Posts Tagged ‘psychotropic drugs’

Mom in Detroit standoff incident released—Says she was protecting daughter from unnecessary drugging—

Thursday, March 31st, 2011

* See note at end of this post from CCHR

UPI.com
March. 31, 2011

Click video to watch

DETROIT, March 31 (UPI) — A Detroit woman accused of using a gun in a standoff with police when child welfare workers came to take her 13-year-old daughter was released, officials said.

Maryanne Godboldo, 56, had been in custody since surrendering to police Friday after a 10-hour standoff at her home during which she allegedly fired a shot at officers, The Detroit News reported.   Godboldo, released Wednesday, has said she was protecting the girl from unnecessary medication welfare workers insisted she be given.

Maryann Godboldo

“I feel wonderful and I’m very excited to see my daughter,” Godboldo said after leaving the Wayne County Jail. “The support of the community has been unbelievable.”

Godboldo has said her daughter’s physical and mental problems were caused by a bad reaction to immunizations the formerly home-schooled teen was given so she could be enrolled last year in a regular middle school.

Lawyers and family say Godboldo’s dispute with authorities is over a subsequent treatment plan that called for psychotropic drugs the mother believed were doing more harm than good.

Police said Godboldo locked the doors of her home when child welfare workers showed up with a warrant to take her daughter and allegedly fired on officers when they broke open her door.

She has been charged with assault, resisting and opposing police and using a firearm in the commission of a felony.

Read article here:  http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/03/31/Mom-in-Detroit-standoff-incidnt-released

/UPI-41791301590762/

*Note from CCHR: In 2004,  following nationwide reports of parents being coerced, pressured and forced to drug their children as a condition of attending school, including Child Protective Services threatening parents to have their children removed from their custody,  CCHR worked for the introduction and passage of the Prohibition on Mandatory Medication Amendment which passed into federal law in 2004 and states

Prohibition on mandatory medication.

“(a) IN GENERAL. – The State educational agency shall prohibit State and local educational personnel from requiring a child to obtain a prescription for substances covered by the Controlled Substances Act as a condition of attending school, receiving an evaluation under section 614 (a) and (c) or receiving services.

There are three things we want to point out related to this incident in Detroit :

1)   Was the mother charged with medical neglect by Child Protective Services and was it under this guise that they attempted to have her child removed from her custody?  (See point 3 regarding ‘medical neglect’ in cases of parents refusing to administer a psychiatric drug to a child)

2)  The law above [unfortunately] only states that it is illegal for schools to require parents to administer any drug covered under “The Controlled Substances Act” which are drugs classifed by the US DEA as Schedule ll drugs (highly addictive – including Ritalin, Concerta,  Cocaine, Morphine, Opium etc).   This needs to be changed to all psychotropic drugs particularly considering antipsychotics and antidepressants are documented by the FDA to cause suicidal ideation as well as death. No parent should ever be required to give their child a potentially lethal drug, or face losing their child to “Child Protective Services”. The language change was something that CCHR opposed as the original language of the bill included prohibiting schools from requiring a parent to give their child ANY psychotropic drug as a condition of attending school.

3) There needs to be a new federal law which prohibits any parent from being pressured, coerced and/or required by government agencies (especially Child Protective Services which has the power to have a child removed from a parent’s custody) to administer any type of psychiatric drug to their child,  considering there is no medical or scientific test to prove any child has a ‘mental illness.’  Therefore the bogus charges being levied at these parents of  “medical neglect” are completely unjustified—in fact, fraudulent.  Without evidence of a “medical condition”  (meaning something that can be medically proven by x-ray, lab test or brain scan) it is impossible to cite  “medical neglect” should a parent refuse to administer a potentially lethal drug to their child.   Psychiatric drugs given to children including stimulants, antidepressants and antipsychotics, are documented by international drug regulatory agencies to cause; heart attack, stroke, mania, psychosis, worsening depression, fatal blood clots, diabetes, death,  violence, suicidal ideation and more.

See CCHR International’s Psychiatric Drug Database for all international studies and warnings on psychiatric drugs: http://www.cchrint.org/psychdrugdangers/



« Return to news items


Share

FDA’s Continual Responsibility for Making Our Children Into a Nation of Drug Addicts

Monday, March 28th, 2011

Salem-News.com
By Marianne Skolek
March 28, 2011

Dexedrine

In 1997, 5 million children were listed as using psychotropic drugs, Ritalin being among the most common.  Ritalin use has increased by 700% since 1990. By the year 2000, it was prescribed for approximately 7 million children.

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is diagnosed eight times more often in boys than in girls.

Of these diagnosed children, 90% use a stimulant to help control the disorder. 70% of children with ADHD are prescribed Ritalin. 20% use its counterpart, the generic form known as methylphenidate and an amphetamine known as Dexedrine.

Beginning in the 1960s, it was used to treat children with ADHD, or Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), known at the time as hyperactivity or minimal brain dysfunction (MBD).

Production and prescription of methylphenidate rose significantly in the 1990s, especially in the United States, as the ADHD diagnosis came to be better understood and more generally accepted within the medical and mental health communities.

The benefits and cost effectiveness of methylphenidate, i.e. Ritalin long term are unknown due to a lack of research.

There is a lack of evidence of the effectiveness in the long term of beneficial effects of methylphenidate (Ritalin) with regard to learning and academic performance.

An analysis of the literature concluded that methylphenidate quickly and effectively reduces the signs and symptoms of ADHD in children under the age of 18 in the short term but found that this conclusion may be biased due to the high number of low quality clinical trials in the literature.

Some adverse effects of stimulant therapy may emerge during long-term therapy, but there is very little research of the long-term effects of stimulants.

The United States produces 90% of the world’s Ritalin. It produces, sells and distributes more methylphenidate than any other country worldwide. In addition to the United States, methylphenidate is frequently used in the United Kingdom and Germany.

It is used in many European countries, but in much smaller percentages than in the United States. Some countries don’t use the drug at all, such as Sweden, which has banned its use.

Intuniv

The FDA approved ”Intuniv” – the first non-stimulant extended release medication for the treatment of ADHD in children.  This means it can be administered in one daily dose and given in the morning or at night as a stand-alone medication or in conjunction with another ADHD drug to boost overall effectiveness. Because Intuniv is not a stimulant, parents can feel better knowing that their child is being treated with a medication that does not have addictive properties and is less likely to be abused since it is not a controlled substance.

In clinical trials, Intuniv has been shown to boost the effectiveness of treatment when combined with a stimulant, resulting in greater attention span and reduced levels of impulsivity and hyperactivity.  One possible drawback, however, is that it has not been tested for extended use, beyond  that of 8 to 10 weeks.  For this reason, physicians who prescribe Intuniv must closely monitor patients to determine whether it continues to be a successful protocol for longer term management of ADHD symptoms.

