Children are the latest victims in the Drug Crimes Against Humanity. Let me share my bias with you and then tell you why I believe that babies and children are being assaulted in increasing numbers with a deadly weapon: psychotropic drugs. These drugs kill and maim at the physical, neurological, psychological and emotional levels. They have lethal and sub-lethal side effects but are, astonishingly, handed out like candy as if they were properly tested, safe or effective. They are none of the above. Click here, http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/t/1128/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=27246, to tell State and Federal Legislators to protect parents’ right to make medical decisions for their children and stop the use of government money for unscientific and skewed screening tests to herd kids into the drug pusher’s offices where unnecessary and dangerous prescriptions await them.
Pregnant mothers are up for “protection” from postpartum depression by being “screened” with phony screening tools and then “offered” drugs which the PDR advises doctors to avoid or use with extreme caution in women of child-bearing age. Infants exposed to these toxic compounds can suffer a horrifying range of damage, including being born with their internal organs outside of their bodies and life long brain damage. “Never mind”, says Big Pharma, “pregnant and new moms are an untapped market. Let’s go for it! And just think! Babies with brain damage, diabetes, etc., all require meds for the rest of their lives. Yes, indeed! We will surely go for it.” And go for it they did by getting the bill passed in the House of Representatives whose companion bill, S 324, is now before the Senate. Click herehttp://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/t/1128/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=23065 to tell your Senators not to pass this dangerous and totally unnecessary bill.
I was graduated from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in 1970 and took my Postgraduate training in Child, Adolescent and Adult Psychiatry, finishing my training in 1975. I am trained in psychoanalysis, group therapy and a host of other modalities. I have run drug and other treatment facilities, worked in inpatient and out patient facilities for children, adults and adolescents and have been in the private practice of psychiatry and medicine for decades.
All without drugs, electroshock or other dangerous, primitive and harmful techniques. I believe that psychoactive drugs, like virtually all other drugs, are dangerous and, unless you are in a surgery suite or an emergency room, unnecessary.
This is a conviction born out of a very long and successful drug free medical and psychiatric practice (during which, unlike most of my medical colleagues, I have never been sued for malpractice).
When I saw the article in the most recent journal of the Schafer Autism Report which is reproduced below, I wrote to congratulate the Report for publishing this outstanding piece decrying the medication of millions and millions of children for little more than mythic disorders.
Representative Ron Paul MD (TX-R) introduced the Parental Consent Act, HR 2218, on April 30, 2009. The bill prevents Federal monies from being used to support mental health screenings which are nothing short of pharma marketing tools for kids. They have no scientific validity, are supported by, and developed by, the greedy folks at Big Pharma. Kids answer trick questions in normal ways and they are “diagnosed” with phony terms and lables. Parents who resist the requirement for medication which almost always follows face enormous pressure, including jail time for “medical neglect” or “child abuse”. This sells pills, all right, but it sure does not protect rights or kids brains and bodies.
As a psychiatrist and physician I can tell you that psychoactive drugs are dangerous. They can cause permanent physical damage, obesity, suicide, homicide, diabetes, neurological damage which is life-long, rob children of their moods and their developmental opportunities and much, much more. Every single school shooting in the US has involved kids either on drugs or coming off them. There is, in my opinion, absolutely no excuse for psychoactive medicines.
Furthermore, parents have the right, and must continue to have the right, to make the life and death decisions for their children with which they have been entrusted. Those rights are fundamentally as the rights we claim for ourselves to make our own decisions about what happens to our own bodies. Absent that, our bodies are owned by others who make decisions about what happens to them and we are, by definition, slaves. I have no wish to be a slave to the government of any country or to its corporations, including Big Pharma. So it is my duty to oppose these pieces of legislation.
This is an invitation to join me in that opposition and bring all of your contacts along.
By the way, the Natural Solutions Foundation is a privately supported not for profit, tax exempt organization and we depend on your donations. Please visit http://drrimatruthreports.com/?page_id=189 to make your donation. Recurring donations are especially helpful. We appreciate your support, whether large of small.
Here is the letter I wrote to the Editor of the Schafer Autism Review:
To the Editor:
I am writing to congratulate you on your publication of “The Wholesale Sedation of America’s Youth” By Andrew M. Weiss. As a Child, Adolescent and Adult Psychiatrist who has practiced drug free medicine for my entire career, I found myself reading my own thoughts and writings in this excellent article. Physicians, Nurse Practitioners and others who endorse and enforce medicating children because they have been entrained or constrained to do so win the approval, praise and appreciation of the forces that use them and of their peers, but are, in fact, worthy of scorn and, at best, loss of licenses or, at worst, criminal prosecution for their mindless, damaging and cowardly refusal to think clearly about the needs of the children they are charged to heal, not poison.
Every doctor is trained to think logically and systematically about diagnosis and treatment. If they refuse to use that training because they have allowed themselves to be brainwashed and browbeaten into down and dirty, quick and quality-less medicine, then shame upon each and every one of them. Drug ads, phony science and cheer leader “continuing medical education” seminars are nothing short of cynical organized deceptions designed to accomplish one goal and one goal only: the generation of massive profits.
Who stands between a child and pharmaceutical damage? A doctor. Who steps aside for 8 million American children every year? A doctor. If parents object or refuse to medicate their children, they run the very real risk of being charged with medical abuse or neglect, loosing their children and/or facing criminal charges for trying to protect the vulnerable youngsters in their care. Commonly drug-company-sponsored “screening tools” used by teachers or other school personnel are what got the kids in front of the doctor or nurse practitioner staring at the dangerous end of a prescription pad.
On April 30, 2009 Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) introduced the Parental Consent Act, HR 2218, “To prohibit the use of Federal funds for any universal or mandatory mental health screening program.” The ominously Orwellian-named “New Freedoms Initiative, passed in 2004 during the drug-friendly reign of President George W. Bush, provides for mandatory screening of every child from 0 to 18. In uterine screening is accomplished by “mental health screening” of pregnant women and the compulsory drugging of those women to “protect” the unborn child despite the former cautions urged on doctors to avoid the use of psychotropic medication in women of child bearing age because of the known and unknown dangers inherent in exposing unborn or nursing babies to those drugs.
The New Freedoms Initiative also mandates the screening for “mental problems” of everyone involved in any way with children – parents, grandparents, teachers, policemen and women, merchants who sell children things, clergy, doctors, nurses, etc. In short, everyone.
The madness must stop. Doctors must think about children and childhood as a developmental process, not a disease. Parents must be free to be what the law says they are, “GUARDians” and bureaucrats and administrators, teachers and others involved with children must ask why a child is showing signs of stress or distress and look for ways to solve that problem, not dissolve the child’s mind in a chemical soup of long and short term toxicity.
The Natural Solutions Foundation, www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org and www.HealthFreedomUSA.org, of which I am proud to be the Medical Director, supports the right of every person to make their own health decisions and, of course, of parents to make those decisions for their children. And we strongly support the rights of parents and others to say “NO!” to drugs, “No” to compulsory screenings to get kids onto subjective, and profitable diagnostic conveyor belts.
Our Health Freedom Action eAlerts offer action options to concerned parents and other persons to preserve these essential rights.
Medical fascism is facing us all. Soviet Russia was condemned world-wide because it condoned the atrocious use of psychoactive drugs to control its population and prevent behaviors it found disagreeable or unwelcome in vast numbers of people. Are our children our dissidents? Do their discontents require chemical straight jackets and personality-ectomies? Have we become mindless mind-assassins, robbing our children of their emotions and their neurological developmental opportunities because we do not dare to ask the penetrating question, “WHY?” to this drug mania we have been marketed into?
Since graduation from Albert Einstein College of Medicine in 1970 and completion of my Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Fellowship in 1975 I have practiced medicine and psychiatry without resorting to drugs. The results have been nothing short of astonishing for someone trained in the “Medical Model” – my patients got well because the underlying cause of their discomforts, disabilities, distortions and difficulties were uncovered and addressed. Using intensive nutritional strategies, herbology, homeopathy, detoxification, NeuroBioFeedback, frequency medicine and a host of other techniques, each patient was treated individually and their treatment tailored to their realities, including emotional ones. This type of medicine takes time – lots of it – and therefore the cottage industry, piecework compensation which doctors have allowed insurance carriers to impose upon them (insurance carriers which are often co-owned by Big Pharma so that forcing doctors to see more patients in a shorter time is a successful marketing ploy for their shareholders’ interests) make the economics unpalatable to insurance companies. Doctors have, in the main, behaved like good serfs and allowed themselves to be made wage slaves to the interests of the insurance companies, seeing more patients in shorter slots – and writing prescriptions quickly so they can see the next patient and the next and the next.
The solution? If you are a parent, find a health care professional who does not take insurance and pay for treatment so you and the doctor can spend as much time as your child needs. If you are a doctor or nurse practitioner, rethink your slavish devotion to the medicine of convenience – yours – and start doing what you have been expensively trained to do: think about root causes, look for underlying factors and return to your roots as a healer. Yes, you will have to unlearn much and question more. But you were a bright student looking for ways to help people when you fought your way into medical school. You were, after all, the best and the brightest. You may still have the capacity to think and to discern real science from marketing. And, somewhere deep down inside you, perhaps you still have a deep commitment to service and truth.
You will quickly find, if you follow the intellectual path I am advocating, that many of your most cherished believes must be abandoned by the wayside. One of those believes is that you must continue to take insurance payment for your services or you will not make a living. In fact, those doctors who have dared to let go of the insurance teat report that they are making more money, spending less in overhead and serving patients better than they dreamed possible before they took the plunge into service, not serfdom.
And here is the Special Edition article to which I was responding:
The Wholesale Sedation of America’s Youth
By Andrew M. Weiss, Skeptical Inquirer. is.gd/yXAW
In the winter of 2000, the Journal of the American Medical Association published the results of a study indicating that 200,000 two- to four-year-olds had been prescribed Ritalin for an “attention disorder” from 1991 to 1995. Judging by the response, the image of hundreds of thousands of mothers grinding up stimulants to put into the sippy cups of their preschoolers was apparently not a pretty one.
Most national magazines and newspapers covered the story; some even expressed dismay or outrage at this exacerbation of what already seemed like a juggernaut of hyper-medicalizing childhood. The public reaction, however, was tame; the medical community, after a moment’s pause, continued unfazed. Today, the total toddler count is well past one million, and influential psychiatrists have insisted that mental health prescriptions are appropriate for children as young as twelve months. For the pharmaceutical companies, this is progress.
In 1995, 2,357,833 children were diagnosed with ADHD (Woodwell 1997) — twice the number diagnosed in 1990. By 1999, 3.4 percent of all American children had received a stimulant prescription for an attention disorder. Today, that number is closer to ten percent. Stimulants aren’t the only drugs being given out like candy to our children. A variety of other psychotropics like antidepressants, antipsychotics, and sedatives are finding their way into babies’ medicine cabinets in large numbers. In fact, the worldwide market for these drugs is growing at a rate of ten percent a year, $20.7 billion in sales of antipsychotics alone (for 2007, IMSHealth 2008).
While the sheer volume of psychotropics being prescribed for children might, in and of itself, produce alarm, there has not been a substantial backlash against drug use in large part because of the widespread perception that “medically authorized” drugs must be safe. Yet, there is considerable evidence that psychoactive drugs do not take second place to other controlled pharmaceuticals in carrying grave and substantial risks. All classes of psychoactive drugs are associated with patient deaths, and each produces serious side effects, some of which are life-threatening.
