the drug wears off. Hallucinations, delusional thinking, confusion, abnormal behavior, hostility, agitation, irritability, depression and suicidal thinking are all possible outcomes according to Big Pharma’s heavily guarded research papers.

Getting off the drugs could be harder than abandoning a heroin addiction. Some have described withdrawal from “benzos” being akin to pulling hundreds of fish hooks out of their skin, without anesthesia. If you doubt their addictive nature, go to Google search and type in a few of the leading anti-anxiety drugs like Klonopin or Xanax and here is what you’ll find:

“Klonopin withdrawal” 1,860,000 results
“Xanax withdrawal” 1,980,000 results
Exposing Psychiatry: How to Get The Truth

In total, the side effects of psychiatric meds spread far and wide. And most are hidden from patients and doctors alike. Fortunately, Citizens Commission on Human Rights has solved this problem with a state-of-the-art database that allows people to search through the adverse reaction reports sent to the FDA on psychiatric drugs. It also provides international drug regulatory agency warnings and studies published on the side effects of the drugs.

So, can psychiatry help me? No. And that’s surprising because psychiatric meds are some of the biggest selling drugs, poised to seal the hopes and dreams of millions. Regardless of what mental state I might be in (or anyone else for that matter), there is not a single drug that cures, treats or solves the perceived problems of mental health.

While people can suffer miserably from emotional or mental duress that can hinder their lifestyle, the pseudo-science of psychiatry has yet to solve any of these problems, and in fact only contributes to poor health as seen by the wide array of side effects. Marketing campaigns and ghostwritten medical journals are designed to obscure these facts. But the psychiatric drug side effect database courtesy of CCHR ensures that all patients have access to the truth, to the documented facts, which could save their life or that of a loved one.

Death, Sweet Death: The Dangers of Aspartame

Sovereign Independent

Aspartame is a sugar substitute frequently used in products like diet sodas. It has been linked to brain cancer, memory loss,

All artificial sweeteners contain aspartame, a genetically engineered form of bacterial waste.

impaired vision, hearing loss, joint pain, asthma and the list continues.

For 16 years, the FDA refused to approve this best-selling sweetener aspartame, until a powerful politician finally got it legalized after calling in a favor. A three-year study confirmed a link between aspartame and cancer, but the FDA (food and drug administration) officials approved the toxic sweetener against the advice of their own scientists. http://www.wnho.net/whopper.htm

On the 14th July 2005, the BBC reported on the new study entitled: Fresh doubts about the safety of an artificial sweetener have been raised by Italian scientists who have linked its use to leukemia in rodents. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4683371.stm
Aspartame is marketed as ‘Nutra Sweet’, ‘Equal’ and ‘Spoonful’ so if the label says SUGAR FREE, leave well alone. In a presentation by the EPA (environmental protection authority) it was announced that in 2001, there was an increase of patients being diagnosed with multiple sclerosis and systemic lupus and it was difficult to determine what toxins were causing this to be so rampant.

Toxicity of the methanol mimics multiple sclerosis and systemic lupus along with other conditions that resulted in many people being misdiagnosed. Apparently, the rise in the diagnosis of Lupus is almost as high as multiple sclerosis. Once patients were taken off their diet of soda, their symptoms dramatically decreased. The victim, not knowing that the aspartame is the cause of their ailments continued its use, thus irritating the lupus to such an extent that it becomes life threatening.

Also, in the case of misdiagnosis of multiple sclerosis, once taken off the diet drinks, symptoms disappear and where there have been cases of vision and hearing loss, both improved dramatically. If you are suffering from symptoms of shooting pains, numbness in your legs, cramps, vertigo, dizziness fibromyalgia, anxiety attacks, slurred speech, blurred vision or memory loss, you may have aspartame poisoning. It is reversible, but you must stop with the diet pops and sodas and look out for aspartame on food labels as many products list the sweetener in their ingredients.

Diet drinks are not diet products, they are chemically altered, multiple sodium and aspartame containing products, that make you crave carbohydrates and is more likely to cause weight gain. It has been found that aspartame is particularly dangerous for diabetics, with physicians believing that they have patients with retinopathy, but had in fact symptoms, caused by aspartame which drives blood sugar out of control thus causing the diabetic to suffer acute memory loss due to the fact that aspartic acid and phenylalanine are ‘Neurotoxic’ when taken without other amino acids that are necessary to make a balance.

During observations of thousands of children diagnosed with ADD and ADHD, it was documented that they had a complete change in their behaviors after the aspartame had been removed from their diets. Ritalin and other behavior modification prescription drugs were no longer needed. The foods that the children were being fed that were supposed to have been better for them than sugar, were in fact slowly poisoning them on a daily basis.

It has been said aspartame can cause birth defects such as mental retardation if taken at the time of conception and during the early stage of pregnancy. There have been numerous cases relating to children who have suffered grand mal seizures amongst other neurological disturbances due to the use of Nutra Sweet. Artificial sweeteners should never be given to children!

It is not easy to convince parents that aspartame is bad for their child and may be the reason for the child’s illness. Stevia is a sweet herb that helps in the metabolism of sugar and would be ideal for diabetics. It is not a manufacture additive and has now been approved by the FDA as a dietary supplement. For many years the FDA outlawed this naturally sweet food due to their loyalty to ‘Monsanto Chemical Company’.

Both Doctor Russell Blaylock and Doctor H. J. Roberts have posted details with case histories on the effects and use of the deadly poison aspartame on the internet. On March 2nd 2008, the Jerusalem Posts’ health page read, ‘Artificial Sweeteners May Cause Weight Gain’. This was based on research published by the American Psychological Association.

Apparently sweet foods provide a feeling to the body’s system that one is about to consume a lot of calories which in turn gears up the body’s digestive reflexes to deal with them, but when the sweetness is false as in diet drinks and not followed by an intake of calories, the system gets confused which interferes with the body’s ability to regulate the intake.

The former Secretary of Defense worked for a company called GD Searle Corporation (before getting involved in politics) that developed the sweetener aspartame and for years the company tried to get the stuff approved. But no one wanted to know. The FDA refused to approve it. Once he moved into politics, he appointed a new FDA commissioner and in 1981 the new commissioner approved aspartame despite the proven dangers and before we knew it, it was added to almost everything.

Aspartame can make you feel hungry and help you put on weight. It is a deadly neurotoxin hiding as a harmless additive. The year 2007 saw UK supermarket chains Sainsbury, M&S and Asda announce that aspartame would no longer appear in their own brand products. In April 2009 ‘Ajinomoto Sweeteners Europe’ who also make aspartame filed a complaint of ‘malicious falsehood’ against Asda for their ‘No Nasties’ campaign. Asda won their legal case. South African retailer Woolworths announced it was removing aspartame from its own label foods in 2009 and in this year, 2010 the British Food Standards Agency launched its own investigation into aspartame amid the claims of side effects after consuming the substance.

The FDA recommends 50 milligrams of aspartame per kilo of body weight. “The European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Food concluded in 2002 that, while some minor effects on health may occur at very high doses, no effects are expected at normal levels of consumption.”