At the present time, Intuniv’s longer term efficacy is unknown and will be determined by physicians who carefully monitor patients being treated and report associated outcomes.  Shire, Intuniv’s biopharmaceutical developer, continues to focus their research on this drug’s long term use potential for maintenance of children with ADHD who need drug treatment in order to succeed academically — as well as socially.

Dr. Ann Blake Tracy

Dr. Ann Blake Tracy, executive director of the International Coalition for Drug Awareness and author of Prozac: Panacea or Pandora? – Our Serotonin Nightmare is an expert consultant in cases like Columbine in which anti-depressant medications are involved.

Tracy says the Columbine killers’ brains were awash in serotonin, the chemical which causes violence and aggression and triggers a sleep-walking disorder in which a person literally acts out their worst nightmare.

Columbine shooter Eric Harris

Shortly before the Columbine shooting, Eric Harris (one of the shooters) had been rejected by Marine Corps recruiters because he was under a doctor’s care and had been prescribed an anti-depressant medication.  Harris was taking Luvox, an anti-depressant commonly used to treat patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Luvox is in a class of drugs called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI).  Other SSRIs include Prozac, Paxil and Zoloft.  An estimated 10 million Americans take anti-depressant medications.

Harris was taking Luvox

Mark Taylor, the first student shot at Columbine, brought a lawsuit against Solvay, the international pharmaceutical company that produces Luvox.  Taylor’s 2001 lawsuit said Luvox had caused Harris to become manic, psychotic, and homicidal/suicidal and had brought about “emotional blunting,” or a lack of inhibition.

Tayor’s lawsuit also faulted Solvay for failing to warn of the “risks and dangers” associated with the drug. *

Columbine victim Mark Taylor

(*Taylor told American Free Press two years after the Columbine shooting, as a 17-year old recovering victim, he had been taken alone, without counsel, into a room with lawyers representing Solvay and threatened with court costs and counter suits.  The fear of financial ruin led Taylor and others to withdraw the lawsuit.  Solvay Pharmaceuticals was able to silence disclosure of exactly what had happened at Columbine — and why — even after its product had played ab obvious role in slaughtering 13 people).

Solvay Pharmaceuticals

In early 1998, according to Taylor’s lawsuit, Harris had taken Zoloft for two months, but soon became “obsessional.”  Harris became obsessed with homicidal and suicidal thoughts “within weeks” after he began taking Zoloft, according to Dr. Tracy.  Due to his obsession with killing, Harris was switched to Luvox, which was in his system at the time of the shooting, according to his autopsy.  The change from Zoloft to Luvox is like switching from Pepsi to Coke, Dr. Tracy said.

Read entire article here:  http://www.salem-news.com/articles/march282011/child-addicts-ms.php

« Return to news items


Share

Concern over high medication rate among foster kids—Review of kids’ psych drugs urged

Monday, February 21st, 2011

The Atlanta Journal Constitution, February 21, 2011

By April Hunt

photo credit: Bita Honarvar — While in foster care, Giovan Bazan, now 20, says he was put on Ritalin, anti-depressants and sleeping pills. At 18, he elected to stop all drugs, and says he learned he didn't need them.

Giovan Bazan was 6 when a doctor first gave him medicine to treat his diagnosis of hyperactivity.

Bazan admits he was unruly at the time. Perhaps it was because the only parent he had ever known, his foster mother since he was an infant, had just died.

No one asked about that. Nor did anyone check years later to see that he was on a double dose of Ritalin when another physician, seeing a boy so mellowed out that he barely reacted, prescribed an antidepressant. “They start you on one thing for a problem, then the side effects mean you need a new medicine,” Bazan said. “As a foster kid, I’d go between all these doctors, caseworkers, therapists, and [it] seemed like every time there was a new drug to try me on.”

When he turned 18, Bazan elected to stop all medications. It turned out he didn’t need any of them.

Now, the Georgia House is weighing an idea to better track the psychotropic drugs foster children take at a far greater rate than other kids.

House Bill 23 hits a rare political sweet spot. The proposal to create an independent clinic review of the drugs foster children are given has support from Democrats and Republicans because of its efforts to protect the vulnerable — and projections that it will save the state millions of dollars. The state spends $7.87 million per year in Medicaid funds on those mind-altering drugs for foster kids. “This is an idea I’m very open and willing to have a discussion about,” said Speaker David Ralston, R-Blue Ridge, adding his main concern is the cost of the review.

The issue is a national one. Only half of state child welfare systems — not including Georgia — have a policy to review usage of mind-altering drugs, even though as many as 52 percent of kids in foster care are taking them.

By comparison, about 4 percent of the general youth population is on the medications, according to a 2010 Tufts Clinical and Translational Science Institute study.

“These drugs are not something you take like an aspirin,” said state Rep. Judy Manning, a Marietta Republican and chairwoman of the House Children & Youth Committee who is co-sponsoring HB 23 with Rep. Mary Margaret Oliver, D-Decatur.

“We want to monitor it and make sure the treatment is correct,” she said. “You don’t want a tragedy.”

Lack of oversight can prove deadly. Gabriel Myers, a 7-year-old foster child in Florida, hanged himself in 2009 while taking three powerful psychotropic medications, none of which had been approved for use in children.

There have been no similar high-profile cases in Georgia. Still, one in three foster 
children on Medicaid was 
prescribed mind-altering psychotropic drugs last year, according to a January report from the state Department of Community Health. More than half of them were on a daily cocktail of more than two of the drugs — some of which lack approval for treatment in children.

Oliver argues that both the cost and number of foster children on such drugs will drop if her proposal succeeds.

Her plan calls for an independent review to kick in on red-flag cases in the system, such as when a very young child is prescribed drugs for mental health or when a youngster is on multiple medications at once.

It would be up to the Human Services or Behavioral Health departments to decide what would flag cases and how to best manage the independent psychiatrists who would monitor them.

Oliver said private foundations have expressed interest in funding the idea as a national pilot program.

“Foster children are more traumatized, for horrible reasons, and that’s why their medical care has to be better,” Oliver said. “I am excited about the number of stakeholders who want to work on solving this problem with us.”

The issue may extend to lack of oversight on what drugs foster kids are being prescribed and taking. A 2010 investigation by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution revealed several companies operating foster care homes in the state had repeatedly used psychotropic medications to “subdue” children.

“Medications dispersed often aren’t to help the child with their problems but to make the child more docile for the caregivers,” said Richard Wexler, who heads the National Coalition for Child Protection and Reform. “And the paradox of child welfare care has always been the worst thing for the kids is what costs the most.”

