Tag Archives: Dangerous

Guess What Kills One Person Every 19 Minutes?

Guess What Kills One Person Every 19 Minutes?

Posted by Joshua Corn

( the above picture has absolutely nothing to do with this story…but scary eh?)

When it comes “how you’re going to die,” many people fear things like airplane crashes or shark attacks, even though statistics show that deaths from these events are very rare. Conversely, far too many people mistakenly believe that certain common aspects of everyday life are extremely safe — when, in reality, this is often far from the truth.

Once such daily ritual that is far more dangerous than many people believe is taking properly prescribed pharmaceutical drugs. Popping pills on a daily basis to “improve health” has become far too common for many Americans. In fact, according to the CDC, approximately 50% of all Americans take a pharmaceutical drug daily. When you isolate senior citizens, the number shoots up to an astonishing 90%. And perhaps even more troubling, 20% of children take a pharmaceutical drug.

At the same time, statistics are showing that deaths from pharmaceutical drugs are rising at an alarming rate. But don’t take my word for it. Just google the term “pharmaceutical drugs kill” and you’ll see headlines from major news organizations such as Fox and CNN that read:

“Prescription drugs 62,000 times more likely to kill …

“Prescription drugs kill 6200% more Americans …”

“Prescription Drugs Kill 300 Percent More Americans than Illegal Drugs…”

“Prescription drugs are now killing more people than traffic accidents…”

“Prescription Drug Deaths Skyrocket…”

“Prescription drugs kill one person every 19 minutes…”

“Prescription Drugs Now Kill More People Than Heroin And Cocaine Combined…”

Sadly, most people don’t know that properly prescribed prescription drugs kill over 100,000 Americans each year. (This excludes prescription drug abuse, which causes this number to skyrocket even higher). This is more than or equal to the number of people who die from accidents, Alzheimer’s, influenza and diabetes!

One reason that most people are in the dark about the dangers of pharmaceutical drugs is due to a fundamental misunderstanding of how these drugs get tested and approved. Too many people believe that the FDA has some kind of rigorous testing and evaluation system. Sadly, this is far from the truth.

The current system puts almost the entire burden to test the safety of a new pharmaceutical drug on the developer of that drug. And since developing a new drug costs billions of dollars, you can imagine the immense pressure on the entire organization to make sure that drug gets to market. Making things worse are the fees that the pharmaceutical companies pay the FDA, which amount to about 20% of its total budget. Now, I’m no expert on organizational structure, but it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that this system is inherently flawed and corrupt.

What’s the final product of this cozy relationship between Big Pharma and the FDA? It’s simple – dangerous drugs being put on the market, leaving us hapless consumers as real world guinea pigs. Simply put, the big drug companies profit and we die.

One of the most infamous examples of this is what happened with the painkiller Vioxx. It’s widely known that Merck engaged in several illegal and dubious strategies to influence the research backing the safety of Vioxx. Sadly, this easily tricked the FDA who approved the drug, only to remove it from the shelves after it killed approximately 60,000 people – more than the number of brave soldiers who died in Vietnam. Will we be building a memorial for the Vioxx victims?

The latest example of the flaws in the process for getting pharmaceutical drugs approved by the FDA is the diabetes drug Avandia. A Senate Finance Committee investigation showed that GlaxoSmithKline intentionally hid reliable scientific data clearly showing that Avandia significantly increases the risk of heart attack. Naturally this came to light after the FDA approved the drug, and it didn’t take long before it was linked to 83,000 heart attacks and deaths, according to the FDA’s own scientists.

If you think Vioxx and Avandia are flukes, think again. There are dozens, and perhaps hundreds, of drugs killing people every day, because their makers provided flawed, biased and corrupt data to the FDA. And since the FDA is unequipped, incapable or unwilling to change the system, more and more people are going to die.

If you believe your doctor provides the final line of defense for you, think again. Despite good intentions, guess who trained your doctor on all of the “benefits” of the drug they are prescribing to you? You guessed it – the company that stands to make billions of dollars from its sale. Your doctor got duped (and probably got a free golf trip in Hawaii). Meanwhile, you got a potentially harmful drug that may put your health in jeopardy.

The bottom line – don’t trust that pharmaceutical drugs are safe. Big Pharma has a long, sad track record of lies, corruption and deceit, all in the name of profits. And the FDA’s system to approve drugs is as flawed as perhaps any function of government.

My advice: If your doctor prescribes you a drug, take your health into your own hands! Consider lifestyle changes, look for natural alternatives, get second opinions and do your own research. Only take the drug after you are 100% certain it is safe and in your best interests. After all – your life may depend on it!

Indiana Radiation Spike Triggers Elevated Levels In Other States, Corporate Media Stays Silent

Indiana Radiation Spike Triggers Elevated Levels In Other States, Corporate Media Stays Silent

Anthony Gucciardi
Activist Post

Elevated Indiana radiation levels — specifically near the border of Indiana and Michigan — have prompted explosions, military helicopters, thousands of eyewitness accounts, but where is the mainstream media coverage?

Now independent radiation experts are reporting increased levels in some other states, with one particular station noticing an increase since just around 11:45 am Mountain Time on Thursday. This coincides with community board posts created just around the same time in a number of locations, even before the incident hit the public.

In one such posting on a law enforcement website discussing the radiation increase, an individual from Chicago states “We’ve been encountering some high readings at the labs here.”

Independent radiation monitoring station owner Joey Stanford has uploaded a video showing spiked radiation levels as far as Colorado. Some individuals are questioning the actual source of the increased radiation, stating that it could be solar-based.

Stanford created the video in response to the growing concerns over elevated radiation levels stemming from Indiana. Indiana radiation levels normally hover around 5 and 6 counts per minute (CPM), but the levels drastically increased to as much as 7,139 CPM without warning. Afterwards, the EPA disabled the online measurement tool. Here is the screenshot of the tool showing the skyrocketing levels.