In 2005, researchers analyzed data from 250,000 patients in the Netherlands and concluded that “we can be reasonably sure that antipsychotics are associated in something like a threefold increase in sudden cardiac death, and perhaps that older antipsychotics may be worse” (Straus et al. 2004). In 2007, the FDA chose to beef up its black box warning (reserved for substances that represent the most serious danger to the public) against antidepressants concluding, “the trend across age groups toward an association between antidepressants and suicidality . . . was convincing, particularly when superimposed on earlier analyses of data on adolescents from randomized, controlled trials” (Friedman and Leon 2007). Antidepressants have been banned for use with children in the UK since 2003. According to a confidential FDA report, prolonged administration of amphetamines (the standard treatment for ADD and ADHD) “may lead to drug dependence and must be avoided.” They further reported that “misuse of amphetamine may cause sudden death and serious cardiovascular adverse events” (Food and Drug Administration 2005). The risk of fatal toxicity from lithium carbonate, a not uncommon treatment for bipolar disorder, has been well documented since the 1950s. Incidents of fatal seizures from sedative-hypnotics, especially when mixed with alcohol, have been recorded since the 1920s.
Psychotropics carry nonfatal risks as well. Physical dependence and severe withdrawal symptoms are associated with virtually all psychoactive drugs. Psychological addiction is axiomatic. Concomitant side effects range from unpleasant to devastating, including: insulin resistance, narcolepsy, tardive dyskenisia (a movement disorder affecting 15–20 percent of antipsychotic patients where there are uncontrolled facial movements and sometimes jerking or twisting movements of other body parts), agranulocytosis (a reduction in white blood cells, which is life threatening), accelerated appetite, vomiting, allergic reactions, uncontrolled blinking, slurred speech, diabetes, balance irregularities, irregular heartbeat, chest pain, sleep disorders, fever, and severe headaches. The attempt to control these side effects has resulted in many children taking as many as eight additional drugs every day, but in many cases, this has only compounded the problem. Each “helper” drug produces unwanted side effects of its own.
The child drug market has also spawned a vigorous black market in high schools and colleges, particularly for stimulants. Students have learned to fake the symptoms of ADD in order to obtain amphetamine prescriptions that are subsequently sold to fellow students. Such “shopping” for prescription drugs has even spawned a new verb. The practice is commonly called “pharming.” A 2005 report from the Partnership for a Drug Free America, based on a survey of more than 7,300 teenagers, found one in ten teenagers, or 2.3 million young people, had tried prescription stimulants without a doctor’s order, and 29 percent of those surveyed said they had close friends who have abused prescription stimulants.
In a larger sense, the whole undertaking has had the disturbing effect of making drug use an accepted part of childhood. Few cultures anywhere on earth and anytime in the past have been so willing to provide stimulants and sedative-hypnotics to their offspring, especially at such tender ages. An entire generation of young people has been brought up to believe that drug-seeking behavior is both rational and respectable and that most psychological problems have a pharmacological solution. With the ubiquity of psychotropics, children now have the means, opportunity, example, and encouragement to develop a lifelong habit of self-medicating.
Common population estimates include at least eight million children, ages two to eighteen, receiving prescriptions for ADD, ADHD, bipolar disorder, autism, simple depression, schizophrenia, and the dozens of other disorders now included in psychiatric classification manuals. Yet sixty years ago, it was virtually impossible for a child to be considered mentally ill. The first diagnostic manual published by American psychiatrists in 1952, DSM-I, included among its 106 diagnoses only one for a child: Adjustment Reaction of Childhood/Adolescence. The other 105 diagnoses were specifically for adults. The number of children actually diagnosed with a mental disorder in the early 1950s would hardly move today’s needle. There were, at most, 7,500 children in various settings who were believed to be mentally ill at that time, and most of these had explicit neurological symptoms.
Of course, if there really are one thousand times as many kids with authentic mental disorders now as there were fifty years ago, then the explosion in drug prescriptions in the years since only indicates an appropriate medical response to a newly recognized pandemic, but there are other possible explanations for this meteoric rise. The last fifty years has seen significant social changes, many with a profound effect on children. Burgeoning birth rates, the decline of the extended family, widespread divorce, changing sexual and social mores, households with two working parents — it is fair to say that the whole fabric of life took on new dimensions in the last half century. The legal drug culture, too, became an omnipresent adjunct to daily existence. Stimulants, analgesics, sedatives, decongestants, penicillins, statins, diuretics, antibiotics, and a host of others soon found their way into every bathroom cabinet, while children became frequent visitors to the family physician for drugs and vaccines that we now believe are vital to our health and happiness. There is also the looming motive of money. The New York Times reported in 2005 that physicians who had received substantial payments from pharmaceutical companies were five times more likely to prescribe a drug regimen to a child than those who had refused such payments.
So other factors may well have contributed to the upsurge in psychiatric diagnoses over the past fifty years. But even if the increase reflects an authentic epidemic of mental health problems in our children, it is not certain that medication has ever been the right way to handle it. The medical “disease” model is one approach to understanding these behaviors, but there are others, including a hastily discarded psychodynamic model that had a good record of effective symptom relief. Alternative, less invasive treatments, too, like nutritional treatments, early intervention, and teacher and parent training programs were found to be at least as effective as medication in long-term reduction of a variety of symptoms (of ADHD, The MTA Cooperative Group 1999).
Nevertheless, the medical-pharmaceutical alliance has largely shrugged off other approaches and scoffed at the potential for conflicts of interest and continues to medicate children in ever-increasing numbers. With the proportion of diagnosed kids growing every month, it may be time to take another look at the practice and soberly reflect on whether we want to continue down this path. In that spirit, it is not unreasonable to ask whether this exponential expansion in medicating children has another explanation altogether. What if children are the same as they always were? After all, virtually every symptom now thought of as diagnostic was once an aspect of temperament or character. We may not have liked it when a child was sluggish, hyperactive, moody, fragile, or pestering, but we didn’t ask his parents to medicate him with powerful chemicals either. What if there is no such thing as mental illness in children (except the small, chronic, often neurological minority we once recognized)? What if it is only our perception of childhood that has changed? To answer this, we must look at our history and at our nature.
The human inclination to use psychoactive substances predates civilization. Alcohol has been found in late Stone Age jugs; beer may have been fermented before the invention of bread. Nicotine metabolites have been found in ancient human remains and in pipes in the Near East and Africa. Knowledge of Hul Gil, the “joy plant,” was passed from the Sumerians, in the fifth millennium b.c.e., to the Assyrians, then in serial order to the Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, Persians, Indians, then to the Portuguese who would introduce it to the Chinese, who grew it and traded it back to the Europeans. Hul Gil was the Sumerian name for the opium poppy. Before the Middle Ages, economies were established around opium, and wars were fought to protect avenues of supply.
With the modern science of chemistry in the nineteenth century, new synthetic substances were developed that shared many of the same desirable qualities as the more traditional sedatives and stimulants. The first modern drugs were barbiturates — a class of 2,500 sedative/hypnotics that were first synthesized in 1864. Barbiturates became very popular in the U.S. for depression and insomnia, especially after the temperance movement resulted in draconian anti-drug legislation (most notoriously Prohibition) just after World War I. But variety was limited and fears of death by convulsion and the Winthrop drug-scare kept barbiturates from more general distribution.
Stimulants, typically caffeine and nicotine, were already ubiquitous in the first half of the twentieth century, but more potent varieties would have to wait until amphetamines came into widespread use in the 1930s. Amphetamines were not widely known until the 1920s and 1930s when they were first used to treat asthma, hay fever, and the common cold. In 1932, the Benzedrine Inhaler was introduced to the market and was a huge over-the-counter success. With the introduction of Dexedrine in the form of small, cheap pills, amphetamines were prescribed for depression, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy, motion sickness, night-blindness, obesity, narcolepsy, impotence, apathy, and, of course, hyperactivity in children.
Amphetamines came into still wider use during World War II, when they were given out freely to GIs for fatigue. When the GIs returned home, they brought their appetite for stimulants to their family physicians. By 1962, Americans were ingesting the equivalent of forty-three ten-milligram doses of amphetamine per person annually (according to FDA manufacturer surveys).
Still, in the 1950s, the family physician’s involvement in furnishing psychoactive medications for the treatment of primarily psychological complaints was largely sub rosa. It became far more widespread and notorious in the 1960s. There were two reasons for this. First, a new, safer class of sedative hypnotics, the benzodiazepines, including Librium and Valium, were an instant sensation, especially among housewives who called them “mothers’ helpers.” Second, amphetamines had finally been approved for use with children (their use up to that point had been “off-label,” meaning that they were prescribed despite the lack of FDA authorization).
Pharmaceutical companies, coincidentally, became more aggressive in marketing their products with the tremendous success of amphetamines. Valium was marketed directly to physicians and indirectly through a public relations campaign that implied that benzodiazepines offered sedative/hypnotic benefits without the risk of addiction or death from drug interactions or suicide. Within fifteen years of its introduction, 2.3 billion Valium pills were being sold annually in the U.S. (Sample 2005).
So, family physicians became society’s instruments: the suppliers of choice for legal mood-altering drugs. But medical practitioners required scientific authority to protect their reputations, and the public required a justification for its drug-seeking behavior. The pharmaceutical companies were quick to offer a pseudo scientific conjecture that satisfied both. They argued that neurochemical transmitters, only recently identified, were in fact the long sought after mediators of mood and activity. Psychological complaints, consequently, were a function of an imbalance of these neural chemicals that could be corrected with stimulants and sedatives (and later antidepressants and antipsychotics). While the assertion was pure fantasy without a shred of evidence, so little was known about the brain’s true actions that the artifice was tamely accepted. This would later prove devastating when children became the targets of pharmaceutical expansion.
With Ritalin’s FDA approval for the treatment of hyperactivity in children, the same marketing techniques that had been so successful with other drugs were applied to the new amphetamine. Pharmaceutical companies had a vested interest in the increase in sales; they spared no expense in convincing physicians to prescribe them. Cash payments, stock options, paid junkets, no-work consultancies, and other inducements encouraged physicians to relax their natural caution about medicating children. Parents also were targeted. For example, CIBA, the maker of Ritalin, made large direct payments to parents’ support groups like CHADD (Children and Adults with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder) (The Merrow Report 1995). To increase the acceptance of stimulants, drug companies paid researchers to publish favorable articles on the effectiveness of stimulant treatments. They also endowed chairs and paid for the establishment of clinics in influential medical schools, particularly ones associated with universities of international reputation. By the mid 1970s, more than half a million children had already been medicated primarily for hyperactivity.
The brand of psychiatry that became increasingly popular in the 1980s and 1990s did not have its roots in notions of normal behavior or personality theory; it grew out of the concrete, atheoretical treatment style used in clinics and institutions for the profoundly disturbed. German psychiatrist Emil Kraepelin, not Freud, was the God of mental hospitals, and pharmaceuticals were the panacea. So the whole underlying notion of psychiatric treatment, diagnosis, and disease changed. Psychiatry, which had straddled psychology and medicine for a hundred years, abruptly abandoned psychology for a comfortable sinecure within its traditional parent discipline. The change was profound.
People seeking treatment were no longer clients, they were patients. Their complaints were no longer suggestive of a complex mental organization, they were symptoms of a disease. Patients were not active participants in a collaborative treatment, they were passive recipients of symptom-reducing substances. Mental disturbances were no longer caused by unique combinations of personality, character, disposition, and upbringing, they were attributed to pre-birth anomalies that caused vague chemical imbalances. Cures were no longer anticipated or sought; mental disorders were inherited illnesses, like birth defects, that could not be cured except by some future magic, genetic bullet. All that could be done was to treat symptoms chemically, and this was being done with astonishing ease and regularity.