That seems to have been the case for Bazan. Now 20, he can recall a brief period in high school when prescriptions had run out and his foster mother didn’t keep him on the stew of mind-altering drugs.

Fellow students noticed the no-nonsense boy was suddenly joking around and friendly.

“When I was off the medicines, everyone kept asking me why I was so happy,” Bazan said. “There was a real difference.”

The medications quickly 
returned, however. But Bazan said they didn’t help with the loss he felt over the death of 
his first foster mother or his feelings of being unwanted 
and under attack in the foster home he repeatedly ran away from.

He spent time in Department of Juvenile Justice facilities, where the medications kept coming, sometimes provoking seizures because some of them didn’t mix.

No one, he said, ever asked about his feelings. “They would have gotten a better response if someone had just taken a look at what was really going on in my life,” he said.

Bazan did that himself when he quit all medications cold turkey at age 18. But the years of medication already have hurt his future: His plan to enter the military to pay for college is blocked by the diagnosis of hyperactivity. He is ineligible to serve.

Bazan now works part time at the Division of Family and Children Services, acting as 
a liaison with community 
organizations and state agencies.

He also has started his own security company to provide nighttime patrols at his church in DeKalb County and others.

His goal is to get a full-time job with DFCS and persuade Gov. Nathan Deal to appoint him to the Georgia National Guard. With that, he could pay for college.

First, though, he is sharing his story in the hope that lawmakers and others will see him as a cautionary tale for what can happen when someone isn’t monitoring care of foster kids.

“I ask them, ‘Would you give all these people carte blanche with your kids, without any scrutiny of their medical history and a review of their life?’” Bazan said. “We’re just children. Someone has to look out for us. We need the same care and attention you give your own children.”

http://www.ajc.com/news/concern-over-high-medication-846324.html

« Return to news items


Share

Military’s drug policy threatens troops’ health, doctors say

Tuesday, January 18th, 2011

NextGov
By Bob Brewin
January 18, 2011

Army leaders are increasingly concerned about the growing use and abuse of prescription drugs by soldiers, but a Nextgov investigation shows a U.S. Central Command policy that allows troops a 90- or 180-day supply of highly addictive psychotropic drugs before they deploy to combat contributes to the problem.

The CENTCOM Central Nervous System
Drug formulary includes drugs like Valium and Xanax, used to treat depression, as well as the antipsychotic Seroquel, originally developed to treat schizophrenia, bipolar disorders, mania and depression.

Although CENTCOM policy does not permit the use of Seroquel to treat deploying troops with these conditions, it does allow its use as a sleep aid, and allows deployed troops to be provided with a 180-day supply, even though the drug has been implicated in the deaths of two Marines who died in their sleep after taking large doses of the drug.

The Army endorsed Seroquel as a sleep aid in the May 2010 report of its Pain Management Task Force, which, among other things, called for a reduction in the number of prescription drugs given to troops. An appendix to that report recommended taking Seroquel in either 25- or 50-milligram doses for sleep disorders.

A June 2010 internal report from the Defense Department’s Pharmacoeconomic Center at Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio showed that 213,972, or 20 percent of the 1.1 million active-duty troops surveyed, were taking some form of psychotropic drug: antidepressants, antipsychotics, sedative hypnotics, or other controlled substances.

Dr. Grace Jackson, a former Navy psychiatrist, told Nextgov she resigned her commission in 2002 “out of conscience, because I did not want to be a pill pusher.” She believes psychotropic drugs have so many inherent dangers that “the CENTCOM CNS formulary is destroying the force,” she said.

Dr. Greg Smith, who runs the Los Angles-based Comprehensive Pain Relief Group, which treats chronic pain and prescription drug abuse through an integrative medical approach called the Nutrition, Emotional/Psychological, Social/Financial and Physical program, said he was shocked by CENTCOM’s drug policy for deployed troops. “If I was a commander I’d worry about what these troops would do,” as a result of their medications, Smith said.

Dr. Peter Breggin, an Ithaca, N.Y., psychiatrist who testified before a House Veterans Affairs Committee last September on the relationship between medication and veterans’ suicides, said flatly, “You should not send troops into combat on psychotropic drugs.” Medications on the CENTCOM CNS formulary can cause loss of judgment and self-control and could result in increased violence and suicidal impulses, Breggin said.

The Army implicated prescription drugs as contributing to suicides in a July 2010 report, which said one-third of all active-duty military suicides involved prescription drugs.

When the suicide report was released, Gen. Peter Chiarelli, the Army’s vice chief of staff, said the service needed to develop better controls for prescription drugs. “Let’s make sure when we prescribe that we put an end date on that prescription, so it doesn’t remain an open-ended opportunity for somebody to be abusing drugs,” Chiarelli said.

But when it comes to the CENTCOM CNS formulary — which for some drugs allows a 180-day supply when troops deploy, followed by a 180-day refill in theater, according to an October 2010 update to the psychotropic drug policy — neither the Army nor CENTCOM sees a need for change.

In an e-mailed statement to Nextgov, Col. John Stasinos, chief of addiction medicine for the Army surgeon general, and Col. Carol Labadie, pharmacy program manager in the Directorate of Health Policy and Services for the surgeon general, said soldiers are supplied with up to 180 days of medications because they “serve in remote areas without easy access to pharmacies. It is important that soldiers on chronic medications do not run out of them during combat operations, because not taking the medications can be as dangerous as taking too much medication.”

Abuse of prescription drugs, Stasinos and Labadie said, can be prevented by improved communication among health care providers, soldiers and commanders. Comprehensive reviews of soldiers’ medication profiles by pharmacists are another way to prevent abuse, they said.

The statement from Stasinos and Labadie added that it is possible that troops could receive a 180-day supply of more than one psychotropic medication.

Navy Lt. Cmdr. William Speaks, a CENTCOM spokesman, echoed comments from the Army. He said the drug-supply policy for deployed troops was “established to ensure personnel who required these medications had an adequate supply before deployment to last through pre-deployment activities and training as well as travel to theater and initial deployment phase.”

He added, “Some of these medications can cause duty-limiting side effects if they are withdrawn abruptly [i.e. if the individual runs out]. This policy prevents that from occurring.”

Speaks said, “Abuse is always a possibility the prescribing clinician must consider … demonstration of clinical stability, medication quantity limits and in-theater review of prescriptions reduces the potential for abuse.”

Suicide and Drug Abuse

The Army’s suicide report drew a link between a significant increase in prescription drug use among troops and the service’s rising suicide rate. It also raised serious concerns about troops trafficking in prescription drugs.