You can view Joey Stanford’s video below — remember that Joey is in Colorado, not Indiana so the elevated levels are not nearly as high:

Joey’s report echoes what many stations are finding, with live Twitter updates reporting a consistently increased amount of radiation since the initial event around 11:45 AM on Thursday. Some Twitter updates from last night’s Radiation Monitor, Joey’s own station all the way in Colorado, read:

252 CPM, 2.0462 uSv/h, 1.9820 AVG uSv/h, 7 time(s) over natural radiation

324 CPM, 2.6309 uSv/h, 2.1884 AVG uSv/h, 8 time(s) over natural radiation

222 CPM, 1.8026 uSv/h, 1.7459 AVG uSv/h, 6 time(s) over natural radiation

Once again, this is nothing compared to the 7,139 CPM reported near Indiana, however it shows that there is a possibility of correlation. While the answer as to what is going on is not clear, it is clear that it has piqued the interest of government officials. Military helicopters, aircraft, and Department of Homeland Security hazmat fleets have reportedly been dispersed towards the area based on eyewitness photos and accounts.


‘Human barcode’ could make society more organized, but invades privacy, civil liberties

‘Human barcode’ could make society more organized, but invades privacy, civil liberties

Custom Search

A built-in identification chip for humans could invade privacy, civil liberties, opponents say.

Would you barcode your baby?

Microchip implants have become standard practice for our pets, but have been a tougher sell when it comes to the idea of putting them in people.

Science fiction author Elizabeth Moon last week rekindled the debate on whether it’s a good idea to “barcode” infants at birth in an interview on a BBC radio program.

“I would insist on every individual having a unique ID permanently attached — a barcode if you will — an implanted chip to provide an easy, fast inexpensive way to identify individuals,” she said on The Forum, a weekly show that features “a global thinking” discussing a “radical, inspiring or controversial idea” for 60 seconds .

Moon believes the tools most commonly used for surveillance and identification — like video cameras and DNA testing — are slow, costly and often ineffective.

In her opinion, human barcoding would save a lot of time and money.

The proposal isn’t too far-fetched – it is already technically possible to “barcode” a human – but does it violate our rights to privacy?

Opponents argue that giving up anonymity would cultivate an “Orwellian” society where all citizens can be tracked.

“To have a record of everywhere you go and everything you do would be a frightening thing,” Stanley, senior policy analyst at the American Civil Liberties Union, told the Daily News.

He warned of a “check-point society” where everyone carries an internal passport and has to show their papers at every turn, he said.

“Once we let the government and businesses go down the road of nosing around in our lives…we’re going to quickly lose all our privacy,” said Stanley.

There are already, and increasingly, ways to electronically track people. Since 2006, new U.S. passports include radio frequency identification tags (RFID) that store all the information in the passport, plus a digital picture of the owner.

In 2002, an implantable ID chip called VeriChip was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The chip could be implanted in a person’s arm, and when scanned, could pull up a 16 digit ID number containing information about the user.

It was discontinued in 2010 amid concerns about privacy and safety.

Still scientists and engineers have not given up on the idea.

A handful of enterprising companies have stepped into the void left by VeriChip, and are developing ways to integrate technology and man.

Biotech company MicroCHIPS has developed an implantable chip to deliver medicine to people on schedule and without injection. And technology company BIOPTid has patented a noninvasive method of identification called the “human barcode.”

Advocates say electronic verification could help parents or caregivers keep track of children and the elderly. Chips could be used to easily access medical information, and would make going through security points more convenient, reports say.

But there are also concerns about security breaches by hackers. If computers and social networks are already vulnerable to hacking and identify theft, imagine if someone could get access to your personal ID chip?

Stanley cautioned against throwing the baby out with the bathwater each time someone invents a new gadget.

“We can have security, we can have convenience, and we can have privacy,” he said. “We can have our cake and eat it too.”

Read more:SOURCE

Pit Bull Shot In The Head Trying To Protect Owner

Pit Bull Shot In The Head Trying To Protect Owner, But Miraculously Survives
‘Kilo’ Didn’t Take Too Kindly To Gunman Pushing Into Staten Island Home

There’s a dog that took a bullet, possibly saving his owner’s life. And surprisingly, the 12-year-old pit bull shot in the head survived.

The pit bull named “Kilo” was off to the vet Wednesday for a check-up, after taking a bullet for his owner, Justin Becker.

“He’s a hero. He saved my life. He went to protect me and he did his job,” Becker told CBS 2?s John Slattery.

Even Dr. Greg Panarello, the veterinarian who treated the dog, was impressed.

“Incredibly lucky. Incredibly lucky,” Panarello said.

It happened Saturday evening in Becker’s apartment house in the Graniteville section of Staten Island. A gunman, posing as a FedEx deliveryman, wearing a uniform, rang the bell and said he had a package, but then pushed his way into the apartment.

“He barged in. My first reaction after seeing the gun is push him out, so I pushed him to the door. Like I said, he fell like wedged right by the door. I slammed him inside the door and he was stuck and tried to get out now because he was getting crushed,” Becker said.

His girlfriend has been holding the dog and let go.

“I was shocked and I was terrified,” Nicole Percoco said.

“Kilo,” the hero pit bull from Staten Island, saved its owner’s life and took a bullet to the head for its troubles.

“Now Kilo came out to protect me. Grrr, he tried to come through the door at the guy, his head was out. Grrr, then I heard the guy, three gunshots,” Becker said.

One of the shots hit the dog in the head.

“It did ricochet off the skull and went straight down and exited at the neck,” Dr. Panarello said.

The vet staff put a superhero insignia on this bandage. Kilo was up and around Wednesday, going for walks just three days after being shot.

“I think it’s amazing. He saved my life,” Becker said.

You’ve heard of a cat with nine lives. Kilo seems well on his way.


Marital Rape Still a Global Issue

Marital Rape Still a Global Issue

We often think of the street as a dangerous environment, a kind of place that sexual assault and rape most often take place…

But believe it or not, it’s quite the opposite.