In many ways, children are the ideal patients for drugs. By nature, they are often passive and compliant when told by a parent to take a pill. Children are also generally optimistic and less likely to balk at treatment than adults. Even if they are inclined to complain, the parent is a ready intermediary between the physician and the patient. Parents are willing to participate in the enforcement of treatments once they have justified them in their own minds and, unlike adults, many kids do not have the luxury of discontinuing an unpleasant medication. Children are additionally not aware of how they ought to feel. They adjust to the drugs’ effects as if they are natural and are more tolerant of side effects than adults. Pharmaceutical companies recognized these assets and soon were targeting new drugs specifically at children.
But third-party insurance providers balked at the surge in costs for treatment of previously unknown, psychological syndromes, especially since unwanted drug effects were making some cases complicated and expensive. Medicine’s growing prosperity as the purveyor of treatments for mental disorders was threatened, and the industry’s response was predictable. Psychiatry found that it could meet insurance company requirements by simplifying diagnoses, reducing identification to the mere appearance of certain symptoms. By 1980, they had published all new standards.
Lost in the process was the fact that the redefined diagnoses (and a host of new additions) failed to meet minimal standards of falsifiability and differentiability. This meant that the diagnoses could never be disproved and that they could not be indisputably distinguished from one another. The new disorders were also defined as lists of symptoms from which a physician could check off a certain number of hits like a Chinese menu, which led to reification, an egregious scientific impropriety. Insurers, however, with their exceptions undermined and under pressure from parents and physicians, eventually withdrew their objections. From that moment on, the treatment of children with powerful psychotropic medications grew unchecked.
As new psychotropics became available, their uses were quickly extended to children despite, in many cases, indications that the drugs were intended for use with adults only. New antipsychotics, the atypicals, were synthesized and marketed beginning in the 1970s. Subsequently, a new class of antidepressants like Prozac and Zoloft was introduced. These drugs were added to the catalogue of childhood drug treatments with an astonishing casualness even as stimulant treatment for hyperactivity continued to burgeon.
In 1980, hyperactivity, which had been imprudently named “minimal brain dysfunction” in the 1960s, was renamed Attention Deficit Disorder in order to be more politic, but there was an unintended consequence of the move. Parents and teachers, familiar with the name but not always with the symptoms, frequently misidentified children who were shy, slow, or sad (introverted rather than inattentive) as suffering from ADD. Rather than correct the mistake, though, some enterprising physicians responded by prescribing the same drug for the opposite symptoms. This was justified on the grounds that stimulants, which were being offered because they slowed down hyperactive children, might very well have the predicted effect of speeding up under-active kids. In this way, a whole new population of children became eligible for medication. Later, the authors of DSM-III memorialized this practice by renaming ADD again, this time as ADHD, and redefining ADD as inattention. Psychiatry had reached a new level: they were now willing to invent an illness to justify a treatment. It would not be the last time this was done.
In the last twenty years, a new, more disturbing trend has become popular: the re-branding of legacy forms of mental disturbance as broad categories of childhood illness. Manic depressive illness and infantile autism, two previously rare disorders, were redefined through this process as “spectrum” illnesses with loosened criteria and symptom lists that cover a wide range of previously normal behavior. With this slim justification in place, more than a million children have been treated with psychotropics for bipolar disorder and another 200,000 for autism. A recent article in this magazine “The Bipolar Bamboozle” (Flora and Bobby 2008) illuminates how and why an illness that once occurred twice in every 100,000 Americans, has been recast as an epidemic affecting millions.
To overwhelmed parents, drugs solve a whole host of ancillary problems. The relatively low cost (at least in out-of-pocket dollars) and the small commitment of time for drug treatments make them attractive to parents who are already stretched thin by work and home life. Those whose confidence is shaken by indications that their children are “out of control” or “unruly” or “disturbed” are soothed by the seeming inevitability of an inherited disease that is shared by so many others. Rather than blaming themselves for being poor home managers, guardians with insufficient skills, or neglectful caretakers, parents can find comfort in the thought that their child, through no fault of theirs, has succumbed to a modern and widely accepted scourge. A psychiatric diagnosis also works well as an authoritative response to demands made by teachers and school administrators to address their child’s “problems.”
Once a medical illness has been identified, all unwanted behavior becomes fruit of the same tree. Even the children themselves are often at first relieved that their asocial or antisocial impulses reflect an underlying disease and not some flaw in their characters or personalities.
Conclusions In the last analysis, childhood has been thoroughly and effectively redefined. Character and temperament have been largely removed from the vocabulary of human personality. Virtually every single undesirable impulse of children has taken on pathological proportions and diagnostic significance. Yet, if the psychiatric community is wrong in their theories and hypotheses, then a generation of parents has been deluded while millions of children have been sentenced to a lifetime of ingesting powerful and dangerous drugs.
Considering the enormous benefits reaped by the medical community, it is no surprise that critics have argued that the whole enterprise is a cynical, reckless artifice crafted to unfairly enrich them. Even though this is undoubtedly not true, physicians and pharmaceutical companies must answer for the rush to medicate our most vulnerable citizens based on little evidence, a weak theoretical model, and an antiquated and repudiated philosophy. For its part, the scientific community must answer for its timidity in challenging treatments made in the absence of clinical observation and justified by research of insufficient rigor performed by professionals and institutions whose objectivity is clearly in question, because their own interests are materially entwined in their findings.
It should hardly be necessary to remind physicians that even if their diagnoses are real, they are still admonished by Galen’s dictum Primum non nocere, or “first, do no harm.” If with no other population, this ought to be our standard when dealing with children. Yet we have chosen the most invasive, destructive, and potentially lethal treatment imaginable while rejecting other options that show great promise of being at least as effective and far safer. But these other methods are more expensive, more complicated, and more time-consuming, and thus far, we have not proved willing to bear the cost. Instead, we have jumped at a discounted treatment, a soft-drink-machine cure: easy, cheap, fast, and putatively scientific. Sadly, the difference in price is now being paid by eight million children.
Mental illness is a fact of life, and it is naïve to imagine that there are not seriously disturbed children in every neighborhood and school. What is more, in the straitened economy of child rearing and education, medication may be the most efficient and cost effective treatment for some of these children. Nevertheless, to medicate not just the neediest, most complicated cases but one child in every ten, despite the availability of less destructive treatments and regardless of doubtful science, is a tragedy of epic proportions.
What we all have to fear, at long last, is not having been wrong but having done wrong. That will be judged in a court of a different sort. Instead of humility, we continue to feed drugs to our children with blithe indifference. Even when a child’s mind is truly disturbed (and our standards need to be revised drastically on this score), a treatment model that intends to chemically palliate and manage ought to be our last resort, not our first option. How many more children need to be sacrificed for us to see the harm in expediency, greed, and plain ignorance?
Schafer Autism Review http://www.sarnet.org/lib/todaySAR.htm
The Psychology & Physiology of Change…
Rima E. Laibow, MD www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
Natural Solutions Foundation
We all learned that Pavlov taught his dogs to salivate at the ringing of a bell which they learned to associate with the appearance of food. But Pavlov taught us – and the masters of mass deception and control – much more than that.
Born in Russia on September 14, 1849, Pavlov, who died in 1936, was so important to Russia’s dictator, Joseph Stalin, that Stalin allowed him to rant and inveigh against the Soviet State without coming to harm. Not many other people escaped the Gulag for the things that Pavlov said about the State and about Stalin. There was a reason.
What did he offer to the Soviet dictatorship which was so important? Not his 1904 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine, not his considerable work on the physiology of digestion and the nature of saliva.
No, the contribution which made him so valuable to the State was to establish the scientific basis of brainwashing, allowing ordinary persons to become so altered in their minds and hearts that they would subscribe to absurd, illogical beliefs. Better yet, from the State’s point of view, these absurd beliefs (“We have the best health care system in the world!”, “Our leaders know best and are protecting us.”, “The FDA and USDA can regulate food safely”, “Monsanto ‘s dominance of the food supply does not impact me.” “Despite his appointments of old ‘oparatchniks’ and globalists, Obama really offers us new hope so we should trust him.”) which, once implanted, were nearly impossible to extinguish. And, once implanted, the torturing experimenter (in the case of Pavlov’s dogs) became the object of affection and adoration. That adoration was also nearly impossible to extinguish.
By studying “Transmarginal Inhibition (TMI), which is simply nothing other than the the body’s natural tendency to shut down thought and action completely when exposed to overwhelming stress (including illness), drugs or pain, Pavlov showed how everyone, no matter what their basic temperamental type, could be forced to respond to that stress the same way, He found that individuals with different temperaments would respond on a different time table, but, unless certain mental characteristics were present, all would succumb to brainwashing and loose the ability to resist the ideas introduced to control them.
Pavlov noted that, for him, “that the most basic inherited difference. .. was [not whether but – REL] how soon [individuals of different temperaments] reached this shutdown point and that the quick-to-shut-down have a fundamentally different type of nervous system.” Rokhin, L, Pavlov, I & Popov, Y. (1963) Psychopathology and Psychiatry, Foreign Languages Publication House: Moscow.
A few weeks ago, a friend of mine brought me a book that he thought I would enjoy, Battle for the Mind, William Sargant, first published in 1957, recently republished in 1997. He was more right than he knew. I had found it remarkably interesting when I read it at the time of its first publication, and I found it even more fascinating this time. But on second reading, it was rather horrifyingly appropriate as a paradigm for what is going on in our world today: People who “should” and do “know better” are apathetic, exhausted, complacent, compliant and paralyzed.
Information on the outrages against our health and our freedom is out there. Information on the “False Flag” events of 9/11 is out there. Information on what Chemtrails are and what they are doing to us is out there. Information on the disastrous impact of GMOs, the National Animal Identification System, Conflicts of Interest in FDA, USDA and other government agencies is out there.
Information on the false science called “Virology” and the deadly, literally deadly, impact of drugs, including psychiatric drugs, is out there. Information on the raids on small, ethical supplements companies is out there. Information on the deadly impact of Codex – the under nutrition and toxicity of which will certainly kill billions of people by design – is out there. I could go on and on and on but you already see the impact: you surely get the point: fear mingled with numb helplessness, paralysis through fear and a sense of isolation, being smaller than the problem and not knowing where to turn first.
This is precisely how Pavlov’s dogs were brainwashed and broken. It is also how the great revivalists of the 18th and 19th and 20th century, including Hitler, controlled and shaped the experience of their converts – stimulation, fear, guilt, helplessness and the dizzying madness of the crowd to carry them along to complete obedience, passivity and affiliation.
Consider: Pavlov showed that:
* Every person has a breaking point, after which everyone would become part of the new psychological order and affiliate with the abusers, showing trust, affection and gratitude toward them
* Strong mingled emotions, especially those of fear and helplessness, would lead to the breaking point sooner rather than later
* Repeated, conflicting instructions or requirements lead to physical and psychological paralysis, hastening the breaking point
* Obedience and affiliation are contagious so that group think quickly and effectively replaces individual thought
* Illness, under nutrition, drugs, glandular trauma or disease all make reaching the breaking point easier and faster.
How does this apply to us? Very well. Recall that in July, 1950 a medical directive was issued in Russia which said that all medicine should be reorganized along Pavlovian lines to make the control of the populace that much easier. All news was controlled. All entertainment was controlled and all contact with real information was strictly prohibited.
Now consider us. We are perhaps the most physically ill “developed” nation in the world. We have a wretched, manipulated, scandalously non-scientific and profitable “illness care system”. We are on drugs for conditions prevented and cured by healthy food and healthy life styles: heart disease, diabetes, obesity, immune failure (including cancer) and auto immune disease, depression, obsessive compulsive, bi-polar and other disorders supposedly caused by disordered brain function. 95% of the world’s Ritalin, a drug so addictive and toxic that the World Health Organization has called for its global ban, is prescribed to US kids. The ever increasing burden of toxins injected into us as vaccines damages our immune and nervous systems at increasing, tragic rates.