Jackson, the former Navy psychologist, now has a civilian practice in Greensboro, N.C. She said at least one drug on the CENTCOM formulary — Depakote, an anticonvulsant, which military doctors prescribe for mood control — carries serious physical risks for troops. Depakote is toxic to certain cells, including hair cells in the ears, and can lead to hearing loss. Troops in a howitzer battery who already run the risk of hearing loss should not take Depakote, she said.

The medication also can cause what she calls “cognitive toxicity,” also known as Depakote dementia, impairing a person’s ability to think and make decisions. Jackson said that while Depakote has been investigated as an adjunct therapy for cancer, its use has been limited due to the drug’s effects on cognition.

The antidepressant Wellbutrin, also on the CENTCOM formulary, likely poses a long-term risk of Parkinson’s disease, especially for older troops, said Jackson, author of Drug-Induced Dementia: A Perfect Crime (AuthorHouse, 2009).

Jackson and Breggin both expressed deep concerns about Xanax, perhaps the most addictive of all benzodiazepines, a class of depressant medications used to treat anxiety, on the CENTCOM formulary.

Breggin, author of Medication Madness: The Role of Psychiatric Drugs in Cases of Violence, Suicide and Crime (St. Martin’s Griffin, 2009), called Xanax “solid alcohol” and said all the benzodiazepines on the CENTCOM formulary “amount to a prescription for abuse.” He also said there is no rationale for prescribing multiple psychotropic drugs to troops.

Smith said he was “flabbergasted” that military doctors prescribed Seroquel as a sleep aid, as the Food and Drug Administration has not approved such a use and other drugs are more effective. Breggin agreed, calling Seroquel “very dangerous, expensive and not proven to be more beneficial than other drugs.”

Jackson noted Seroquel has the addictive potential of opioids, such heroin.

CENTCOM’s allowance of Seroquel as a sleep aid also seems to fly in the face of a high-level Defense policy set in November 2006. In a memo titled “Policy Guidance for Deployment Limiting Pyschiatric Conditions and Medications,” William Winkenwerder, then assistant secretary of Defense for health affairs, said psychotropic medications that would prohibit troops from deployment included those used to treat chronic insomnia.

Asked if prescribing Seroquel to aid sleep violated this policy, Stasinos and Labadie said in an e-mail, “Seroquel is not prescribed for chronic insomnia. Lower doses have been used to aid soldiers with troubled sleep for anxiety-related nightmares.” They added while other sleep medications are on the CENTCOM formulary, none appears to relieve nightmares as effectively as Seroquel.

Laura Woodin, a spokeswoman for the U.S. division of London-based AstraZeneca, which makes Seroquel, said the drug is not approved by the FDA as a sleep aid or to treat post-traumatic stress disorder. But, she added, mental health professionals often prescribe it to treat conditions not approved by the FDA. “Like patients, we trust doctors to use their medical judgment to determine when it is appropriate to prescribe medications,” Woodin said.

Nightmare

Stan White, a retired high school teacher who lives in the small town of Cross Lanes, W.Va., has observed the effects Seroquel can have. When his son Andrew returned from a tour in Iraq with the Marine Reserve 4th Combat Engineer Battalion in 2007, he was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and was prescribed three psychotropic drugs, including Seroquel, by the Huntington Veterans Affairs Medical Center, White said.

VA started Andrew on 25 milligrams of Seroquel a day and upped the dose to 1,600 milligrams a day (the CENTCOM-approved dose is 25 milligrams a day). Andrew White died in his sleep Feb. 12, 2008, six months after seeking help.

White said Andrew was so befuddled by his drug cocktail, which included Klonopin, a benzodiazepine, and hydrocodone, an opiate, that his wife, Shirley, had to dole them out forAndrew. White said Seroquel did not diminish Andrew’s nightmares at even such a high dosage.

While talk therapy is widely viewed as one of the most effective treatments for some mental health problems, including PTSD, White said Andrew had only a few such sessions, primarily with a local veterans’ peer therapy group. It was not until the week Andrew died that a VA psychiatrist decided to begin intensive sessions with him.

Stan White says his mission in life today is to expose the dangers of Seroquel. The drug, he said, “turns people unto zombies. I cannot imagine going into battle on Seroquel.”

MEDS AND MREs

Some of the drugs on the CENTCOM Formulary of CNS Medication Restrictions require patients to follow restricted diets, a tall order for deployed troops operating in remote areas and eating a steady round of Meals Ready to Eat field rations, according to Dr. Peter Breggin, a psychiatrist.

At least three of the antidepressant drugs on the CENTCOM formulary are monoamine oxidase inhibitors, which also exist in the intestine and help break down a substance in food know as tyramine.

MAOIs on the formulary include Marplan, Nardil and Parnate, and patients taking these drugs should avoid foods that contain significant amounts of tyramine, which interferes with the action of natural tyramine in the intestines. If not, too much of the MAOI could enter the bloodstream, which could cause a hypertensive crisis due to elevation of blood pressure.

Foods in MREs that contain tyramine include pepperoni and cheese and, among the favorite snacks, raisins and peanuts.

MAOIs also increase the amount of norepinephrine, a hormone, neurotransmitter and blood vessel constrictor, and patients taking these medications should not be prescribed other drugs that could also increase norepinephrine levels. These include amphetamines, dextroamphetamine and Ritalin, which are also on the CENTCOM formulary.

Read article here:  http://www.nextgov.com/nextgov/ng_20110118_8944.php?oref=topstory

« Return to news items


Share

“Just another prick in the wall” — Psychiatry’s Quest for Dominance and Control

Monday, October 4th, 2010

Psychiatry’s quest for total dominance and control


By Dominik Ritter, Psychologist
October 4, 2010

When thinking about psychiatry I find it hard to escape the comparison with the work carried out at assembly lines of large manufacturing companies and the process involved when faulty products are called back for inspection and repair. All mass produced goods are meant to basically look and function in the same way. The same can be said about the people in a state that promotes the idea of a moral code of conduct (e.g. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, DSM). Through socialization and education we learn about what behaviours are appropriate and how one should feel and think about things. If individuals are judged to be “damaged” or “just not right”, they are sent away to be properly assessed and corrected. A whole army of “Quickfitters” is there to sort you out when you seem to have broken down and not function properly anymore, even if you don’t want that (well, actually, especially then).

It all seems to be about the intolerance of diversity and difference and the quest for total dominance and control, which results in the persecution and punishment of those individuals who step out of line as they are deemed to be out of order and in urgent need of corrective measures. The faultiness, that one is accused of, really boils down to a lack of conformity and obedience, i.e. behaving, thinking and feeling as directed by those who think they know best (e.g. mental health professionals).