Rape is actually most common at the home, and sadly, a woman’s husband is more commonly the perpetrator. This particular form of rape is called marital rape, and it often plays out as it does in the following example:

You’re a woman who has just married a remarkable man, and a year into the marriage, he becomes the father to your newborn daughter. Life is great, until one night, you’re unlacing your heels in the bedroom when your husband grasps you by your hair and yanks you onto the bed, pushing himself onto you.

You try to shove him off but the weight on your chest feels like a ton of bricks on a layer of sandpaper. Hours later, while you stare down at your bruised arms, he tells you he lost control, and it will never happen again. You believe him… until it does.

As the years pass by, it gets worse. You’re being raped and beaten every day, you’ve lost the feeling of ownership to your own body, your family tells you to keep the marriage together, you’ve lost your friends. The only consolation you have is that this way you can protect your daughter, if at any time should his fury move from you to her.

But one cold, black night he gets really ruthless. Your husband forces intercourse multiple times. He beats you, your face is numb, your insides are torn, and your hope dwindles like the red spit dangling from our lower lip. At the soonest possible moment, you gather your daughter into your arms, and run like hell to the nearest police station. Your enraged husband trailing behind you, spattering insults. Your heart pounds as you thrust through the doors of the nearest police station, while your husband is seized by 2 officers. If you were living in a country where rape is criminalized, your husband would go to jail for what he has done to you.

If you were in one of the estimated 127 countries that do not criminalize rape within marriage, the story would unfold quite differently. In other countries, such as Singapore, you would be transferred to a hospital, inspected, and sent on your way. Your husband would face charges against the physical damage he has induced but charges of rape would be disregarded.

This is because marital rape isn’t a widely known term in Singapore, nor is it well-known in Norway, or several other countries where rape between a husband and wife isn’t highly criminalized. Because of this, most records of marital rape go undocumented, or more commonly unspoken of.

What is even more disturbing, is that in lower-income countries, such as in various areas of Africa and India , the government would refuse involvement. A victim of marital rape would be handed back over to your husband, who would likely repeatedly beat and rape her for disobeying him. The following example is given from a woman in Kanjuu, in a quote taken by the Canadian publication, The Globe and Mail:

“He’ll kick you out of the house, send you to the bush to spend the whole night outside with the kids. He’ll burn your clothes, kill your chickens and eat them and sell your goats,” said Ms. Wanjiku.

The primary reason this is allowed in these countries is that, upon marriage, a woman gives her identity to her spouse, and with this consent for him to do with her as he pleases. It is a matter of ownership. Many men in countries in which spousal rape is legal, believe they have a right to rape their wives if they deny them sex. The publication mentioned earlier goes onto explain this is legal terms:

“Seodi White, a lawyer from Malawi who joined the group when she was a visiting scholar at the University of Toronto, added that in Africa today, violence is often a part of the bargain: a man jamming a broken piece of furniture into his wife’s vagina, another applying a python to her vagina because a witch doctor told him it would then spit out coins, still another cutting off her labia majora and selling it as a charm – all of it legal, because she is his property.”

In Africa, women are more likely to be raped than to learn to read,” notes a source. This is not only damaging to women’s rights internationally, but to so many victims themselves. And furthermore, marital rape is not just a vast issue in countries outside the U.S., but in the U.S. itself, the U.S. Bureau of Justice statistics show: “In the U.S. alone, approximately 28% of victims are raped by husbands or boyfriends.”

There is a way to fight against the horrors of marital rape, and that is by encouraging victims to speak out, and if you suspect someone of being a victim of marital rape, let them know that you are there for them. This will give them a window of hope, so chose to slip out of it. We can also sign petitions to criminalize rape in countries where it is overlooked.

Every little effort we make can make a bigger difference in the lives of many future victims, and in some cases even prevent marital rape before it happens. This way women all over the world can live not in fear, but instead in a tranquil state of security.


New Study: Fluoride Can Damage the Brain – Avoid Use in Children

New Study: Fluoride Can Damage the Brain – Avoid Use in Children

PR Newswire

NEW YORK — “The prolonged ingestion of fluoride may cause significant damage to health and particularly to the nervous system,” concludes a review of studies by researchers Valdez-Jimenez, et al. published in Neurologia (June 2011), reports New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. (NYSCOF).

The research team reports, “It is important to be aware of this serious problem and avoid the use of toothpaste and items that contain fluoride, particularly in children as they are more susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride.” (1)

“Fluoride can be toxic by ingesting one part per million (ppm), and the effects are not immediate, as they can take 20 years or more to become evident,
” they write.

Most fluoridating U.S. public drinking water suppliers add fluoride chemicals to deliver 1 ppm fluoride (equal to about 1 milligram per quart) intending to benefit teeth and not to purify the water.

“Fluoridation clearly jeopardizes our children and must be stopped,” says attorney Paul Beeber, President, NYSCOF. “We can actually see how fluoride has damaged children’s teeth with dental fluorosis; but we can’t see the harm it’s doing to their brains and other organs. No U.S. researcher is even looking,” says Beeber.

Valdez-Jimenez, et al. describe studies that show fluoride induces changes in the brain’s physical structure and biochemistry which affects the neurological and mental development of individuals including cognitive processes, such as learning and memory.

Learn more at this important article FLUORIDE – KILLING YOU SOFTLY


“Fluoride is capable of crossing the blood-brain barrier, which may cause biochemical and functional changes in the nervous system during pregnancy, since the fluoride accumulates in brain tissue before birth,” they write.*

Animal studies show fluoride’s toxic brain effects include classic brain abnormalities found in patients with Alzheimer’s disease, Valdez-Jimenez’s team reports.