Zyprexa, Paxil, Neurontin and a host of other drugs are dangerous, have no real curative impact, but poison our brain function and make us both toxic and suggestible. So does the increasingly widely used barbaric – and totally unjustified – ElectroConvulsive Therapy (ECT).
The media appears to me to be designed to function as a WMD, a “Weapon of Mass Deception” with a dizzying and confusing, manufactured news and election hype, bloody snippets of structured deception, wildly over sexed, violent “entertainment” wearing out discrimination and leading to a state of helpless paralysis precisely like the “Transmarginal Inhibition” state reached by people and dogs ready to shed their reason for brainwashed ideas. Remember, once shed, these brainwashed ideas are nearly impossible to remove.
Put that together with the neurological toxicity of fluoride, the poison that was introduced by Stalin’s scientists into the political prisoner’s water in the Gulags to make them tractable, complacent and unable to mount any kind of psychological, and therefore physical, resistance, and you have a pretty good description of the fatigue, irrational ideas and paradoxical affiliation with the aggressor that we see in the US today when we look around and ask why people are not making huge changes despite the fact that the knowledge is there.
But then the question arises, “How does one effectively resist brainwashing and is it true that eventually everyone breaks down?”
Joan of Arc was never tortured by the Holy Inquisition, but she “confessed”, none the less, to crimes that she did not commit. Why? She was taken to the dungeon where the instruments of torture were shown to her. After letting her take it all in, she was advised to “make a true answer to her crimes” in order to spare herself the horror of torture since she would ultimately confess and be burned anyway.
Is that so different from the pictures of the foreign-troop-staffed “detention centers” all over the internet and the shadow of the FEMA cars with their shackles? Is that so different from the specter of police brutality, homelessness or imprisonment among the largest prison population in the world if we raise our voices in protest about what is happening to our society, our food, our rights?
Both animals and people who will not cooperate with the experimenter or manipulator have a much better chance of resisting brain washing. Sargant noted that Pavlov had learned “When a dog sullenly refuses to pay any attention to the flashing lights and other food signals intended for his conditioning, his brain remains unaffected.” He goes on to note that any degree of cooperation leads to uncertainty and breakdown but that “the thing they [would-be brainwashers] seemed to dislike was a cold, dignified sort of air, rather expressing a certain amount of contempt for everything….
The degree of psychological ‘cooperation ‘ or ‘transference’ that can be established between the police examiner and the citizen under questioning, or the preacher and his congregation, or the political speaker and his audience, is vital to the problem [of how soon brainwavshing can be accomplished – REL]. Whoever can be roused either to fear or anger by politician, priest or policeman, is more easily led to accept the desired pattern of ‘co-operation’, even thought this may violate his normal judgment. The obstacles that the religious or political proselytizer cannot overcome are … detached, controlled and continued amusement on the part of the subject at the efforts being made to break him down, win him over, or tempt him into argument. The safety of the free world seems therefore to lie in a cultivation not only of outrage, moral virtue and logic, but of humor: humor which produces the well-balanced state in which emotional excel is laughed at as ugly and wasteful.”
I would add that the future of the free world, and the world of freedoms that we need, lies additionally in the cultivation of the realistic perception of how many we are, how powerful our conjoined voices are together and how weak, although well funded and well-placed, the other side is.
Over and over they come at us, wearing us down. Over and over we push back and they back off. Through personal attack, through lies, innuendoes, disinformation, illegal acts and dishonorable ones, they come at us because of our knowledge, and our ability to see through the lies (“Mercury is good for kids and does not cause autism”, “Herd immunity is real and you are endangering people who are already immunized if you are not”, “GMO ‘food’ is harmless and will save the world”, Fluoride is good for your teeth and has no negative side effects”, “Chemtrails are not even real”, “Nano Silver is dangerous to you and the environment”, “Nutrients have no biological impact and you get all that you need from food” and so on and on and on) is the one profound threat that they cannot overcome with their bullying and their distortion.
When we are calm, informed, disdainful of their strategies and remain aware that we are not alone, we are so powerful that we can, literally, back the other side off.
If we become so fatigued that we are paralyzed and have no energy left to resist, then the other side, like Big Brother in George Orwell’s social control, Pavlovian nightmare, will have won.
Don’t ever lose heart! Just this month [January 2009] we’ve a great victory for Health Freedom by getting our issue into the Top Ten on Change.org (with 12,062 votes). Then we got Health Freedom on the “official” Obama transition site, Change.gov. Yes, Health Freedom went “toe to toe” with all the “hot-button” social issues and made the grade!
There is good news making its way slowly, slowly into the medical world: little by little allopathic medicine is finally noticing how effective nutrients are in diseases and clinical conditions. Too slowly for most of us, but, still, there are creeping changes.
Instead of antibiotics, for example, pediatricians have noticed that pediatric diarrhea responds to zinc. Why? Because immune systems need zinc to do their job. So give the child zinc and it can fix the problem by itself without dangerous, expensive drugs. Well, well!
And even better, infection yields to silver. Well, of course it does. Burn centers have know that for decades and so has every natural doctor and naturopath for the last how many decades? But the derision and scorn heaped on us when we tried to talk about these and a thousand other ways of treating people when they come to us for cheap, simple, effective and safe means of getting well or staying that way is profound.
It is, however, the derision and anger born of fear.
Laibow’s First Law of Human Psychology is “Anger Drives Out Fear, Or At Least It’s Supposed To!” And conventional medicine is very, very afraid of the natural competitors to its expensive, dangerous and very limited drugs.
Oh, yes, one more thing: Codex Alimentarius makes the international trade of supplements very difficult since supplements may only be sold at doses so low that they have no clinical impact. Codex copmpliance in Europe through the European Food Supplements Directive is, in fact, stripping the shelves of stores of the nutrients previously avaialbe which might have allowed people to use the information in this article. Just ask any one you know, for example, in the UK, what is happening to their supplements: they are vanishing like the morning mist. Poof! Just like that.
If you don’t want the same thing to happen to you, it is imperative that you take action now, join the Natural Solutions Foundation’s distribution list for the free and secure Health Freedom eAlerts and take the action steps therein. I can assure you that legislators are not going to protect your health freedom without an effective outcry from us, the consumers who make our own choices about our own health paths.
Changes in Folate and Homocysteine Linked to Incident Dementia
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) Aug 18 – Onset of dementia is associated with decreasing folate and increasing vitamin B12 and homocysteine, results of a study published in the August issue of the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry indicate.
“Several cross-sectional studies have found significant associations of lower folate and hyperhomocysteinemia with dementia or cognitive impairment, but the direction of cause and effect is not known,” Dr. Jin-Sang Yoon, of University Medical School, Kwangiu, Republic of Korea, and colleagues write. “Results from prospective studies have been controversial.”
In their study, the researchers examined both baseline levels and changes in folate, vitamin B12, and homocysteine as predictors of incident dementia in 625 elderly patients free of dementia at baseline; 518 (83%) were followed over 2.4 years.
Incident dementia occurred in 45 of the 518 (8.7%). The only baseline factor that predicted incident dementia was lower folate concentrations
However, “The onset of dementia was significantly associated with an exaggerated decline in folate, a weaker increase in vitamin B12 concentrations and an exaggerated increase in homocysteine concentrations over the follow-up period,” the team reports.
After adjustment for weight change, these associations were reduced.
“Further research is required to clarify these complex longitudinal interrelationships,” Dr. Yoon and colleagues conclude. “In the meantime, attention needs to be paid to the nutritional status of people with dementia from the time of diagnosis onwards, regardless of whether this is a cause or effect of their condition.”
News Author: Laurie Barclay, MD
CME Author: Penny Murata, MD
Release Date: August 19, 2008; Valid for credit through August 19, 2009
Physicians – maximum of 0.25 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)â„¢ for physicians;
Family Physicians – up to 0.25 AAFP Prescribed credit(s) for physicians
To participate in this internet activity: (1) review the target audience, learning objectives, and author disclosures; (2) study the education content; (3) take the post-test and/or complete the evaluation; (4) view/print certificate View details.
Upon completion of this activity, participants will be able to:
1. Compare the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia in patients intubated for at least 24 hours with a silver-coated endotracheal tube vs an uncoated endotracheal tube.
2. Report whether use of a silver-coated endotracheal tube affects duration of intubation, length of stay in the intensive care unit or hospital, mortality rates, and adverse events.
Authors and Disclosures
Laurie Barclay, MD
Disclosure: Laurie Barclay, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
Penny Murata, MD
Disclosure: Penny Murata, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
Brande Nicole Martin
Disclosure: Brande Nicole Martin has disclosed no relevant financial information.
August 19, 2008 â€” Use of a silver-coated endotracheal tube significantly reduces the incidence of microbiologically confirmed ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), according to the results of a large, randomized, multicenter study reported in the August 20 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.
“VAP causes substantial morbidity,” write Marin H. Kollef, MD, from the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, and colleagues from the North American Silver-Coated Endotracheal Tube Investigation Group. “A silver-coated endotracheal tube has been designed to reduce VAP incidence by preventing bacterial colonization and biofilm formation.”
The goal of this prospective, single-blind study conducted in 54 centers in North America was to evaluate whether use of a silver-coated endotracheal tube would reduce the incidence of microbiologically confirmed VAP.
Of 9417 adult patients aged 18 years or older who were screened between 2002 and 2006, a total of 2003 patients who were expected to need mechanical ventilation for at least 24 hours were randomly assigned to undergo intubation with 1 of 2 high-volume, low-pressure endotracheal tubes. These tubes were similar except that the experimental tube had a silver coating.
The main endpoint was incidence of VAP, diagnosed from quantitative bronchoalveolar lavage fluid culture with at least 104 colony-forming units/mL in patients intubated for at least 24 hours. Secondary endpoints were VAP incidence in all intubated patients, time to VAP onset, length of intubation and duration of intensive care unit and hospital stay, mortality rates, and adverse events.
Rates of microbiologically confirmed VAP in patients intubated for at least 24 hours were 4.8% (37/766 patients; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.4% – 6.6%) in the group receiving the silver-coated tube and 7.5% (56/743; 95% CI, 5.7% – 9.7%; P = .03) in the group receiving the uncoated tube (relative risk reduction, 35.9%; 95% CI, 3.6% – 69.0%).
Rates of microbiologically confirmed VAP in all intubated patients were 3.8% (37/968; 95% CI, 2.7% – 5.2%) in the experimental group and 5.8% (56/964; 95% CI, 4.4% – 7.5%; P = .04) in the control group (relative risk reduction, 34.2%; 95% CI, 1.2% – 67.9%).
Use of the silver-coated endotracheal tube was associated with delayed occurrence of VAP (P = .005), but there were no statistically significant between-group differences in durations of intubation, intensive care unit stay, and hospital stay. Mortality rates and frequency and severity of adverse events were also similar in both groups.
“Patients receiving a silver-coated endotracheal tube had a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of VAP and delayed time to VAP occurrence compared with those receiving a similar, uncoated tube,” the study authors write. “The silver-coated endotracheal tube appears to offer a unique approach because it is the first intervention that becomes user-independent after intubation, requiring no further action by the clinician.”
Limitations of this study include single blinding rather than double blinding; use of a small, fixed block size stratified by center; other factors possibly contributing to between-group differences in VAP rates; study protocol not standardizing prevention strategies; and a protective effect of higher severity-of-illness scores against development of VAP.
“Important uncertainties exist regarding the exact benefit of silver-coated endotracheal tubes,” Dr. Chastre writes. “Consequently, silver coated tubes should not be viewed as the definitive answer for VAP prevention, and, until additional data confirm the clinical effectiveness and cost benefit of these devices, their use should be restricted to high-risk patients treated in ICUs [intensive care units] with benchmark value-based infection rates that remain above institutional goals despite implementation of a comprehensive strategy of usual preventive measures to prevent VAP.”
