There is no doubt in my mind that this woman was on psychoactive drugs when she made the decision, and carried out the action, killing her children.
Every single mass murderer, in or out of schools, in the US in the last decade or more has been on psychoactive drugs. Many, many people on these drugs kill themselves and sometimes they kill others along the way.
These drugs do not decrease deaths, they increase them. Psychoactive medication does that. Often.
As a psychiatrist who has practiced drug-free medicine and psychiatry for 44 years, I can definitively state that nutrition, neurobiofeedback and other safe, effective means work while drugs do not, and have disastrous consequences.
You really do not have to fill that prescription! And since these drugs inevitably, often permanently damage the brain and body, they should not only never be taken, but NEVER given to children.
National Solutions Foundation and www.HealthFreedomUSA.org always bring you urgent information about your health freedom and practical steps you can take to make a difference.
“Breakthrough casualty” (aka “collateral damage”) is what happens when a poorly tested, new drug or device (or novel GMO product) is publicized in the mass commercial media in ways that are not truthful and are misleading. Here are Action Steps To Help Prevent Yourself and Your Loved Ones From Becoming A “Breakthrough Casualty”
Today, the biggest causes of “breakthrough casualties” are the very issues that Natural Solutions Foundation has championed: GMOs, degraded organic standards, forced vaccinations and drugging, toxins (like pesticide residua, irradiation free-radicals, and the like) in the food chain, regulatory failures…
You’ve heard of “Breakthrough Bleeding,” right? That’s when someone starts to bleed in spite of the fact that the body, or a drug, should be keeping them from doing that. Well, there’s another “Breakthrough” problem, and we are all vulnerable to it: “Breakthrough Death” which occurs when the latest medical “breakthrough” is so dangerous, so poorly tested, so poorly understood and so rapidly embraced by the ever-compliant media (“Ask your doctor is it’s right for YOU”) along with the ever time-pressured and sheepish medical practitioner that you, or someone you love, winds up dead or damaged because of a poorly understood, but hastily taken-up “Medical Breakthrough”.
The article posted below questions the wisdom of new medical “wisdom”. Indeed, the bone-fields of Medicine are littered with discarded ” breakthroughs”, too hastily approved, too gleefully adopted, too poorly tested. Of course, the graveyards of medicine are littered with the patients who blindly rushed to line up for the newest alleged “advances” and trusted the “wisdom” of the usually-well-meaning, carefully preselected and obedient sheep in MD’s clothing who blithely make their livings by being there with the new whatever-it-is-this-time. For example, in my educated opinion, the new chemotherapy which turns out to damage your heart and not work any better than any of the other ineffective conventional cancer approaches and, like every form of conventional chemotherapy, is a leading cause of NEW cancer in long term survivors; or the new antibiotic that turns out to cause your body to stop making any blood cells, red or white, or causes you to go deaf, or damages the dental integrity of your unborn child; or the new vaccine that turns out to cause healthy young girls and women to die or develop life threatening conditions; or the vaccine overload that turns so many happy young families into tragic families coping with the vaccine injury called autism, asthma, ADD/ADHD and a host of other names.
You get the idea.
What you may not know yet is that “fast track” approval for drugs and especially vaccines means that even the woefully inadequate safety assurances used by the FDA are shunted aside. And whether a drug, device or vaccine has been fast-tracked or not, that FDA approved-whatever is not deemed safe until after Phase IV Clinical Trials are completed and evaluated. And you may also not know that the FDA review committees and advisory committees, panels and boards are filled with people who have stocks, bonds, shares, patents and other direct financial conflicts of interest in the very products they are regulating, or seeking to evaluate and forbid if dangerous. Good system? For them, maybe. Just look at the state of American health and the trillions of dollars made by the illness care industry using things that make you sick and kill you although they have been through Phase I, II and II Clinical Trials. And although these devices, drugs and vaccines are now in their much-vaunted “Phase IV Clinical Trials”
What is a Phase IV Clinical Trial? It is the voluntary reporting, over time, of adverse reactions in the public. In other words, when doctors notice that patients are dying, or having strokes or heart attacks, or getting rather more cancer than “normal” or having more life-threatening asthma attacks or other reactions and the doctors involved bother to report (and often incriminate themselves if they were the ones who gave the drug or used the device in the first place), and these results pile up and the scientists reviewing these data do not have too many conflicts of interest, and their superiors in the system do not have too many conflicts of interest (which are now officially permitted by the agencies of the US Government charged with protecting our safety), then perhaps something will happen to remove this item from sale. But usually not. I need only say the word “Vioxx” and you get the idea. Or “Gardasil” or “Avienda”.
Or core systemic corruption and inability to protect the public… you get the idea. *
We like to think that clinical trials and other strategies protective of the public when using drugs, pesticides, vaccines and other toxins are iron clad and powerful. Nothing could be further from the truth. The FDA, EPA and USDA, the principle “guardians” of public health, do not allocate their funding efficiently to do their jobs. Congressional report after Congressional report, investigative piece after investigative piece makes that very clear. But the structure of these agencies themselves makes it even more clear.
For the FDA, a large proportion of whose operating budget comes from “user fees” which Pharmaceutical companies pay to have their products approved. Those user fees mean that the FDA is the client, not the regulator, of the drug industry.