A different research team (Tang et al.) reported in 2008 that “A qualitative review of the studies found a consistent and strong association between the exposure to fluoride and low IQ.” (Biological Trace Element Research) (2)

In 2006, the U.S. National Research Council’s (NRC) expert fluoride panel reviewed fluoride toxicology and concluded, “It’s apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain.” And, “Fluorides also increase the production of free radicals in the brain through several different biological pathways. These changes have a bearing on the possibility that fluorides act to increase the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease.” (3)

On April 12, 2010, Time magazine listed fluoride as one of the “Top Ten Common Household Toxins” and described fluoride as both “neurotoxic and potentially tumorigenic if swallowed.” (4)

Phyllis Mullenix, Ph.D., was the first U.S. scientist to find evidence that fluoride damages the brain. She published her animal study in a respected peer-reviewed scientific journal in 1995 (5) and then was fired for doing so.(6)

Vyvyan Howard, M.D., Ph.D., a prominent fetal toxicologist and past-President of the International Society of Doctors for the Environment, said that current brain/fluoride research convinces him that we should stop water fluoridation.

Many communities have stopped or rejected fluoridation in the past several years – the most recent is Fairbanks, Alaska. This year, seven New York City Council Members co-sponsored legislation to stop fluoridation in NYC.

*Translated from Spanish using Google Translation
References: https://groups.google.com/d/topic/fluoridation-news-releases/rD7pCONMcLw/discussion

Contact: Paul Beeber, JD, 516-433-8882 [email protected]

SOURCE NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation



Forensic evidence emerges that European e.coli superbug was bioengineered to produce human fatalities

Kevin Adams

(NaturalNews) Even as the veggie blame game is now under way across the EU, where a super resistant strain of e.coli is sickening patients and filling hospitals in Germany, virtually no one is talking about how e.coli could have magically become resistant to eight different classes of antibiotic drugs and then suddenly appeared in the food supply.

This particular e.coli variation is a member of the O104 strain, and O104 strains are almost never (normally) resistant to antibiotics. In order for them to acquire this resistance, they must be repeatedly exposed to antibiotics in order to provide the “mutation pressure” that nudges them toward complete drug immunity.

So if you’re curious about the origins of such a strain, you can essentially reverse engineer the genetic code of the e.coli and determine fairly accurately which antibiotics it was exposed to during its development. This step has now been done (see below), and when you look at the genetic decoding of this O104 strain now threatening food consumers across the EU, a fascinating picture emerges of how it must have come into existence.

The genetic code reveals the history

When scientists at Germany’s Robert Koch Institute decoded the genetic makeup of the O104 strain, they found it to be resistant to all the following classes and combinations of antibiotics:

• tetracycline
• nalidixic acid
• trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazol
• cephalosporins
• amoxicillin / clavulanic acid
• piperacillin-sulbactam
• piperacillin-tazobactam

In addition, this O104 strain posses an ability to produce special enzymes that give it what might be called “bacteria superpowers” known technically as ESBLs:

Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamases (ESBLs) are enzymes that can be produced by bacteria making them resistant to cephalosporins e.g. cefuroxime, cefotaxime and ceftazidime – which are the most widely used antibiotics in many hospitals,” explains the Health Protection Agency in the UK (http://www.hpa.org.uk/Topics/Infect…).

On top of that, this O104 strain possesses two genes — TEM-1 and CTX-M-15 — that “have been making doctors shudder since the 1990s,” reports The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis…). And why do they make doctors shudder? Because they’re so deadly that many people infected with such bacteria experience critical organ failure and simply die.

Bioengineering a deadly superbug

So how, exactly, does a bacterial strain come into existence that’s resistant to over a dozen antibiotics in eight different drug classes and features two deadly gene mutations plus ESBL enzyme capabilities?

There’s really only one way this happens (and only one way) — you have to expose this strain of e.coli to all eight classes of antibiotics drugs. Usually this isn’t done at the same time, of course: You first expose it to penicillin and find the surviving colonies which are resistant to penicillin. You then take those surviving colonies and expose them to tetracycline. The surviving colonies are now resistant to both penicillin and tetracycline. You then expose them to a sulfa drug and collect the surviving colonies from that, and so on. It is a process of genetic selection done in a laboratory with a desired outcome. This is essentially how some bioweapons are engineered by the U.S. Army in its laboratory facility in Ft. Detrick, Maryland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation…).

Although the actual process is more complicated than this, the upshot is that creating a strain of e.coli that’s resistant to eight classes of antibiotics requires repeated, sustained expose to those antibiotics. It is virtually impossible to imagine how this could happen all by itself in the natural world. For example, if this bacteria originated in the food (as we’ve been told), then where did it acquire all this antibiotic resistance given the fact that antibiotics are not used in vegetables?

When considering the genetic evidence that now confronts us, it is difficult to imagine how this could happen “in the wild.” While resistance to a single antibiotic is common, the creation of a strain of e.coli that’s resistant to eight different classes of antibiotics — in combination — simply defies the laws of genetic permutation and combination in the wild. Simply put, this superbug e.coli strain could not have been created in the wild. And that leaves only one explanation for where it really came from: the lab.

Engineered and then released into the wild

The evidence now points to this deadly strain of e.coli being engineered and then either being released into the food supply or somehow escaping from a lab and entering the food supply inadvertently. If you disagree with that conclusion — and you’re certainly welcome to — then you are forced to conclude that this octobiotic superbug (immune to eight classes of antibiotics) developed randomly on its own… and that conclusion is far scarier than the “bioengineered” explanation because it means octobiotic superbugs can simply appear anywhere at any time without cause. That would be quite an exotic theory indeed.

My conclusion actually makes more sense: This strain of e.coli was almost certainly engineered and then released into the food supply for a specific purpose. What would that purpose be? It’s obvious, I hope.

It’s all problem, reaction, solution at work here. First cause a PROBLEM (a deadly strain of e.coli in the food supply). Then wait for the public REACTION (huge outcry as the population is terrorized by e.coli). In response to that, enact your desired SOLUTION (total control over the global food supply and the outlawing of raw sprouts, raw milk and raw vegetables).

That’s what this is all about, of course. The FDA relied on the same phenomenon in the USA when pushing for its recent “Food Safety Modernization Act” which essentially outlaws small family organic farms unless they lick the boots of FDA regulators. The FDA was able to crush farm freedom in America by piggybacking on the widespread fear that followed e.coli outbreaks in the U.S. food supply. When people are afraid, remember, it’s not difficult to get them to agree to almost any level of regulatory tyranny. And making people afraid of their food is a simple matter… a few government press releases emailed to the mainstream media news affiliates is all it takes.