CR Bard Inc supported this study and provided grant support to all of the study authors. Some of the study authors have disclosed various financial relationships with Kimberly Clark, Elan, Merck, Pfizer, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim, KCI, sanofi-aventis, Johnson & Johnson, Easi, Hospira, Nomir Medical Technologies, Arpida, Cubist, Elan, Ortho-McNeil, Sanofi Pasteur, Wyeth, Bayer-Nektar, Nestle Clinical Nutrition, Lilly, Corbett Accel Healthcare, National Institutes of Health, Novartis, and/or Maquet. Dr. Chastre has received consulting and lecture fees from Pfizer, Brahms, Wyeth, Johnson & Johnson, Bayer-Nektar, and Arpida.
JAMA. 2008.300:805-813, 842-844.
Rello and colleagues reported in the December 2002 issue of Chest that VAP is linked with increased morbidity rates and generally occurs in the first 10 days after endotracheal intubation. Probable causes of VAP include colonization with pathogenic bacteria and aspiration, as noted by Kollef in the June 2005 issue of Respiratory Care. In the November 2006 issue of Critical Care Medicine, Rello and colleagues found that a silver-coated endotracheal tube decreased bacterial colonization of the airway. The silver ions in a polymer on the inner and outer lumen migrate to the surface of the tube to potentially reduce bacterial adhesion, impede biofilm formation, and promote antimicrobial activity.
This prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter, single-blind study assesses the efficacy of a silver-coated endotracheal tube in reducing the incidence of VAP in patients needing mechanical ventilation for at least 24 hours.
* 2003 adults aged at least 18 years and expected to need at least 24 hours of mechanical ventilation were randomly assigned to use of a silver-coated endotracheal tube vs an uncoated endotracheal tube.
* Exclusion criteria were enrollment in a conflicting study, bronchiectasis, severe hemoptysis, cystic fibrosis, pregnancy, silver sensitivity, and more than 12 hours of endotracheal intubation in the previous 30 days.
* 1932 subjects were intubated: 968 in the silver-coated tube group and 964 in the uncoated tube group.
* 1509 subjects were intubated for at least 24 hours: 766 in the silver-coated tube group and 743 in the uncoated tube group.
* Baseline characteristics for both groups were similar for age (mean age, 60.9 – 62.2 years; range, 18 – 102 years), sex, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, immunocompetency, enteral nutrition use, and endotracheal tube size.
* Both groups had similar VAP risk factors, except chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was less common in the silver-coated tube group vs the uncoated tube group (24-hour intubation subjects, 11.6% vs 16.4%; P = .007; all intubated subjects, 9.2% vs 12.7%; P = .02).
* The primary outcome measure was VAP incidence, defined by at least 104 colony-forming units/mL in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid culture, in patients intubated for at least 24 hours.
* VAP incidence in patients intubated for at least 24 hours was lower in the silver-coated tube group vs the uncoated tube group (4.8% [37/766 patients] vs 7.5% [56/743 patients]; P = .03; relative risk reduction, 35.9%).
* VAP incidence in all intubated patients was lower in the silver-coated tube group vs the uncoated tube group (3.8% vs 5.8%; P = .04; relative risk reduction, 34.2%).
* Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid culture was also obtained in those with suspected VAP or with new radiographic infiltrate and at least 2 qualifying signs (fever or hypothermia, leukocytosis or leukopenia, or purulent tracheal aspirate).
* Of 220 patients who underwent bronchoalveolar lavage for suspected VAP, the most common pathogens for the silver-coated tube group vs the uncoated tube group were Staphylococcus aureus (9 vs 16), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (8 vs 11), Enterobacteriaceae (10 vs 5), and polymicrobial infections (7 vs 13).
* VAP incidence within 10 days of intubation in patients intubated for at least 24 hours was less common in the silver-coated tube group (relative risk reduction, 47.6%; 95% CI, 14.6% – 81.9%; P = .005).
* Delayed occurrence of VAP was linked to silver-coated tube use (P = .005).
* There was no difference between groups in median duration of intubation, intensive care unit stay, hospital stay, and mortality rates.
* Regression analysis showed that silver-coated tube use was associated with decreased risk for VAP at any time, VAP within 10 days of intubation, and delayed time to occurrence.
* Adverse events occurred with similar frequency and severity for both groups.
* 59 endotracheal tubeâ€“related adverse events occurred: 21 in the silver-coated tube group vs 38 in the uncoated tube group.
* 74 intubation procedureâ€“related adverse events occurred: 39 in the silver-coated tube group vs 35 in the uncoated tube group.
* Post hoc analysis showed that VAP in patients intubated for at least 24 hours was linked with longer duration of intubation and longer length of stay in the intensive care unit or hospital but not with mortality rate.
* Limitations of the study included lower than expected VAP incidence in the uncoated tube group, more subjects with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the uncoated tube group, and lack of blinding of investigators.
Pearls for Practice
* The incidence of VAP in patients intubated for at least 24 hours is reduced and delayed with use of a silver-coated endotracheal tube vs an uncoated endotracheal tube.
* Use of a silver-coated endotracheal tube does not affect duration of intubation, length of stay in the intensive care unit or hospital, mortality rates, or adverse events.
Lazzerini M; Ronfani L
Unit of Research on Health Services and International Health, WHO Collaborating Centre for Maternal and Child Health, Via dei Burlo 1,34123, Trieste, Italy.
BACKGROUND: Diarrhoea causes around two million child deaths annually. Zinc supplementation could help reduce the duration and severity of diarrhoea, and is recommended by the World Health Organization and UNICEF. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate oral zinc supplementation for treating children with acute or persistent diarrhoea. SEARCH STRATEGY: In November 2007, we searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 4), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, CINAHL, mRCT, and reference lists. We also contacted researchers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials comparing oral zinc supplementation (>/= 5 mg/day for any duration) with placebo in children aged one month to five years with acute or persistent diarrhoea, including dysentery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Both authors assessed trial eligibility and methodological quality, extracted and analysed data, and drafted the review. Diarrhoea duration and severity were the primary outcomes. We summarized dichotomous outcomes using risk ratios (RR) and continuous outcomes using mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where appropriate, we combined data in meta-analyses (using the fixed- or random-effects model) and assessed heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: Eighteen trials enrolling 6165 participants met our inclusion criteria. In acute diarrhoea, zinc resulted in a shorter diarrhoea duration (MD -12.27 h, 95% CI -23.02 to -1.52 h; 2741 children, 9 trials), and less diarrhoea at day three (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.81; 1073 children, 2 trials), day five (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.95; 346 children, 2 trials), and day seven (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.98; 4087 children, 7 trials). The four trials (1458 children) that reported on diarrhoea severity used different units and time points, and the effect of zinc was less clear. Subgroup analyses by age (trials with only children aged less than six months) showed no benefit with zinc. Subgroup analyses by nutritional status, geographical region, background zinc deficiency, zinc type, and study setting did not affect the results’ significance. Zinc also reduced the duration of persistent diarrhoea (MD -15.84 h, 95% CI -25.43 to -6.24 h; 529 children, 5 trials). Few trials reported on severity, and results were inconsistent. No trial reported serious adverse events, but vomiting was more common in zinc-treated children with acute diarrhoea (RR 1.71, 95% 1.27 to 2.30; 4727 children, 8 trials). AUTHORS’ CONCLUSIONS: In areas where diarrhoea is an important cause of child mortality, research evidence shows zinc is clearly of benefit in children aged six months or more.
Major Subject Heading(s) Minor Subject Heading(s)
— Connecting the Dots
– What you can do
– eAlert List
– Support Natural Solutions Foundation
– Use Natural Solutions
– Strategic Health Freedom Alliance
HOW DO YOU CONNECT DEADLY DOTS?
AND THEN WHAT DO YOU DO?
It sometimes seems almost impossible to keep up with the onslaught of serious threats to our health and health freedom. The Natural Solutions Foundation is unique because our focus is wide and comprehensive. Like you, we do not limit our focus to one or two areas of concern. Because we share your deep understanding that freedom, like health, is an indivisible whole which is far, far more than the sum of its parts, we choose the harder path, rather than the easier one: we keep you informed on what is actually happening, not what would lull you into complacency. And we give you meaningful action steps to change what needs to be changed. After all, you “can take it” or you would not be on our distribution list. Besides, the Media of Mass Deception (and fluoride…) does quite enough lulling without our help! This Health Freedom eAlert will take a look at some of the biggest of the dangerous and deadly dots and then tell you:
A. How we think these dots are connected
B. What we are doing about it and
C. What you can do about it.
A word of warning, though: before you get to the end of the bad stuff (and it is, I am afraid, really very bad) you may become discouraged and want to click off to something lighter. Please don’t. There is hope, and a good deal of it, at the end of this trail of deadly dots, but we need to be clear on what the problems are before we can solve them! It’s odd, you know: sometimes when we talk about all these issues, people, feeling overwhelmed, say things like, “I don’t want to hear anything negative! I only want to focus on the positive.” Natural Solutions Foundation knows that the solutions are positive, no matter how bad the problems seem.
SO these two girl ostriches are walking down the beach and two boy ostriches see them and decide to catch up with them. The girl ostriches are not very pleased and see that the boys are going to catch up in a very short time. They look at one another and immediately stick their heads in the sand. The boy ostriches come to a screeching, skidding halt, look at each other and say, “Where’d they go?”
Sticking our heads in the sand is not going to get us out of the spot we are in now.
Understanding, connecting and then dealing with the underlying cause of the dots, however, may save us.
DOT: DEADLY VACCINES
A psychiatrist might say that vaccination is pretty close to a cultural obsession. Anyone daring to even question it is, automatically unpatriotic, irrational, part of the lunatic fringe, a bad parent or a hippie. However, asking these questions is actually logical, wise and prudent. The questions we should be asking include, “How is it that thimerisol, which killed all the patients receiving it in its very first tests, and has been known for its horrific biological impact has been so valiantly defended by the supposed “health watchdogs” in and out of government? These failed guardians include, for example, the American Pediatric Association, the AMA, the FDA, the FTC and the EPA.” and “Why are ineffective and extraordinarily contaminated vaccines permitted at all? Why are cancer causing and other stealth viruses, aluminum hydroxide, monosodium gultamate, and dozens of other dangerous chemicals injected into us at all?” and “Why is the government covering up what they already know about vaccines?” Beyond greed, are we systematically being exposed to dangers we may not suspect, but the government and drug companies know very clearly? Why?
The well-established connection between mercury and autism needs no repetition, although the financial Pretorian Guard of the pharmaceutical industry, the FDA, continues to defend this archaic and misguided practice as “safe and effective”. Click here (http://drrimatruthreports.com/?p=689) to learn how BARDA, the FDA’s secretive Vaccine Police is poised to compel mandatory vaccination for whatever they declare has become “a Pandemic” using whatever they decide to inject. That’s not OK with us and I know it’s not OK with you, either. Click here (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/no-forced-vaccination/join) to join the vigorous on-line No-Forced-Vaccination Forum to learn and share more about your rights and freedom from forced vaccination. The
Natural Solutions Foundation has filed a highly innovative legal action, in the form of a Citizens Petition, with the Federal Trade Commission to compel it to hold hearings on whether the advertising and information put out by vaccine makers saying that vaccines are both safe and effective is truthful. We know it is not and so do you. We are also urging the FTC to ban such advertising and information until it is proven to be truthful. The FTC has “lost” and denied our petition unlawfully several times. Clearly, we have hit a nerve, and we did not use a syringe to get there. Stay tuned on this action: we’ll need your vigorous support as soon as the FTC gets around to fulfilling its legal obligation to formalize our ability to send comments in, under the issued FTC document number! Meanwhile, remember to take each of the actions in the side bar to protect your health and freedom. Congress needs to hear from millions of us on this issue. That’s why it is so important to get your contacts active, too. Forward this email and ask them to sign up for the Health Freedom eAlerts (http://drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?page_id=187) and take all the action steps. And ask them to forward it again to THEIR contacts when they have finished the Action Steps.