Now, doesn’t that all sound strangely familiar? It is frighteningly similar to Huxley’s “Brave New World” (1932). Huxley’s world is built upon the principles of Henry Ford’s assembly line, i.e. mass production, homogeneity, predictability, and consumption of disposable consumer goods. From the beginning of life, members of every class are indoctrinated by recorded voices repeating slogans while they sleep to believe that their own class is best for them. Any residual unhappiness is resolved by an antidepressant and hallucinogenic drug called soma.

So what happens once you find yourself in the (dis-)comfort of a so called “mental hospital”? To understand this one first needs to call these facilities by their appropriate names. Correctional facilities or conversion centres are probably the most adequate terms to be applied to these institutions. The main task of these facilities is to stop you misbehaving and to start acting according to their rules. Resistance and protest, which is very understandable in situations when your liberty is taken away from you and you are being forced to comply and conform, is quickly regarded as just another expression of the seriousness of your faultiness and thus requires more intensive treatment (i.e. more force and violence).

It is true that psychiatric interventions (e.g. pharmacological, electroconvulsive, and conversational treatments) are often successful. But what does that actually mean? In psychiatric terms this means that one has managed to reduce (in terms of frequency and/or intensity) or remove particular symptoms (i.e. a bunch of undesirable behaviours). This could be because he/she simply does not want to be a mental patient any longer and just plays along according to the psychiatric rules. This can of course mean that one is denying one’s own thoughts, feelings, values, and aspirations, in order to please one’s masters, captors and owners. Alternatively, he/she might actually believe that psychiatric interventions are an effective way of combating what he he/she believes to be a psychological problem. Beliefs are important here, just as in the religious sphere of theological interventions such as confessions (being repentant, paying penance and being ultimately forgiven for one’s sins). However, just like in the case of religion, having undergone successful theological treatment does not prove that one has been possessed by a demon (or that one’s behaviour has been caused by some sort of mental illness) or that one would otherwise have been condemned to go to hell (or destined to suffer from a lifelong mental illness). So what is it that has ultimately been treated or cured? I would argue that one has abolished misbehaviour, and replaced it with compliance and obedience. One has simply been successfully shut up (both literally and metaphorically).

Man’s hunger for power seems insatiable. Many pursuits of mankind (e.g. religion, politics, science, etc.) have been attempts to control and dominate, and they remain locked in a constant battle with each other over maximising their influence and power. Science, for example, has always followed its agenda to control and dominate nature (e.g. natural resources, diseases, etc.), something that in modern history has been expanded to include other human beings, as they are simply regarded as byproducts of nature. Psychiatrists, who arguably represent the discipline of medicine, have for hundred of years argued that social problems are caused by mental illness, and maintained that they should be given sole power to cure the diseased minds. This has resulted in psychiatry having successfully created a monopoly for the assessment and response to all sorts of human affairs. It has grown to an immensely powerful institution (only rivalled by totalitarian systems) of being able to define what constitutes “mental illness” (legislative power), judge what kinds of behaviours, thoughts and feelings signify “mental illness” (judiciary power), and punish those who are judged to be “mentally ill” by means of enforced incarceration, drugging, shocking, and moral therapy (executive power).

Rather than having to think about having to make the effort of time-consuming, large scale and wide ranging changes within society, the idea that there is simply something wrong with a bunch of individuals and that everything is going to be alright once their heads have been sorted out,  seems  comforting and appealing. Any form of dissent, disobedience  or non-conformity in relation to the predominant mental health ideology quickly becomes labelled as a form of mental illness. Let’s take the example of one of the most widespread psychiatric diagnoses amongst children and adolescents in the world, i.e. ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder). I argue that this psychiatric diagnosis pathologises childhood behaviour of not paying attention, having a lot of energy, and not wanting to sit still for hours on end. What these children might be guilty of are the “crimes” of striving for independence and autonomy, questioning the usefulness of the curriculum, their assignments and homework, and challenging the arbitrariness of authority of being told what they should do and what they shouldn’t do. As a society we seem to have very rigid ideas of what we expect from each other, often to an extent that can only be described as questionable in terms of purpose, stifling and hindering any kind of progress. In short, it maintains the status quo, the way things have always been. But who benefits from all this? I would argue that it ultimately serves an elite class in society that holds the power to make decisions, such as the decision to punish children who misbehave according to their standards, by calling them names, drugging them, or imposing some form of moral therapy (e.g. correct ways of behaving, thinking and feeling). As already stated above, the psychiatric ideology provides an easy explanation and an easy solution. We are spared the inconvenience of having to venture down a different avenue, to explore a path off the beaten track. Psychiatry leads the way and we follow like stupid cattle. When we focus on something like “ADHD” we no longer think about more important issues such as the usefulness of the current national curriculum (e.g. what we think is important to teach our children; whether our education system is educating at all), classroom sizes, grading systems, the promotion of competitiveness at the expense of collaboration, lack of teaching resources, inadequate teacher training, staff turnover, etc.

What I have said about ADHD, can be applied to all so called psychiatric disorders, e.g. depression, autism, schizophrenia, personality disorder, etc. What all these psychiatric labels have in common is that they are applied when psychiatrists are of the opinion that there has been some form of misconduct, i.e. a transgression of a moral code. Throughout history and across cultures societies have always provided their own codes of conduct and guidelines of how one should behave and how to respond to people who broke the rules. The point I would like to make here, though, is that we are talking about morality (i.e. good and bad) here and not about science as psychiatry would have it. While one can argue that in the natural sciences things are being discovered (e.g. electricity, magnetism, etc.) the same cannot be said in the case of psychiatry. Here things are not discovered but simply defined. If mental illnesses were real illnesses (such as that of the brain) and not simply metaphors they would be called brain illnesses. Psychiatry, however, is not about what you have (a disease of the liver or heart that can be objectively measured) but about what you do. Various behaviours are simply clustered into symptom groups and given scientific sounding names. So, for example, if you are shy and do not enjoy going to parties you can easily be classified as suffering from an anxiety disorder called social anxiety disorder. One can easily create one’s own scientific sounding labels by arguing that certain behaviour patterns signify the existence of some underlying psychopathology. For example, one could label people who do not like to eat meat or use any kind of animal products as suffering from some kind of deep rooted animal anxiety. Likewise, one could come up with a similarly ludicrous idea of declaring people who happen to like to stand on their head while singing the national anthem as suffering from some kind of subversive personality disorder. The point here is that one simply does not discover underlying mental illnesses but simply attempts to arbitrarily categorise behaviours into groups and give them names. A real important issue here is that of name giving, that is to define things, which when done by a more powerful group (e.g. priests, doctors, academics, and politicians) and applied to a less powerful group (e.g. believers, ordinary citizens, patients, and students) is always problematic.