First ban the natural medicine, then attack the food supply

Now, remember: All this is happening on the heels of the EU ban on medicinal herbs and nutritional supplements — a ban that blatantly outlaws nutritional therapies that help keep people healthy and free from disease. Now that all these herbs and supplements are outlawed, the next step is to make people afraid of fresh food, too. That’s because fresh vegetables are medicinal, and as long as the public has the right to buy fresh vegetables, they can always prevent disease.

But if you can make people AFRAID of fresh vegetables — or even outlaw them altogether — then you can force the entire population onto a diet of dead foods and processed foods that promote degenerative disease and bolster the profits of the powerful drug companies.

It’s all part of the same agenda, you see: Keep people sick, deny them access to healing herbs and supplements, then profit from their suffering at the hands of the global drug cartels.

GMOs play a similar role in all this, of course: They’re designed to contaminate the food supply with genetic code that causes widespread infertility among human beings. And those who are somehow able to reproduce after exposure to GMOs still suffer from degenerative disease that enriches the drug companies from “treatment.”

Do you recall which country was targeted in this recent e.coli scare? Spain. Why Spain? You may recall that leaked cables from Wikileaks revealed that Spain resisted the introduction of GMOs into its agricultural system, even as the U.S. government covertly threatened political retaliation for its resistance. This false blaming of Spain for the e.coli deaths is probably retaliation for Spain’s unwillingness to jump on the GMO bandwagon. (http://www.naturalnews.com/030828_G…)

That’s the real story behind the economic devastation of Spain’s vegetable farmers. It’s one of the subplots being pursued alongside this e.coli superbug scheme.

Food as weapons of war – created by Big Pharma?

By the way, the most likely explanation of where this strain of e.coli was bioengineered is that the drug giants came up with it in their own labs. Who else has access to all the antibiotics and equipment needed to manage the targeted mutations of potentially thousands of e.coli colonies? The drug companies are uniquely positioned to both carry out this plot and profit from it. In other words, they have the means and the motive to engage in precisely such actions.

Aside from the drug companies, perhaps only the infectious disease regulators themselves have this kind of laboratory capacity. The CDC, for example, could probably pull this off if they really wanted to.

The proof that somebody bioengineered this e.coli strain is written right in the DNA of the bacteria. That’s forensic evidence, and what it reveals cannot be denied. This strain underwent repeated and prolonged exposure to eight different classes of antibiotics, and then it somehow managed to appear in the food supply. How do you get to that if not through a well-planned scheme carried out by rogue scientists? There is no such thing as “spontaneous mutation” into a strain that is resistant to the top eight classes of brand-name antibiotic drugs being sold by Big Pharma today. Such mutations have to be deliberate.

Once again, if you disagree with this assessment, then what you’re saying is that NO, it wasn’t done deliberately… it happened accidentally! And again, I’m saying that’s even scarier! Because that means the antibiotic contamination of our world is now at such an extreme level of overkill that a strain of e.coli in the wild can be saturated with eight different classes of antibiotics to the point where it naturally develops into its own deadly superbug. If that’s what people believe, then that’s almost a scarier theory than the bioengineering explanation!

A new era has begun: Bioweapons in your food

But in either case — no matter what you believe — the simple truth is that the world is now facing a new era of global superbug strains of bacteria that can’t be treated with any known pharmaceutical. They can all, of course, be readily killed with colloidal silver, which is exactly why the FDA and world health regulators have viciously attacked colloidal silver companies all these years: They can’t have the public getting its hands on natural antibiotics that really work, you see. That would defeat the whole purpose of making everybody sick in the first place.

In fact, these strains of e.coli superbugs can be quite readily treated with a combination of natural full-spectrum antibiotics from plants such as garlic, ginger, onions and medicinal herbs. On top of that, probiotics can help balance the flora of the digestive tract and “crowd out” the deadly e.coli that might happen by. A healthy immune system and well-functioning digestive tract can fight off an e.coli superbug infection, but that’s yet another fact the medical community doesn’t want you to know. They much prefer you to remain a helpless victim lying in the hospital, waiting to die, with no options available to you. That’s “modern medicine” for ya. They cause the problems that they claim to treat, and then they won’t even treat you with anything that works in the first place.

Nearly all the deaths now attributable to this e.coli outbreak are easily and readily avoidable. These are deaths of ignorance. But even more, they may also be deaths from a new era of food-based bioweapons unleashed by either a group of mad scientists or an agenda-driven institution that has declared war on the human population.


Doctors on why they avoid naked body scanners at airports

Doctors on why they avoid naked body scanners at airports

Ethan A. Huff

For those still contemplating whether or not the radiation emitted from airport naked body scanners is serious enough to avoid, you may be interested to know that many doctors routinely “opt out” and choose the full-body pat down instead because they recognize the inherent dangers associated with any level of radiation exposure. A recent CNN piece explains that for many doctors, avoiding all sources of radiation whenever possible is just the smart thing to do.

Throughout the past year, NaturalNews has covered many stories related to the US Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) controversial naked body scanners, which are now installed and in use at nearly 80 US airports (http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/ai…). Besides representing an unconstitutional invasion of privacy (http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/ai…), the scanners blast passengers with full-body doses of health-destroying radiation (http://www.naturalnews.com/naked_bo…).

So what do medical doctors who fly have to say about the machines? Well, according to CNN’s Elizabeth Cohen who recently conducted her own small investigation, many are concerned about the radiation these scanners emit. In fact, Cohen quotes several doctors who express concern about the cumulative effects of repeated radiation exposure, even if such exposure is supposedly miniscule and below established thresholds for causing harm.

“I do whatever I can to avoid the scanner. This is a total body scan — not a dental or chest X-ray
,” said Dr. Len Lichtenfield to Cohen in an email. “Total body radiation is not something I find very comforting based on my medical knowledge.”