Now it looks like the food industry will be asked to pay the same sort of user fees so the food side of the house will also become a client of the industry it allegedly regulates. Wonder what will happen to small local, organic producers in that regulatory world, where only the big and powerful are “too big to fail…”
Between the revolving door policy of the FDA, USDA, EPA and other federal agencies (through which high level employees are recruited from, revolve into, and continue to move back and forth between government, academia and industry as their careers develop) and the lack of oversight allowed or engaged in by these agencies, allowing “new breakthroughs” to create “new wealth” and “new disasters”.
Read the article below by a concerned and thoughtful Mom and take the Action Steps at the head of this article to make sure your State and National Legislators know that you do not want to be exposed to compulsory vaccination, a form of compulsory drugging.
Yours in health and freedom,
Rima E. Laibow, MD
–x–x– Sometimes ‘new breakthroughs’ in medicine are too new
October 12, 2008
By Kimberly A. Brehm
Every time the medical community changes its mind and announces yet another way to care for your child, I’m amazed that my children made it out of their early years unscathed.
When my babies were young, they slept on their tummies, until the American Medical Association said the position could lead to sudden infant death syndrome. I bathed them in cool water when their fevers ran high, until I heard the tried-and-true practice could cause a seizure. And I gave them over-the-counter cold medicine when they had persistent, hacking coughs and sore throats.
Turns out that wasn’t a good idea, either.
On Tuesday, in response to concerns from medical experts that questioned whether cold and cough remedies do more harm than good to children, drug companies agreed to no longer make such medications for kids younger than 4.
Leading brands like Pediacare, Dimetapp, Robitussin, Triaminic and Little Colds no longer will continue to include dosage information for anyone younger than 4, and some pediatricians are asking the government to go further and ban such medicines for children younger than 6.
Each year, more than 7,000 children – mostly 2- and 3-year-olds – make a trip to the emergency room because of problems with over-the-counter cough and cold medicines. They usually have symptoms such as hives, drowsiness and unsteady walking. The Federal Drug Administration in 2007 pulled over-the-counter cough and cold medications for children younger than 6 to weigh their risks and effectiveness, but it could take another year or more before a final decision is reached.
Since it seems like every decade or so the medical community reverses previous decisions on particular medicines and medical treatments, it’s made me wonder when I can trust “new breakthroughs” and “innovative advances.”
A reversal about something like a cough suppressant – once seen as a benign drug – is the exact reason I have not yet allowed my teen daughters to be vaccinated with the HPV vaccine. It’s too new and hasn’t been researched enough for me to give my approval and feel comfortable.
In 2005, the Food and Drug Administration OK’d Gardasil as a vaccine against four strains of the human papillomavirus, or HPV, which can cause cervical cancer. Since then, more than 8 million girls ages 11 to 14 have been given the vaccine, and some states are considering making the shot mandatory for school enrollment, similar to other immunizations.
When Gardasil was approved a few years ago, my oldest daughter was 11, the ideal age to begin the shots. But I hesitated, thinking about other “new and improved” medicines that later proved to cause harm.
Remember when pregnant women were prescribed Thalidomide for nausea, then it was discovered to cause miscarriages and birth defects? Or when vaccines routinely included mercury, until that too proved to be dangerous? Or how about Fen-phen and Ephedra, which were supposed to be safe weight-loss drugs, and women began dying? In the 1990s, infants were given the rotavirus vaccine, until too many babies died after receiving it, and it was pulled from the market. I could go on and on listing dozens of examples like this, including strong, antidotal evidence of a link between immunizations and autism.
Thousands of parents of autistic children, including my brother and his wife, are firmly convinced their child’s autism was caused by vaccines and no amount of denial from drug companies would convince them otherwise.
And now, three years after young girls starting getting the Gardasil vaccine, it’s being investigated. There have been more than 9,000 complaints of serious ill effects filed with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, including blood clots, genital warts, paralysis and death.
The CDC said the deaths are not linked to Gardasil, but who knows what they’ll discover after further investigation? I personally am not willing to let my daughters be guinea pigs for the fairly new vaccine when even the CDC agrees the vaccine responds differently to each individual’s immune system and should not be mandatory for school participation.
“The overall effect of the vaccines on cervical cancer remains unknown. The real impact of HPV vaccination on cervical cancer will not be observed for decades,” the New England Journal reported in August. “With so many essential questions still unanswered, there is good reason to be cautious.”
When the wrong decision could cause your child harm – or maybe even result in death – it would be negligent not to be cautious. And when the medical experts change their minds every few years on what’s good and what’s harmful, it’s hard to make the right decision.
Please remember the six Action Steps you can take at the beginning of this posting.
* Less than a year ago, a government study of the FDA concluded:
1) The FDA cannot fulfill its mission because its scientific base has eroded and its scientific organizational structure is weak.
2) The FDA cannot fulfill its mission because its scientific workforce does not have sufficient capacity and capability.
3) The FDA cannot fulfill its mission because its information technology (IT) infrastructure is inadequate.
4) FDA does not have the capacity to ensure the safety of food for the nation.
5) The development of medical products based on â€œnew scienceâ€ cannot be adequately regulated by the FDA.
6) There is insufficient capacity in modeling risk assessment and analysis.
7) The FDA science agenda lacks a coherent structure and vision, as well as effective coordination and prioritization.
8) The FDA has substantial recruitment and retention challenges.
9) The FDA has an inadequate and ineffective program for scientist performance.
10) The FDA has not taken sufficient advantage of external and internal collaborations.
11) The FDA lacks the information science capability and information infrastructure to fulfill is regulatory mandate.
12) The FDA cannot provide the information infrastructure support to regulate products based on new science.
[From: the November 2007 Report of the Subcommittee on Science and Technology, FDA Science and Mission at Risk]