By the way, the long-awaited Vaccine Exemption eBook is nearing completion. Those of you who donated during our funding campaign for this book will receive your eBooks shortly. The book has grown and expanded into an even more impressive document with the help of experts and advisors. Thanks for your patience! We believe the Vaccine Exemption eBook will prove to be a major resource and well worth the wait!
DOT: INSANE SPRAYING
The State of California and the EPA have decided to spray cancer-inducing, environmentally destructive chemicals over the entire San Francisco Bay area (including waterways, wetlands, homes, playing fields, cities, farms and towns) to “control” a “pest” which has not even been confirmed to exist there and certainly does not present a hazard to any crop or plant species. Eradicating the Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM) is apparently such a high priority that, should the Governor of California decide to prohibit the spraying of Checkmate (R), a nano-plastic delivery system bonded to an insect pheromone, the EPA will step in and take over jurisdiction to make sure that the spraying takes place EVERY 30 DAYS FOR 5 TO 10 YEARS.
The nano-particle plastic breaks down in the environment in about 70 days. How long does it take to break down in your lungs and what happens when it does? Who knows. Why is San Francisco being punished — or experimented upon? Or is it slated for extermination? Under the US Biological Agents Act such experimentation is terrifyingly legal. See http://drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?p=449 Did we also mention that no one knows the impact of the nano particles to which the moth hormone is bonded when they lodge deep in the lungs of people who have no choice but to breath them? And did we also mention that while severe physical problems accompany the spraying of this compound on human populations, there is no credible evidence that the LBAM actually presents any threat to anything at all?
The Natural Solutions Foundation has been watching this situation since Santa Clara and Monterey were sprayed last year resulting in serious and prolonged mass illness. In fact, you can click here (http://drrimatruthreports.com/index.php) to see what General Stubblebine and I had to say at a meeting a few months ago in California about this genocidal program. And don’t miss the chance to click here (http://youtube.com/watch?v=QTLhpc8fEIs) to see a music video with General Stubblebine!
Our collaborators, the Ecological Options Network, www.eon3.net, suspended work on our Health Freedom Documentary collaboration and the Health Freedom Video Library because of the emergency presented by the LBAM spraying so that they could document and support the community organization against this atrocious program which threatens the environment and the residents of Northern California and, we believe, the rest of the country, too.Your continued support in funding the Health Freedom Video is very important. Click here (http://drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?page_id=189)to make a donation to help fund the film. Donors of $100 or more will be thanked personally in the final version of the documentary. We are concerned that the Bay Area may a “belle weather” or early indicator experiment for the spraying which can be imposed on the rest of the US for reasons as far fetched and fatuous, and as potentially deadly, as those used in California.
Why would such dangerous, untested and patently absurd spraying, and sprays, be poured on us and on the environment every 30 days for 10 years without any pest to kill or safety studies to rely upon?
DOT: DEADLY DRUGS
It is no secret that properly used prescription drugs rank at the very top of causes of death in the US. It’s also no secret that drugs, which work by poisoning enzyme systems, lead to side effects which are frequently treated by more drugs which lead to side effects which are frequently treated by more drugs…. An untested and potentially deadly soup of drugs interacting with each other in unpredictable ways means patients getting worse, not better, or dying from their medical “care”. We all know the results and they are not pretty. It is also no secret that psychiatric drugs cause permanent changes in the brain and that they can stimulate deadly consequences in those who take them or those who are around those who take them. It is also no secret that the profits in these, and all other drugs, including chemotherapy drugs, are astonishingly high. The more we take of them, the richer the drug companies become.
Therefore, we are urged, through every possible channel, to take more and more drugs. I have speculated before in this forum, and will repeat my speculation, that the deadly consequences of these drugs, prescription and otherwise, and the vigorous propaganda war against the inexpensive, safe and effective alternative to these high cost toxins, are no accident.
There are too many smart scientists and doctors involved in drug research, and too many documented instances of industry and government colluding to suppress information about dangerous compounds which are approved for sale despite their known dangers for me to believe that this is an accidental state of affairs. Why would such dangerous drugs be allowed on our shelves and in our bodies?
DOT: GMOs, LABELED OR UNLABELED
The biotech industry may have done something good for humanity and the planet. If so, I am unaware of it. Some people hold out the idea that GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) are safe or good for the economy and the environment. They are, in my opinion, simply wrong. Dead wrong. Here (http://drrimatruthreports.com/?p=690) is a briefing on that topic which I prepared for the people I am talking to in Panama right now, including folks in the Ministry of Agriculture.
Biotech does nothing to inspire or impress me.
In fact, it scares me silly. I am unimpressed by dangerous drugs produced through recombinant DNA techniques, foods that can destroy the environment and have unintended health consequences in the near term or a score of years from now but which cannot be traced because the US will not allow labeling of these experimental foods. I am underwhelmed by hormones given to animals and people which have been made by shooting high energy “bullets” into DNA to make it serve commercial purposes which make the recipients sick.
I am not impressed by seeds which produce poisons and tolerate wildly dangerous chemicals in high concentrations so that they become vectors for environmental illnesses when their crops come to harvest. I find nothing to be joyous about in food and feed and super weeds that transfer their DNA into my cells (and my fetus’s) where that DNA and its promoter partners induce my DNA to produce proteins which have never existed before on the face of the earth and which have totally unknown consequences. Or, perhaps those consequences are not totally unknown to the purveyors of these Franken-foods, Franken-feed, Franken-Crops and Franken-animals.
One of the Codex activities which has been occupying a good deal of our time here at the Natural Solutions Foundation is making sure that our African, Caribbean, South Pacific and other health-friendly allies are so well informed, and so upset, by the US policy at Codex of totally unlabeled GMOs that they take action. And they have begun to do exactly that. But looking at the dots, why would an industry which despoils the planet, sickens and kills people and animals, be permitted, at least in the US, a totally free hand to market its products in the total absence of safety testing and precautions to protect people and the planet?
DOT: POISONED FOOD
Pesticides and herbicides, fungicides, artificial colors, flavors and preservatives, Splenda (c), Aspartame (c), hydrogenated fat, high fructose corn syrup, high saturated fat, “food” deconstructed from genetically modified corn and soy and rebuilt from the vat up, so to speak, are killing us.
There is not much new in that. But why? Why are our shelves filled with stuff with which we are killing ourselves, mouthful by mouthful?
. Why are we buying it and why, from a regulatory point of view, is it on our shelves to buy?
. Why are supplements filled with synthetic “nutrients”, including those derived from genetically modified plants, bacteria, yeast and animals on our shelves?
. Why are our water, toothpaste and medicines filled with fluoride, a carcinogenic, diabetogenic, endocrine poison and neurological poison that mining companies find too expensive to dispose of legally and sell to food and water companies?
. Why is this known neurotoxin which creates complacency in those who are exposed to it (discovered first by Stalin’s prison camp wardens) allowed in increasing amounts in our food and drink and sprayed at incredible concentrations on our food?
. Why are our children bombarded with advertisements for things to eat that will kill them? Profit for the “food” makers, surely, but are there other reasons?
Perhaps social strategies are in place which do not favor strong, clear thinking, active and informed citizens. Perhaps those strategies are working hand in glove with the policies which allow deadly fake foods to stand in for the nutritious foods we need will support and sustain us. And perhaps those strategies and policies are consistent with Henry Kissinger’s now public 1972 secret assessment for President Nixon that the first consideration of America’s foreign policy needs to be depopulation.
Dot, dot, dot . . .
Codex is the wagon of the multinational corporations and its driver is the United States. True, each sector influencing Codex decisions wants more money. True, Big Pharma founded Codex in order to make sure that the food supply was sufficiently contaminated to make sure that people sickened from preventable diseases of under nutrition from which it could then make a lot of money.
ChemTrails have been denied since they first started appearing in the late 1970s. Recently the US General Accounting Office (GAO) admitted that there were, indeed, fluffy white ChemTrails being laid down in the skies. While the GOA tried to make it seem as if these innocent-looking white, red or black trails left as planes fly through the sky were of not particular consequence, there is a huge body of information that draws very different inferences from this world-wide activity. See, for example, http://educate-yourself.org/ct/ for a wide-ranging look at many points of view on ChemTrails.
So my question here is, what is this program for? Who is responsible and what possible goal could be served by showering us with desiccated red blood cells and pathogens which are, in many cases, not previously identified? The government says there is nothing there.
As Chico Marx said in Duck Soup, “Who are you going to believe? Me or your eyes?” …And your lungs and the increased number of emergency room visits and deaths when ChemTrails are in your skies?
DOT: FORBIDDEN CANCER TREATMENTS
And then there is cancer, the single most economically productive disease ever encountered by humankind. Tragic, disastrous, largely preventable and oh-so-profitable. Big Pharma is big, in large measure, because of big cancer.
The World Health Organization includes cancer in its list of “non communicable preventive diseases of under-nutrition.” Within your lifetime and mine, cancer has gone from being a rare disease to one so common that anywhere from
* 1 child in 2 born after 2000 and
* 1 adult in 3
will develop cancer in the US ( the figure was 1 person in 5 in 1989!) The rest of the world is, sadly, playing catch-up with us.
Cancers are primarily environmentally caused: pesticides, fungicides, injected viruses like the MKV 40 virus in Polio and other vaccines, synthetic additives, mold contamination, industrial toxins, synthetic hormones in food or as medicine, heavy metals, etc., etc., etc. Now what if cancer were an easy to cure, easy to control and easy to prevent disease.? The consequences would be, quite simply, disastrous for the industries which profiteer from this dread and largely preventable scourge. For example, in 2007, cancer patient Jeanne Sather wrote,
“Every three weeks, always on a Thursday afternoon, I amble on over to the cancer center for my IV treatment.(I also take Cytoxan, a chemo drug that comes in pill form, every day, plus a handful of other pills to help deal with the side effects and fringe benefits of being in cancer treatment-anxiety, high blood pressure, occasional depression, insomnia.)The total bill for each treatment session at the cancer center is something north of $20,000. The annual cost of my cancer care is more than $300,000. That’s three hundred thousand dollars a year.Almost $30,000 a month to keep me alive.”
Jeanne switched cancer treatment centers and, later that year, noted,
“… I was left to wonder why one cancer center charges $9,496.47 for one dose of Avastin and another cancer center in the same city charges $22,739.31. [for one afternoon’s treatment]… the same thing for the Herceptin. SCCA [a cancer treatment center – REL] charged me $6,254.95 for one dose of Herceptin, and Swedish [another cancer treatment center – REL] charged me $9,599.10.”
Before you do a little intuitive math and come up with numbers so staggering that they take your breath away, here’s a little chart from 2006 compiled from manufacturer’s information. Today’s prices, of course, would be significantly higher:
The same article notes, “many of the new drugs work only when combined with chemo, he says. Adding drugs such as Erbitux and Avastin to older therapies increases costs as well as side effects. Patients today still don’t live very long on most of the new medications.” which leads manufacturers to justify their costs this way, “Officials from Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., which sells Erbitux, note that patents offer companies a limited amount of time to recoup their investments.” [Emphasis ours]
The US National Cancer Institutes 2007 Updates notes, “Cancer treatment accounted for an estimated $72.1 billion in 2004-just under 5 percent of U.S. spending for all medical treatment. Between 1995 and 2004, the overall costs of treating cancer increased by 75 percent. In the near future it is expected that cancer costs may increase at a faster rate than overall medical expenditures.”