Another doctor explained that there is “no absolutely safe dose of radiation,” and that “each exposure is additive.” So even if the supposedly low radiation doses emitted from the naked body scanners are as low as TSA and the machines’ manufacturers claim they are, habitual exposure will still cause bodily harm.

Even Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society (ACS) expressed concern about whether the safety of them machines, and whether or not TSA is properly maintaining and testing them for safety. After all, TSA refused to release safety reports for quite some time, and when they did, the bungled reports explained nothing more than TSA’s high level of incompetence (http://www.naturalnews.com/031792_a…).

Back in December, radiation scientists admitted that naked body scanners are fully capable of causing both sperm mutations and cancer, despite insistence by authorities to the contrary (http://www.naturalnews.com/030607_n…). Other reports suggest that nobody really knows how much radiation is actually emitted from naked body scanners due to flawed and inconclusive safety tests (http://www.naturalnews.com/031792_a…)

Psychiatric drugs are worthless, and most of them are harmful.

Cure or Quackery?
by Lawrence Stevens, J.D.

Psychiatric drugs are worthless, and most of them are harmful. Many cause permanent brain damage at the doses customarily given. Psychiatric drugs and the profession that promotes them are dangers to your health.

The Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry/IV, published in 1985, says “The tricyclic-type drugs are the most effective class of anti-depressants” (Williams & Wilkins, p. 1520). But in his book Overcoming Depression, published in 1981, Dr. Andrew Stanway, a British physician, says “If anti-depressant drugs were really as effective as they are made out to be, surely hospital admission rates for depression would have fallen over the twenty years they’ve been available. Alas, this has not happened. … Many trials have found that tricyclics are only marginally more effective than placebos, and some have even found that they are not as effective as dummy tablets” (Hamlyn Publishing Group, Ltd., p. 159-160). In his textbook Electroconvulsive Therapy, Richard Abrams, M.D., Professor of Psychiatry at Chicago Medical School, explains the reason for the 1988 edition of his book updating the edition published 6 years earlier: “During these six years interest in ECT has bourgeoned. … What is responsible for this volte-face in American psychiatry? Disenchantment with the antidepressants, perhaps. None has been found that is therapeutically superior to imipramine [a tricyclic], now over 30 years old, and the more recently introduced compounds are often either less effective or more toxic than the older drugs, or both” (Oxford Univ. Press, p. xi). In this book, Dr. Abrams says “despite manufacturers’ claims, no significant progress in the pharmacological treatment of depression has occurred since the introduction of imipramine in 1958” (p. 7). In the Foreword to this book, Max Fink, M.D., a psychiatry professor at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, says the reason for increased use of electroconvulsive “therapy” (ECT) as a treatment for depression is what he calls “Disappointment with the efficacy of psychotropic drugs” (p. vii). In his book Psychiatric Drugs: Hazards to the Brain, published in 1983, psychiatrist Peter Breggin, M.D., asserts: “The most fundamental point to be made about the most frequently used major antidepressants is that they have no specifically antidepressant effect. Like the major tranquilizers to which they are so closely related, they are highly neurotoxic and brain disabling, and achieve their impact through the disruption of normal brain function. … Only the `clinical opinion’ of drug advocates supports any antidepressant effect” of so-called antidepressant drugs (Springer Pub. Co., pp. 160 & 184). An article in the February 7, 1994 Newsweek magazine says that “Prozac…and its chemical cousins Zoloft and Paxil are no more effective than older treatments for depression” (p. 41). Most of the people I have talked to who have taken so-called antidepressants, including Prozac, say the drug didn’t work for them. This casts doubt on the often made claim that 60% or more of the people who take supposedly antidepressant drugs benefit from them.

Lithium is said to be helpful for people whose mood repeatedly changes from joyful to despondent and back again. Psychiatrists call this manic-depressive disorder or bipolar mood disorder. Lithium was first described as a psychiatric drug in 1949 by an Australian psychiatrist, John Cade. According to a psychiatric textbook: “While conducting animal experiments, Cade had somewhat incidentally noted that lithium made the animals lethargic, thus prompting him to administer this drug to several agitated psychiatric patients.” The textbook describes this as “a pivotal moment in the history of psychopharmacology” (Harold I. Kaplan, M.D. & Benjamin J. Sadock, M.D., Clinical Psychiatry, Williams & Wilkins, 1988, p. 342). However, if you don’t want to be lethargic, taking lithium would seem to be of dubious benefit. A supporter of lithium as psychiatric therapy admits lithium causes “a mildly depressed, generally lethargic feeling”. He calls it “the standard lethargy” caused by lithium (Roger Williams, “A Hasty Decision? Coping in the Aftermath of a Manic-Depressive Episode”, American Health magazine, October 1991, p. 20). Similarly, one of my relatives was diagnosed as manic-depressive and was given a prescription for lithium carbonate. He told me, years later, “Lithium insulated me from the highs but not from the lows.” It should be no surprise a lethargy-inducing drug like lithium would have this effect. Amazingly, psychiatrists sometimes claim lithium wards off feelings of depression even though, if anything, lethargy-inducing drugs like lithium (like most psychiatric drugs) promote feelings of despondency and unhappiness – even if they are called antidepressants.

Among the most widely used psychiatric drugs are the ones called minor tranquilizers, including Valium, Librium, Xanax, and Halcion. Doctors who prescribe them say they have calming, anti-anxiety, panic-suppressing effects or are useful as sleeping pills. Anyone who believes these claims should go to the nearest library and read the article “High Anxiety” in the January 1993 Consumer Reports magazine, or read Chapter 11 in Toxic Psychiatry (St. Martin’s Press, 1991), by psychiatrist Peter Breggin, both of which allege the opposite is closer to the truth. Like all or almost all psychiatric drugs, the so-called minor tranquilizers don’t cure anything but are merely brain-disabling drugs. In one clinical trial, 70 percent of persons taking Halcion “developed memory loss, depression and paranoia” (“Halcion manufacturer Upjohn Co. defends controversial sleeping drug”, Miami Herald, December 17, 1991, p. 13A). According to the February 17, 1992 Newsweek, “Four countries have banned the drug outright” (p. 58). In his book Toxic Psychiatry, psychiatrist Peter Breggin, speaking of the minor tranquilizers, says “As with most psychiatric drugs, the use of the medication eventually causes an increase of the very symptoms that the drug is supposed to ameliorate” (ibid, p. 246).