A final concern I have is the general view of people that is promoted by the therapeutic industry. It is argued that many people are simply too sick, unwell, disordered or distressed and therefore unable to help themselves. It creates an image of people in today’s society as vulnerable, weak and incompetent emotional wrecks who are in desperate need of some sort of help from the therapeutic state. This image of people being too stupid to sort out their own personal affairs gets repeated over and over again so that it becomes  deeply ingrained into our minds. Surely, the therapeutic apparatus is only one of many other sectors (e.g. litigation, education, child rearing, politics, etc.) that have continued to rob people of their experience, competence, right, duty and responsibility to deal with every day life and sort out their own difficulties. This continued professionalisation of everyday life has condemned people to passivity, indifference, and ignorance. It is no longer up to the general public to manage their own lives. It is up to the technocrats to do that for them, which according to this elitist class is in their very best interest.

Dominik Ritter is a psychologist, writer,  lecturer, social critic, and founder of the Blue Panthers Party, a critical psychiatry group.

Employers

RETURN TO BLOGS PAGE


Share

Americas Mental Illness Epidemic

Thursday, August 26th, 2010

Rense.com
By Gary G. Kohls, MD
August 25, 2010

Tens of millions of innocent, unsuspecting Americans, who are mired deeply in the mental “health” system, have actually been made crazy by the use of or the withdrawal from commonly-prescribed, brain-altering, brain-disabling, indeed brain-damaging psychiatric drugs that have been, for many decades, cavalierly handed out like candy ­ often in untested and therefore unapproved combinations of drugs – to trusting and unaware patients by equally unaware but well-intentioned physicians who have been under the mesmerizing influence of slick and obscenely profitable psychopharmaceutical drug companies aka, BigPharma.

That is the conclusion of two books by investigative journalist and health science writer Robert Whitaker. His first book, entitled Mad in America: Bad Science, Bad Medicine and the Enduring Mistreatment of the Mentally Ill noted that there has been a 600% increase (since Thorazine was introduced in the US in the mid-1950s) in the total and permanent disabilities of millions of psychiatric drug-takers. This uniquely First World mental ill health epidemic has resulted in the life-long taxpayer-supported disabilities of rapidly increasing numbers of psychiatric patients who are now unable to be happy, productive, taxpaying members of society. Whitaker has done a powerful, albeit unwelcome job of presenting previously hidden, but very convincing evidence to support his thesis, that it is the drugs and not the diagnosis that is causing the epidemic of mental illness disability. Many open-minded physicians and many aware psychiatric patients are now motivated to be wary of any and all synthetic chemicals that can cross the blood/brain barrier because all of them are capable of altering the brain in ways totally unknown to medical science, especially when the patients are taking the drugs long-term..

In Whitaker’s second book Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs, and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America, he goes much further in advancing this sobering reality. He documents the history of the powerful forces behind the relatively new field of psychopharmacology and its major shaper and beneficiary, BigPharma. Psychiatric drugs, whose developers, marketers and salespersons are all in the employ of the giant drug companies, are far more dangerous than the drug and psychiatric industries are willing to admit: These drugs, it turns our, are fully capable of disabling ­ often permanently – body, brain and spirit.

More evidence to support Whitaker’s well-documented claims are laid out in two important new books written by psychiatrist and scholar Grace Jackson. Jackson did a beautiful job of researching and documenting, from the voluminous basic neuroscience research (which is uniformly ignored by the clinical sciences) the unintended and often disastrous consequences of the chronic ingestion of any of the five major classes of psychiatric drugs. Her second and most powerful book: Drug-Induced Dementia: A Perfect Crime, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, that any of the five classes of drugs that are commonly used in psychiatric patients (antidepressants, antipsychotics, psychostimulants, tranquilizers and anti-seizure/”mood-stabilizer” drugs) have shown microscopic, macroscopic, biochemical, clinical and/or radiological evidence of brain shrinkage and other signs of brain damage, which can result in clinically-diagnosable, permanent dementia, premature death and a variety of other related brain disorders that can mimic mental illnesses. Jackson’s first book, Rethinking Psychiatric Drugs: A Guide for Informed Consent was an equally sobering book warning about the many hidden dangers of psychiatric drugs.

This sad truth is that the seemingly knee-jerk prescribing (without very much information being given to patients about the long list of serious long-term adverse effects) of potent and often addicting/dependency-inducing psychiatric drugs has become the standard of care in American psychiatry since the introduction of the so-called anti-schizophrenic “miracle” drug Thorazine in the mid-1950s. (Thorazine was the offending drug that all of Jack Nicholson’s fellow patients were coerced into taking at “medication time” in the Academy Award-winning movie “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest”.) Thorazine and all the other “me-too” early antipsychotic drugs are now universally known to have been an iatrogenic (= doctor or other treatment-caused) disaster because of their serious long-term, initially unsuspected, brain-damaging effects that resulted in a number of incurable neurological disorders such as tardive dyskinesia and Parkinson’s disease.

Thorazine and all the other knock-off drugs like Prolixin, Mellaril, Navane. etc, are synthetic “tricyclic” chemical compounds similar in molecular structure to the tricyclic “antidepressants” like imipramine and the similarly toxic, obesity-inducing, diabetogenic, “atypical” anti-schizophrenic drugs like Clozaril, Zyprexa and Seroquel.

Thorazine, incidentally, was originally developed in Europe as an industrial dye. That doesn’t sound so good although it may not be so unusual in the closely related fields of psychopharmcology and the chemical industry, especially when one considers that Depakote, a popular drug marketed initially as an anti-epilepsy drug but now is being heavily used as a so-called “mood stabilizer”. Depakote, known to be a hepatotoxin and renal toxin, was originally developed as an industrial solvent capable of dissolving fat – including, presumably, the fatty tissue in human livers and brains.

Some sympathy and understanding needs to be generated for the various victims of BigPharma’s compulsive drive to expand market share and “shareholder value” (share price, dividends and the next quarter’s financial report) by whatever means necessary. Both the prescribers and the swallowers of BigPharma’s drugs have succumbed to BigPharma’s cunning marketing campaigns, the prescribers having been seduced by attractive drug company representatives and their “pens, pizzas and post-it note” freebies in the office, and the patients being brain-washed by the inane and unbelievable (if one has intact critical thinking skills) commercials on TV that quickly gloss over the lethal adverse effects in the fine print while urging the watcher to “ask your doctor” about the latest unaffordable wannabe blockbuster drug..

For a quick overview of these issues, I recommend that everybody with an open mind read a long essay written by Whitaker that persuasively identifies the source of America’s epidemic of mental illness disability (a phenomenon that doesn’t exist in Third World nations because costly psych drugs are not prescribed so cavalierly as in the US).