By comparison, today all forms of supplements constitute a mere $24 billion in sales ($20 billion in 2004). IF all supplements were used as nutritional therapy for cancer (which they are not), then the total savings in 2004 for cancer treatment would have been $52.1 billion! Of course, the fact that, in my experience and that of many other health professionals, that people with cancer who use natural therapies fare better and live longer, is not represented in these numbers. Nor is the vastly increased quality of life for naturally helped patients reflected in these numbers.
There is no room here for a full discussion of the fraud known as “Cancer treatment” nor the complex dishonesty by which dangerous, ineffective, but highly profitable cancer treatments continue to rob cancer sufferers of their immune capacity, their chance at survival and their money. For a typical, information-rich examination of these issues, read the now slightly outdated, but very informative article at http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/cancer_business.htm
DOT to DOT
Here is how the dots look to me: I see level upon level of complexity.
At the bottom, simplest level of the problem, I believe that major companies and their executives are often driven by pure, unadulterated, mindless, heartless and soulless greed in the same way that ethics-free researchers are driven by mindless, heartless curiosity in a corporate ‘science for hire’ environment. There are no limits to what they will do because they know no ethical constraints.
These “Captains of Industry and Science” are so far removed from their hearts and values that they rationalize what they do as somehow good for themselves and their families without any concern whatsoever (unless they stumble upon a good death bed experience) about their extended families: that is, the rest of us, and our universal mother, the earth. They are the pride of the dominance system. They believe they can own land, lives, food, and other commodities and, having acquired ownership, they can do with them exactly as they like since, for them, social contracts do not exist, only a legal ones. Knowing no limitations for their greed and need to dominate, they corrupt and control governments as if they were their natural sandboxes filled with their toys. What happens next is of no concern to them. Power does corrupt
Next, there are the “Shapers”. These are people like Henry Kissinger and his ilk who believe that it is their right to make life and death (heavy on the death, here) decisions about who lives and who dies, who is worthy and who is not. Like my patient, the Head of State, they see people as either useful to them (e.g., themselves, their minions and their technicians) or of no value — “useless eaters” to be disposed of when their plans have ripened to the point where they can “clean the earth” of these encumbrances.
They have decided that population reduction is good through any means, however hidden or cruel, because it serves their purposes. They have brought to its highest level the split between “I” and “Thou” since the “I” sees no mutual, holistic existence of the other, the “Thou”, and can do away with the other person (or populations) at his own whim or economic impulse. These people see no relationship between themselves and anyone who does not serve them. They plan things like population reduction in order to achieve a “sustainable” planet for themselves AFTER 90% of the world’s population has been conveniently exterminated.
Schemes like ChemTrails and depleted uranium and Codex make horrifying sense to them and then they implement these schemes for their own purposes, hidden behind their minions like Monsanto and the US FDA operatives, and their useful Big Industry Captains (see above).
And then, if I am correct, there is the third level: the “uber-masters”, the shadowy levels of puppeteers, the behind-the-scenes controllers. Their shadowy existence is only guessed at through hints and suggestions, but the information pointing to their manipulative existence is persistent and, to me, appears compelling. As the levels go up, so does the power and the hidden nature of their control.
But all of them, from the scientists who experiment on people as if they had no meaning or worth to the agents of the corporations to the “Policy Makers” and on up to the Shapers and the uber-masters, all of them have one Achilles heel, just one. Their plans whither like poisonous mushrooms in the glare of information and the light of truth. That is what they fear and that is what destroys them at the same time that it liberates us! Truly, it is YOU who are the light of the world.
CONNECT THE DOTS AND YOU SEE A PICTURE OF HOPE: THE LIGHT OF TRUTH!
You are a light bearer if you choose to be. Tell your friends, neighbors and associates how important it is for them to be involved in the health freedom struggle.
1. Set yourself a goal and get, say, 10 new people signed up for this Health Freedom eAlert dissemination list. Send them this link, http://drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?page_id=187 and ask them to sign up or ask if you can sign them up instead. The list is safe, secure and never, never shared or sold. We promise.
2. And don’t forget that health freedom costs money. We have no corporate sponsorship so we depend totally on our supporters to make the campaign for health and freedom possible.
Your tax-deductible donations are essential to us. Recurring gifts, big or small, allow us to continue our work. Click here (http://drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?page_id=189) to make your generous donation now. There is not much time before we have to set off for Geneva for the next Codex meeting at the end of June. We need your help to be there.
3. Visit www.Organics4U.org, our wonderful virtual store featuring clean, wholesome, organic supplements and products. Every purchase supports your health and your health freedom at the same time!
4. A few eAlerts ago, I mentioned the Strategic Health Freedom Alliance that we and the Institute for Health Research were urging Nutrient, Natural Remedies and Advanced Health Care Practitioners to form. That “C4” organization will be able to directly lobby legislators, while our “C3” NGOs can only educate and demonstrate. The announcement email to leaders in the industry is on its way now. If you are involved in a company and may be able to help with a grant that can be expensed as a business cost, please contact Ralph Fucetola JD, who is coordinating this effort. You can reach him at firstname.lastname@example.org – please put “Strategic Alliance” in the subject line and he will send you the special email announcement about this important initiative. Be sure to let Ralph know the name of the company you represent and the best time to contact you.
So times are grim and there, apparently, a concerted effort to use us badly, or terminally. That is not our agenda. We want to prosper and thrive. We want to make our choices for ourselves about how we live, how we pursue health and how we age.
We want our path to be illuminated by the bright light of truth and we want to be able to shed that light for others. What can we do? WE can be the light!
Yours in health and freedom,
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Natural Solutions Foundation
The Natural Solutions Foundation, the leading Global Health Freedom organization, is proud to present this information to you. We protect your right to know about – and to use – natural ways to maintain and regain your health, no matter where in the world you live. Among your freedoms is the right to clean, unadulterated food free of genetic manipulation, pesticides, heavy metals or other contaminants and access to herbs, supplements, frequency devices and other means as therapies that may benefit or to protect your well-being without drugs and other dangerous interventions, if you choose.
For more information on our global programs, including the International Decade of Nutrition, and our US based ones, please visit us at www.HealthFreedomUSA.org and www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org and join the free email list for the Health Freedom eAlerts to keep you in the loop, informed and active defending your right to make your own decisions about your health and wellbeing!
Our activities are supported 100% by your tax deductible donations. Please give generously (http://drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?page_id=189) to the Natural Solutions Foundation. Thank you for your support.
Feel free to disseminate this information as widely as possible with full attribution.
Yours in health and freedom,
The author of this impassioned plea for nutritional strategies instead of pharmaceutical ones is right on target in my opinion. As a psychiatrist practicing drug free psychiatry and medicine for nearly 40 years, I have skepticism and scorn for psychiatry as a bogus diagnostic system designed to “pathologize” everyone, from as early as possible, for the purpose of making sure that everyone can be drugged. Psychiatrists are not usually aware of this motivation and corruption, but their education, and their mindless acquiescence in the nonsense drummed into them that they follow, regardless of the inherent contradictions in the information they are given make the good that lies within psychiatry – and psychiatrists – close to invisible.
Just say “NO!” to psychiatric drugs, “No, no, no!” and keep on saying “NO!” Find an orthomolecular (literally, correct molecules) physician or psychiatrist at http://www.orthomed.org/ or an organization like The American Academy of Environmental Medicine, hppt://www.AAEM.com, check out a page like http://www.laleva.org/eng/medicine_alternatives/orthomolecular_psychiatry.html, contact the Pfeiffer Treatment Center, http://www.hriptc.org/ or other reputable treatment options for yourself or a loved one.
Mental illness is painful and can distort and disorder lives. I do not agree that it does not exist. But I do agree with the author that one of the key ingredients to solving the problem of mental illness is nutritional therapy. Other highly useful tools include BeuroBioFeedback to literally help the brain learn better patterns of neuronal communication through feedback techniques, detoxification to eliminate neurological and physiologoical poisons, dietary strategies to eliminate foods that precipitate aberrant brain function, neutralization for allergies, herbal and acupuncture treatments. And careful, skilled listening, a much undervalued, much underused tool in effectively dealing with mental health issues.
Psychiatric drugs are a shameful sham, in my opinion, purveyed through corruption and propaganda reaching into virtually every medical journal, most clinical studies and the halls of every medical school. The FDA is, in effect, regulated by the regulated industries and you, the consumer/patient/person impacted by their decisions and deceit are at risk. Children, especially, should never, that is never, in my opinion, be exposed to psychiatric medications. We simply do not know enough about their impact on the developing nervous system to say that these dangerous and toxic substances are even remotely close to “safe” for children. There is no excuse for their use which can possibly justify it and other alternatives always, at least in the course of my long experience, exist which are safer and more effective.
And psychoactive medications carry the risk of suicide and homicide with them. Every, that is every, school shooting, and many tragic disasters outside of schools, involves psychoactive drugs either being taken by the shooter/slayer or being withdrawn from by the shooter/slayer. Psycoactive drugs are a danger to society.
Just Say “NO” and find a better option. They are out there. Maybe that’s the real reason we have the internet!
Yours in health and freedom,
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Natural Solutions Foundation
The Truth About Mental Illness…
What I’m about to state may seem incredible and unbelievable. The truth is, there is no such thing as MENTAL illness!!! Mental illness is mostly the manifestation of the human mind going awry due to the assault on it by our empty, polluted and highly toxic food! Note, lest I be misquoted, I said ‘mostly’, you see, the other causative factors like stress, are not anywhere near as important as the polluted, toxic and empty food that we ingest.
Introduction: â€œHe is a schizophrenic, sheâ€™s bipolar. Sheâ€™s on Prozacâ€¦ her child is on Ritalinâ€¦, he has ADHD/ADDâ€¦â€ Iâ€™m sure that most of you have heard such whisperingsâ€¦, and these statements are whispered as if a great plague has descended upon people who are schizophrenic or bipolar or ADHD/ADD. People who suffer from these conditions are looked upon as if theyâ€™re mentally ill or insane or mad or all three! The question I want to ask and answer tonight, is this:
Is the condition of being schizophrenic or bipolar or ADHD/ADD or depressed psychological or is it physical in nature, and what kind of protocol if any would heal people who suffer from these conditions?
Each of us has innate biochemical factors which influence mental health, immune function, allergic tendencies, and more. Scientists tell us that the number of different genetic combinations possible in a child from the same two parents exceeds forty-two million. Except for identical twins, each human being has unique biochemistry resulting in quite diverse nutritional needs. Shakespeare was correct when he wrote, “One manâ€™s meat is another manâ€™s poison.” For example, some of us are genetically suited for a vegetable-based diet and others are not. Some people can satisfy their nutritional needs by programme A, whilst others for the same condition must be on programme B to overcome genetic aberrations. This is a big key in healing my friends, what will work for one, will not necessarily work for another. Because of genetic differences in the way our bodies process foods, most of us are quite deficient in certain nutrients and overloaded in others. Even with an ideal diet, which is almost impossible these days, most of us have certain nutrients that are at very low levels causing us to require many times the Recommended Daily Allowance to achieve a healthy balance.
As we progress in the new millennium, the medical and scientific communities agree on the tremendous influence of neurotransmitters like Serotonin on behavior disorders like “ADHD” (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder), depression, and “schizophrenia”, bipolar disorder, etc., etc. People can have a predisposition for these problems due to genetically aberrant levels of specific neurotransmitters. Our mental health is hugely dependent upon having the proper amount of these critical brain chemicals. Some psychiatrists express their scorn for nutrient therapies, claiming that they are too puny to have any real clinical potency. They often say, “You really need a drug to get the job done for a serious condition like depression.”