Contrary to the claim major and minor tranquilizers and so-called antidepressants are useful as sleeping pills, their real effect is to inhibit or block real sleep. When I sat in on a psychiatry class with a medical student friend, the professor told us “Research has shown we do not need to sleep, but we do need to dream.” The dream phase of sleep is the critical part. Most psychiatric drugs, including those promoted as sleeping medications or tranquilizers, inhibit this critical dream-phase of sleep, inducing a state that looks like sleep but actually is a dreamless unconscious state – not sleep. Sleep, in other words, is an important mental activity that is impaired or stopped by most psychiatric drugs. A self-help magazine advises: “Do not take sleeping pills unless under doctor’s orders, and then for no more than 10 consecutive nights. Besides losing their effectiveness and becoming addictive, sleep-inducing medications reduce or prevent the dream-stage of sleep necessary for mental health” (Going Bonkers? magazine, premiere issue, p. 75). In The Brain Book, University of Rhode Island professor Peter Russell, Ph.D., says “During sleep, particularly during dreaming periods, proteins and other chemicals in the brain used up during the day are replenished” (Plume, 1979, p. 76). Sleep deprivation experiments on normal people show loss of sleep causes hallucinations if continued long enough (Maya Pines, The Brain Changers, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1973, p. 105). So what would seem to be the consequences of taking drugs that inhibit or block real sleep?

Even as harmful as psychiatry’s (so-called) antidepressants and lithium and (so-called) antianxiety agents (or minor tranquilizers) are, they are nowhere near as damaging as the so-called major tranquilizers, sometimes also called “antipsychotic” or “antischizophrenic” or “neuroleptic” drugs. Included in this category are Thorazine (chlorpromazine), Mellaril, Prolixin (fluphenazine), Compazine, Stelazine, and Haldol (haloperidol) – and many others. In terms of their psychological effects, these so-called major tranquilizers cause misery – not tranquility. They physically, neurologically blot out most of a person’s ability to think and act, even at commonly given doses. By disabling people, they can stop almost any thinking or behavior the “therapist” wants to stop. But this is simply disabling people, not therapy. The drug temporarily disables or permanently destroys good aspects of a person’s personality as much as bad. Whether and to what extent the disability imposed by the drug can be removed by discontinuing the drug depends on how long the drug is given and at how great a dose. The so-called major tranquilizer/ antipsychotic/neuroleptic drugs damage the brain more clearly, severely, and permanently than any others used in psychiatry. Joyce G. Small, M.D., and Iver F. Small, M.D., both Professors of Psychiatry at Indiana University, criticize psychiatrists who use “psychoactive medications that are known to have neurotoxic effects”, and speak of “the increasing recognition of long-lasting and sometimes irreversible impairments in brain function induced by neuroleptic drugs. In this instance the evidence of brain damage is not subtle, but is grossly obvious even to the casual observer!” (Behavioral and Brain Sciences, March 1984, Vol. 7, p. 34). According to Conrad M. Swartz, Ph.D., M.D., Professor of Psychiatry at Chicago Medical School, “While neuroleptics relieve psychotic anxiety, their tranquilization blunts fine details of personality, including initiative, emotional reactivity, enthusiasm, sexiness, alertness, and insight. … This is in addition to side effects, usually involuntary movements which can be permanent and are hence evidence of brain damage” (Behavioral and Brain Sciences, March 1984, Vol. 7, pp. 37-38). A report in 1985 in the Mental and Physical Disability Law Reporter indicates courts in the United States have finally begun to consider involuntary administration of the so-called major tranquilizer/antipsychotic/neuroleptic drugs to involve First Amendment rights “Because…antipsychotic drugs have the capacity to severely and even permanently affect an individual’s ability to think and communicate” (“Involuntary medication claims go forward”, January-February 1985, p. 26 – emphasis added). In Molecules of the Mind: The Brave New Science of Molecular Psychology, Professor Jon Franklin observed: “This era coincided with an increasing awareness that the neuroleptics not only did not cure schizophrenia – they actually caused damage to the brain. Suddenly, the psychiatrists who used them, already like their patients on the fringes of society, were suspected of Nazism and worse” (Dell Pub. Co., 1987, p. 103). In his book Psychiatric Drugs: Hazards to the Brain, psychiatrist Peter Breggin, M.D., alleges that by using drugs that cause brain damage, “Psychiatry has unleashed an epidemic of neurological disease on the world” one which “reaches 1 million to 2 million persons a year” (op. cit., pp. 109 & 108). In severe cases, brain damage from neuroleptic drugs is evidenced by abnormal body movements called tardive dyskinesia. However, tardive dyskinesia is only the tip of the iceberg of neuroleptic caused brain damage. Higher mental functions are more vulnerable and are impaired before the elementary functions of the brain such as motor control. Psychiatry professor Richard Abrams, M.D., has acknowledged that “Tardive dyskinesia has now been reported to occur after only brief courses of neuroleptic drug therapy” (in: Benjamin B. Wolman (editor), The Therapist’s Handbook: Treatment Methods of Mental Disorders, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1976, p. 25). In his book The New Psychiatry, published in 1985, Columbia University psychiatry professor Jerrold S. Maxmen, M.D., alleges: “The best way to avoid tardive dyskinesia is to avoid antipsychotic drugs altogether. Except for treating schizophrenia, they should never be used for more than two or three consecutive months. What’s criminal is that all too many patients receive antipsychotics who shouldn’t” (Mentor, pp. 155-156). In fact, Dr. Maxmen doesn’t go far enough. His characterization of administration of the so-called antipsychotic/anti-schizophrenic/major tranquilizer/neuroleptic drugs as “criminal” is accurate for all people, including those called schizophrenic, even when the drugs aren’t given long enough for the resulting brain damage to show up as tardive dyskinesia. The author of the Preface of a book by four physicians published in 1980, Tardive Dyskinesia: Research & Treatment, made these remarks: “In the late 1960s I summarized the literature on tardive dyskinesia … The majority of psychiatrists either ignored the existence of the problem or made futile efforts to prove that these motor abnormalities were clinically insignificant or unrelated to drug therapy. In the meantime the number of patients affected by tardive dyskinesia increased and the symptoms became worse in those already afflicted by this condition. … there are few investigators or clinicians who still have doubts about the iatrogenic [physician caused] nature of tardive dyskinesia. … It is evident that the more one learns about the toxic effects of neuroleptics on the central nervous system, the more one sees an urgent need to modify our current practices of drug use. It is unfortunate that many practitioners continue to prescribe psychotropics in excessive amounts, and that a considerable number of mental institutions have not yet developed a policy regarding the management and prevention of tardive dyskinesia. If this book, which reflects the opinions of the experts in this field, can make a dent in the complacency of many psychiatrists, it will be no small accomplishment” (in: William E. Fann, M.D., et al., Tardive Dyskinesia: Research & Treatment, SP Medical & Scientific). In Psychiatric Drugs: Hazards to the Brain, psychiatrist Peter Breggin, M.D., says this: “The major tranquilizers are highly toxic drugs; they are poisonous to various organs of the body. They are especially potent neurotoxins, and frequently produce permanent damage to the brain. … tardive dyskinesia can develop in low-dose, short-term usage… the dementia [loss of higher mental functions] associated with the tardive dyskinesia is not usually reversible. … Seldom have I felt more saddened or more dismayed than by psychiatry’s neglect of the evidence that it is causing irreversible lobotomy effects, psychosis, and dementia in millions of patients as a result of treatment with the major tranquilizers”(op. cit., pp. 70, 107, 135, 146).
Psychiatry professor Richard Abrams, M.D., has pointed out that “Tricyclic Antidepressants…are minor chemical modifications of chlorpromazine [Thorazine] and were introduced as potential neuroleptics” (in: B. Wolman, The Therapist’s Handbook, op. cit., p. 31). In his book Psychiatric Drugs: Hazards to the Brain, Dr. Breggin calls the so-called antidepressants “Major Tranquilizers in Disguise” (p. 166). Psychiatrist Mark S. Gold, M.D., has said antidepressants can cause tardive dyskinesia (The Good News About Depression, Bantam, 1986, p. 259).
Why do the so-called patients accept such “medication”? Sometimes they do so out of ignorance about the neurological damage to which they are subjecting themselves by following their psychiatrist’s advice to take the “medication”. But much if not most of the time, neuroleptic drugs are literally forced into the bodies of the “patients” against their wills. In his book Psychiatric Drugs: Hazards to the Brain, psychiatrist Peter Breggin, M.D., says “Time and again in my clinical experience I have witnessed patients driven to extreme anguish and outrage by having major tranquilizers forced on them. … The problem is so great in routine hospital practice that a large percentage of patients have to be threatened with forced intramuscular injection before they will take the drugs” (p. 45).