Whitaker and Jackson (among a number of other ground-breaking and whistle-blowing authors who have been essentially black-listed by the mainstream media and mainstream medical journals) have proven to most critically-thinking scientists, alternative practitioners and assorted “psychiatric survivors” that it is the drugs – and not the so-called “disorders” – that are causing our nation’s epidemic of mental illness disability. The Whitaker essay, plus other pertinent information about his books can be accessed at www.madinamerica.com A recent interview on Wisconsin Public Radio can be accessed at www.wpr.org (at their radio archives link) and a long interview with Dr.Joseph Mercola can be heard at: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/05/08/robert-whitaker-interview.aspx

After reading and studying all these inconvenient truths, mental health practitioners must consider the medicolegal implications for them, especially if the information is ignored or if the information is dismissed out of hand by practitioners who might be tempted to not take the time to study this new information. Those people who are hearing about this for the first time need to pass the word on to others, especially their prescribing healthcare practitioners who should be equally concerned. This is important because the opinion leaders in the highly influential (for good or ill) psychiatric and medical industries have been marketed into submission without hearing the all the facts (which may have been intentionally hidden from them. If that is the case, they cannot be automatically blamed for proceeding in a practice that some day might represent malpractice. It shouldn’t have to be pointed out that is the solemn duty of ethical practitioners who are in positions of authority to fully examine potential malpractice issues and then warn others, especially their patients, of the dangers.

Sadly, it must be admitted that most of the over-worked, double-booked care-givers in medical clinics have not yet heard the news that most if not all of the brain-altering synthetic chemicals known as psychotropic drugs (which are treated as hazardous waste unless they are packaged in a swallowable capsule!) have been marketed as safe and effective – but only for short-term use. The captains of the drug industry know that the psychotropic drugs that they present for the FDA-approval have only been tested in animal trials for days and in clinical trials for 6 weeks. They also know ­ indeed they hope – that patients will be taking their drugs for years (despite no long-term trials proving safety and efficacy) as the only “treatment” for mental ill health. They know that their brain-altering drugs are also dependency-inducing (aka addicting, causing withdrawal symptoms when stopped), neurotoxic and increasingly ineffective (a la “Prozac Poop-out”) as time goes by.

The truth is that the people diagnosed as “mentally ill” for life are often simply those unfortunates who find themselves in acute or chronic states of crisis or “overwhelm” due to any number of preventable, curable and treatable (without the use of drugs) bad luck accidents such as poverty, abuse, violence, torture, homelessness, discrimination, underemployment, brain malnutrition, addictions/withdrawal, brain damage from electroshock “therapy” and/or exposure to neurotoxic chemicals in their food, air, water or prescription bottles.

Those labeled as the “mentally ill” are just like us “normals” who have not yet decompensated because of some yet-to-happen, crisis-inducing, overwhelming (however temporary) life situation. And thus we have not yet been given a billable code number (accompanied by the seemingly obligatory – and unaffordable – drug prescription or two signifying we are now chronically mentally ill. Unlabeled, we are likely to remain off prescription drugs but with a label and in “the system”, it is hard to “just say no to drugs.”

The victims of hopelessness-generating situations like simple bad luck, bad circumstances, bad company, bad choices, bad government, big business, and a competitive society that generates a few winners but mostly losers. America tolerates, indeed celebrates, punitive and thus fear-inducing social systems resembling in many ways the infamous police state realities of 20th century European totalitarianism, where people who were different or just dissidents were thought to be abnormal and therefore “disappeared” into insane asylums, jails or concentration camps without just cause or competent legal defense. And many of them were and are drugged with disabling psychoactive chemicals against their will.

The truth is that most, if not all, of BigPharma’s psychotropic drugs are lethal at some dosage level (the LD50, the lethal dose that kills 50% of lab animals, is calculated before efficacy testing is done), and therefore the drugs must be regarded as dangerous. The chronic use of these drugs is a major cause of cognitive disorders, brain damage, loss of creativity, loss of spirituality, loss of empathy, loss of energy, loss of strength, fatigue and tiredness, permanent disability and a multitude of metabolic adverse effects that can readily sicken the body, brain and soul by causing insomnia or somnolence, increased depression or anxiety, delusions, psychoses, paranoia, mania, etc. So before filling the prescription, it is advisable to read the product insert labeling under WARNINGS, PRECAUTIONS, ADVERSE EFFECTS, CONTRAINDICATIONS, TOXICOLOGY, OVERDOSAGE and the ever-present BLACK BOX WARNINGS ABOUT SUICIDALITY.

Long-term, high dosage or combination psychotropic drug usage could be regarded as a chemically traumatic brain injury (TBI) or, as drugs like Thorazine were known in the 1950s and 60s, a “chemical lobotomy”. That is a useful way to conceptualize this serious issue, because such chemically brain-altered patients are often indistinguishable from those who have suffered a physically traumatic brain injuries or been subjected to ice-pick lobotomies which were popular in the 1940s and 50s – before the drugs came on the market.

America has a mental ill health epidemic on its hands that is grossly misunderstood because it is worsening, not by the supposed disease progression, but because of the neurotoxic, non-curative drugs that are somehow regarded as first-line “treatment.”
Read the rest of this article here: http://www.rense.com/general91/edi.htm

« Return to news items


Share

New Study—Psychiatric Drugs Cause Birth Defects— pregnant women warned about smoking/alcohol but not psychiatric drugs

Tuesday, July 6th, 2010

Lawyers and Settlements
By LAS Newswire
July 6, 2010

Copenhagen, Denmark: A recent Danish study found a high number of Prozac birth defects among the children of women who took the drug while pregnant.

The study, conducted by the University of Copenhagen, warns that Prozac and other psychotropic drugs can cause serious birth defects and other maladies, according to United Press International.

Researchers discovered 429 instances of adverse reactions when women took the drugs while pregnant. Of those 429 cases, more than half involved serious reactions and a number of them involved birth defects.

“We are constantly reminded about the dangers of alcohol use and smoking during pregnancy, but there is no information offered to women with regards to use of psychotropic medication,” researcher Lisa Aagaard said in a statement. “There is simply not enough knowledge available in this area.”

Researchers found that 42 percent of the reactions were linked to psychostimulants like Ritalin, 31 percent to antidepressants such as Prozac and 24 to anti-psychotics like Haldol.

Read entire article:  http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/14468/prozac-pphn-birth-defects-lawyer-3.html

« Return to news items


Share

Medscape – Psychotropic Medications Linked to Serious Adverse Drug Reactions in Children

Friday, July 2nd, 2010

Medscape
By Deborah Brauser
July 2, 2010

Psychotropic medications are associated with adverse drug reactions (ADRs), many of which are serious, in children younger than 17 years, according to a new database study from Danish researchers.