My favorite response begins by asking the question, “Where do our neurotransmitters come from?” The brain is a chemical factory that produces serotonin, dopamine, norepinephrine, and other brain chemicals 24 hours a day. The only raw materials for their syntheses are nutrients, namely, amino acids, vitamins, minerals, etc. If the brain receives improper amounts of these nutrient building blocks, we can expect serious problems with our neurotransmitters.
For example, some depression patients have a genetic pyrrole disorder which render them grossly depleted in vitamin B-6. A pyrrole is a basic chemical structure that is used in the formation of heme, which makes blood red. Pyrroles bind with vitamin B6 and then with zinc, thus depleting these nutrients. These individuals cannot efficiently create serotonin (a neurotransmitter) since B-6 is an important factor in the last step of its synthesis. Do you understand this my friends? If you want to understand the reason for mental illness, you have to understand this, that:
The brain is a chemical factory that produces serotonin, dopamine, norepinephrine, and other brain chemicals 24 hours a day. The only raw materials for their syntheses are nutrients, namely, amino acids, vitamins, minerals, etc. If the brain receives improper amounts of these nutrient building blocks, we can expect serious problems with our neurotransmitters.
Many people who suffer from depression appear to benefit from Prozac (c), Paxil (c), Zoloft (c), or other serotonin-enhancing medications. However, as with all mind-altering drugs, horrendous side effects occur and the true cause of the mental difficulties remains uncorrected. Similar â€“ and more healthful â€“ benefits can be achieved by simply giving these people sufficient amounts of B-6 along with supporting nutrients.
â€œMost neurotransmitter problems appear to be genetic in nature and involve abnormal absorption, metabolism, or storage of key nutrients. As neuroscience advances, biochemical treatments to correct brain chemistry become better defined. Nutrient therapy can be very potent and does not involve side effects, since no molecules foreign to the body are needed. This therapeutic approach may eventually eliminate the need for most psychiatric medications. The Pfeiffer Treatment Center has amassed a large database of biochemical information from more than 10,000 patients with mental health problems. Examination of this data shows that most of these persons have striking abnormalities in specific nutrients required for neurotransmitter production.â€ Extracted from: â€˜The Critical Role of Nutrients in Severe Mental Symptomsâ€™ by William Walsh, Ph.D. Senior Scientist, Health Research Institute and Pfeiffer Treatment Center, 1804 Centre Point Circle, Suite 102. Naperville, IL 60563
The Pfeiffer Treatment Center, in Naperville, IL. is world famous for itâ€™s outstanding contribution to curing mental illness, my friends, and the message fro that center, as I just read to you is loud and clear, when our brain has the necessary nutrients, mental illness disappears, so, we see that so-called â€˜mentalâ€™ illness is not mental at all but physical in nature.
Now, what Iâ€™m about to expose to you next, is not for the weak of heart, so get ready for some horrible facts.
As ClinicalTrials.gov reveals, in 2005, Massachusetts General Hospital conducted an 8-week trial study that recruited children as young as four years old to be drugged and monitored, including having their blood drawn, to see if their tiny four-year-old bodies would tolerate a powerful psychotropic drug called Seroquel.
The following quote is extracted from ClinicalTrials.gov:
[This is an 8-week open-label study aimed at assessing the effectiveness and tolerability of Quetiapine (c), in the treatment of preschool children aged 4 to 6 years with bipolar and bipolar spectrum disorder. This is an exploratory, pilot study, seeking to determine whether Quetiapine (c) is efficacious and well tolerated in the treatment of preschoolers with pediatric bipolar and bipolar spectrum disorder in this age group.
Ages Eligible for Study:4 Years – 6 Years, Genders Eligible for Study: Both
Subject must be able to participate in mandatory blood draws.
Massachusetts General Hospital, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 02138, United States; Recruiting
Joseph Biederman, MD, Principal Investigator ]
In my view, this exploitation of young children for drug testing amounts to nothing less than crimes against humanity, these people should be tried as international criminals of the worst kind and as demented child abusers. What possible medical justification could these doctors, hospital staff and drug pushers have for prescribing mind-altering drugs to four-year-olds? Even the “disease” being treated here is entirely fictional. So-called “bi-polar disorder” was wholly invented by psychiatrists with strong financial ties to drug companies. The purpose of this disease is not to help children, but to sell drugs to anyone and everyone, including toddlers. I often wonder when the world will wake up and notice that the mass-drugging of our children has gone too way, way too far. Why isn’t the mainstream media giving this front-page coverage? Why aren’t lawmakers demanding an end to the chemical abuse of our children? Why isn’t the FDA halting these trials on toddlers out of plain decency?
You already know the answer: Because they’re all making money from this chemical assault on our children. The doctors, hospitals, drug companies, psychiatrists and mainstream media all profit handsomely from the sales of mind-altering drugs to children. Ethics will never get in the way of old-fashioned greed, even when we’re talking about the health and lives of four-year-olds. Modern psychiatry, with all its false authority, drugging of children and rampant disease mongering, is an affront to all people who believe in honest medical science and basic human decency. Armed with the DSM-IV, on-the-take psychiatrists invent diseases out of thin air (like “bi-polar disorder”), then vote official treatment protocols into the reference books. Yet a recent review of such decision panels reveals that one hundred percent of the psychiatrists and doctors involved in such decisions have financial ties to the drug companies that coincidentally happen to manufacture the recommended drugs.
Now, let me remind you of the facts about so-called â€˜mental illnessâ€™ as outlined by Natural medicine clinics like the Pfeiffer Treatment Center, in Naperville, IL. Clinics like these with databases exceeding 10,000 clients have irrefutably proven that NATURAL MEDICINE WITH NO SIDE EFFECTS ROUTINELY HEALS MENTAL ILLNESS, HOW COME, THEN, THESE CRIMINAL EXPERIMENTS, SANCTIONED BY GOVERNMENTS AND SO-CALLED MEN OF SCIENCE? This is a life-threatening scandal of such proportion that it deserves a World Court investigation, complete with criminal charges being brought against many of these so-called “doctors.” To characterize this as a crime against humanity is not an exaggeration.
Let’s face it: Modern psychiatry and its incessant disease mongering amounts to quackery at its worst. This group both invents the diseases, then hawks the â€˜snake oilâ€™ that “treats” those diseases. Many so-called â€˜mentalâ€™ diseases can be diagnosed in children on a whim, based on a mere sixty seconds of casual observation combined with the biased opinion of a drug-pushing psychiatrist being bribed by Big Pharma.
This is not medicine, folks. And it’s certainly not science. It’s just plain medical fraud. Yet the whole of conventional medicine goes along with it, pretending that nothing is amiss. Doctors, hospitals, FDA bureaucrats, teachers and even many parents just pretend that all these mysterious brain chemistry diseases have spontaneously appeared in the world over the last ten years, suddenly afflicting tens of millions of children. And thank goodness the drug companies just happened to have invented all these treatment drugs at the exact same moment in history when these psychiatric diseases became so widespread! Imagine the odds…
Where are the skeptics on this issue? Where are the quack busters on the drugging of our children? The silence is deafening. They have nothing to say about the lack of science behind psychiatric disease mongering. They aren’t skeptical at all. Clear thinking, it seems, isn’t allowed when the conclusions might question the institutions of modern medicine. And thus, the skeptics reveal themselves as little more than purveyors of medical dogma; protectors of a drug-the-children medical cult that demands unquestioning obedience to its profit-minded beliefs.
Good science has long since left psychiatry, my friends. And if you want to know the true, horrifying history of the mental health industry, visit the Citizen’s Commission on Human Rights. Prepare to be shocked.
Psychiatry believes there is no child too young to diagnose as having psychiatric disorders. There’s no end to the evil that psychiatry might do in the years ahead. As long as society continues to give psychiatrists carte blanche to invent fictitious diseases, there is no human behavior, emotion or condition that’s safe from being labeled a pathology. So-called “adult ADHD screening tests” label a whopping 80 percent of participants with the disease. Behavioral disorders screenings for children demonstrate similar numbers. And the things that can get you labeled as “diseased” are all too mundane: Feeling overwhelmed, feeling distracted by modern life, handling too many projects at once, being afraid of public speaking, feeling shy in social situations… gee, is there anyone who doesn’t experience these sooner or later?
A couple of decades ago, psychiatry started drugging teens with antidepressant drugs. Then they attacked younger schoolchildren with Ritalin. Now they’re targeting preschoolers, and the trend is clear: Children will soon be “born psychotic” if psychiatry has anything to do with it.
Years ago, the giant soda companies handed out baby bottles emblazoned with the logos of their flagship soft drink products. The idea was to get mothers to feed their infants soda instead of infant formula, thereby altering the taste of the infant for life, creating a lifelong consumer of soft drinks. When we first uncovered this disturbing report, we thought it was perhaps the most evil thing a corporation could do to the health of infants. But now, psychiatry takes the prize. Using four-year-olds as guinea pigs to test psychotropic drugs is more than merely unethical; it’s predatory. It’s Nazi-esque in its use of human beings for medical experiments, and yet it remains strangely acceptable across society. Child Protective Services does nothing. Hospitals gladly run the trials (they get paid, of course). Psychiatrists and doctors happily drug these children, observe them, then draw their blood, all in the name of corporate profits. And thus, they all join the long and sordid history of human medical experimentation that demonstrates ethics, or human lives, or plain decency will never get in the way of the forward march of medicine.
Now, in life we need balance. There are a handful of doctors, not many, but there are a handful of doctors, authors, organizations and celebrities that dare tell the truth on this issue, and they are singled out for incessant ridicule. Take Tom Cruise, for example. Although he speaks the truth about the drugging of children, he is endlessly dragged through the mud of public opinion simply because he expresses authentic passion for ending this chemical child abuse. Cruise should be applauded for his efforts, not ridiculed.
When it comes to mental health, there is one group of people that truly needs to be drugged: Those who run and own the huge multi-trillion dollar pharmaceutical companies and anyone who peddles their filth. Because to encourage and support the mass drugging of toddlers and schoolchildren, is to demonstrate a deep-rooted madness that definitely justifies chemical restraint. To drug toddlers, or to use them for medical experiments, should be rightly regarded as a crime. And there’s no question whatsoever that the children of our nation would be safer, healthier and happier if the practice of modern psychiatry simply disappeared.
Besides, the real cause of depression, mood swings, emotional disorders or other so-called “diseases” mostly comes down to polluted food. Remove the food additives and refined sugars from a child’s diet, and he returns to normal in about two weeks. Feed children healthy oils, live foods, whole grains and super-foods, along with NATURAL MEDICINE and you automatically create energetic, curious, fast-learning children who need no drugs. Give children some sunshine, play time and some time with nature, and you get balanced, healthy children. It’s no secret, it’s just common sense. But psychiatry has no common sense, and no one in the industry dares mention that most so-called mental disorders are really just caused by nutritional imbalances, AS I HAVE SHOWN YOU TONITE BY QUOTING THE EXPERTS, MY FRIENDS. Because to admit to the truth about the mental health of children would be to render their careers irrelevant. And no psychiatrist is going to commit career suicide by admitting that bi-polar disorder was just made up, or that toddlers need good food and natural medicine, not expensive drugs. Just like conventional doctors, psychiatrists have to protect their egos and revenue streams, and that means convincing parents that little Johnny has a brain chemistry imbalance and he’ll have to take psychotropic drugs for life. The parents, as gullible as ever, naively go along with the scam, usually after being frightened into compliance by a psychiatrist who warns them what might happy to little Johnny if they don’t drug him. “He might commit suicide,” they’re sternly warned. Will the scams of modern medicine never cease? Is there no child too young to be targeted for medical experiments? Will the sinister desire for Big Pharma profits ever be balanced against basic human decency? I donâ€™t knowâ€¦ Big money and governments have indeed, gone mad. And psychiatry is standing by, ready to drug everyone, regardless of their age or mental health status.