Results also showed that all but one of the psychotropic-related ADRs for children between the ages of birth and 2 years were serious, including birth defects such as neonatal withdrawal syndrome, ventricular septal defects, and premature labor.

These findings were “probably due to the mothers’ intake of psychotropic medicine, primarily antidepressants and antipsychotics, during pregnancy,” write the study authors.

For the overall patient population, the largest share of reported ADRs came from psychostimulants (42%), followed by antidepressants (31%) and antipsychotics (24.5%).

“The high number of serious ADRs reported for psychotropic medicines in the pediatric population should be a concern for health care professionals and physicians,” the study authors write.

In addition, “clinicians must be aware of the risks for the unborn child if they treat pregnant women with [these drugs],” coinvestigator Ebba Hansen, MSc, professor of social pharmacy and director for the FKL-Research Center for Quality in Medicine Use at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark, told Medscape Medical News.

She noted that many of the general practitioners interviewed for this study “thought that SSRI [selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor] antidepressants are harmless. Therefore, we recommend that treatment of pregnant women with psychotropic drugs should be an issue for specialists only.”

The study is published online in BMC Research Notes.

ADR Evidence Lacking

Although regulatory authorities have issued warnings about risks associated with the use of psychotropics in pediatric patients, “little evidence has been reported about the ADRs of these medicines in practice,” write the study authors.

“Overall, we have very little information about [ADRs] in children, and especially in infants, as vulnerable groups are excluded from the clinical trials that document a medication’s efficacy and safety before licensing and marketing,” said Professor Hansen.

For this study, her team evaluated 4500 ADRs in children listed in the national Danish ADR database between 1998 and 2007.

“Spontaneous ADR reporting [is] an important contributor to knowledge about safety of medicines,” the study authors write. They note that spontaneous reports are “the main source for information about new and previous unknown ADRs.”

Serious ADRs Found

Results showed that 429 of the ADRs reported during the study period were for psychotropic medications. Of these, 241 (56%) were deemed serious.

A total of 50% of the psychotropic ADRs reported were for adolescents between the ages of 11 and 17 years (n = 214), of which 45% were serious. Almost 19% were for children between the ages of birth and 2 years (n = 80).

In addition, 39% of the overall psychotropic-related ADRs were from the “nervous and psychiatric disorders” categories. When looking at sex, 59% of the total ADRs reported were for boys.

A total of 79 of the 80 ADRs associated with psychotropics in the children younger than 2 years were serious, and 2 of these were fatal (one was associated with citalopram due to chorioamnionitis and the other with fluoxetine due to persistent fetal circulation).

Finally, 40% of all psychotropic ADRs were associated with the psychostimulants methylphenidate and atomoxetine, whereas 59% of the ADRs reported for antipsychotics were associated with ziprasidone, olanzapine, and risperidone. A total of 61% of the total ADRs reported for antidepressants were with sertraline and citalopram.

Read entire article:  http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/724547
(Free registration required for Medscape)

« Return to news items


Share

Ready for Psychiatry’s latest mental illness? Try this: Healthy Eating Disorder

Tuesday, June 29th, 2010

Natural News
By Mike Adams
June 29, 2010

In its never-ending attempt to fabricate “mental disorders” out of every human activity, the psychiatric industry is now pushing the most ridiculous disease they’ve invented yet: Healthy eating disorder.

This is no joke: If you focus on eating healthy foods, you’re “mentally diseased” and probably need some sort of chemical treatment involving powerful psychotropic drugs. The Guardian newspaper reports, “Fixation with healthy eating can be sign of serious psychological disorder” and goes on to claim this “disease” is called orthorexia nervosa — which is basically just Latin for “nervous about correct eating.”

But they can’t just called it “nervous healthy eating disorder” because that doesn’t sound like they know what they’re talking about. So they translate it into Latin where it sounds smart (even though it isn’t). That’s where most disease names come from: Doctors just describe the symptoms they see with a name like osteoporosis (which means “bones with holes in them”).

Getting back to this fabricated “orthorexia” disease, the Guardian goes on to report, “Orthorexics commonly have rigid rules around eating. Refusing to touch sugar, salt, caffeine, alcohol, wheat, gluten, yeast, soya, corn and dairy foods is just the start of their diet restrictions. Any foods that have come into contact with pesticides, herbicides or contain artificial additives are also out.”

Wait a second. So attempting to avoid chemicals, dairy, soy and sugar now makes you a mental health patient? Yep. According to these experts. If you actually take special care to avoid pesticides, herbicides and genetically modified ingredients like soy and sugar, there’s something wrong with you.

But did you notice that eating junk food is assumed to be “normal?” If you eat processed junk foods laced with synthetic chemicals, that’s okay with them. The mental patients are the ones who choose organic, natural foods, apparently.

Read entire article:  http://www.naturalnews.com/029098_orthorexia_mental_disorder.html

« Return to news items


Share

University of Copenhagen; Psychiatric Drugs Cause Birth Defects—responsibility must be taken to warn pregnant women

Monday, June 28th, 2010

HealthJockey.com
June 28, 2010

Some psychotropic drugs may be recommended to treat depression as they are believed to affect the mind, emotions, and behavior of an individual. But these medications appear to elevate the risk for various birth defects. As a recent study initiated by the University of Copenhagen suggests, the consumption of psychotropic medication ought to be avoided during pregnancy.

Investigators observed the link of psychotropic medications with birth defects. They analyzed the data between 1998 and 2007 regarding Danish children under the age of 17. The study claims that the data highlighted 429 adverse drug reactions in these children. After thorough examinations the authors concluded that more than half of these cases indicated extreme birth defects including birth deformities and severe withdrawal syndromes.

Associate Professor Lisa Aagaard affirmed, “A range of serious side effects such as birth deformities, low birth weight, premature birth, and development of neonatal withdrawal syndrome were reported in children under two years of age, most likely because of the mother’s intake of psychotropic medication during pregnancy.”

In addition, the investigators inspected 4,500 pediatric adverse drug reaction reports and revealed a clear link between psychotropic medications and birth defects. It was ascertained that psychostimulants like Ritalin known to treat attention deficit disorder (ADD) was accountable in 42 percent of unfavorable reactions. And while antidepressants such as Prozac probably caused 31 percent reactions, 21 percent were contributed by antipsychotics similar to Haldol.

Read entire article: http://www.healthjockey.com/2010/06/28/birth-defects-appear-due-to-intake-of-psychotropic-medications-during-pregnancy/

« Return to news items


Share