Forced administration of a psychiatric drug (or a so-called treatment like electroshock) is a kind of tyranny that can be compared, physically and morally, with rape. Compare sexual rape and involuntarily administration of a psychiatric drug injected intramuscularly into the buttocks, which is the part of the anatomy where the injection usually is given: In both sexual rape and involuntary administration of a psychiatric drug, force is used. In both cases, the victim’s pants are pulled down. In both cases, a tube is inserted into the victim’s body against her (or his) will. In the case of sexual rape, the tube is a penis. In the case of what could be called psychiatric rape, the tube is a hypodermic needle. In both cases, a fluid is injected into the victim’s body against her or his will. In both cases it is in (or near) the derriere. In the case of sexual rape the fluid is semen. In the case of psychiatric rape, the fluid is Thorazine, Prolixin or some other brain-disabling drug. The fact of bodily invasion is similar in both cases if not (for reasons I’ll explain) actually worse in the case of psychiatric rape. So is the sense of outrage in the mind of the victim of each type of assault. As psychiatry professor Thomas Szasz once said, “violence is violence, regardless of whether it is called psychiatric illness or psychiatric treatment.” Some who are not “hospitalized” (that is, imprisoned) are forced to report to a doctor’s office for injections of a long-acting neuroleptic like Prolixin every two weeks by the threat of imprisonment (“hospitalization”) and forced injection of the drug if they don’t comply.

Why is psychiatric rape worse than sexual rape? As brain surgeon I. S. Cooper, M.D., said in his autobiography: “It is your brain that sees, feels, thinks, commands, responds. You are your brain. It is you. Transplanted into another carrier, another body, your brain would supply it with your memories, your thoughts, your emotions. It would still be you. The new body would be your container. It would carry you around. Your brain is you” (The Vital Probe: My Life as a Brain Surgeon, W.W.Norton & Co., 1982, p. 50-emphasis in original). The most essential and most intimate part of you is not what is between your legs but what is between your ears. An assault on a person’s brain such as involuntary administration of a brain-disabling or brain-damaging “treatment” (such as a psychoactive drug or electroshock or psychosurgery) is a more intimate and morally speaking more horrible crime than sexual rape. Psychiatric rape is in moral terms a worse crime than sexual rape for another reason, also: The involuntary administration of psychiatry’s biological “therapies” cause permanent impairment of brain function. In contrast, women usually are still fully sexually functional after being sexually raped. They suffer psychological harm, but so do the victims of psychiatric assault. I hope I will not be understood as belittling the trauma or wrongness of sexual rape if I point out that I have counselled sexually raped women in my law practice and that each of the half-dozen or so women I have known who have been sexually raped have gone on to have apparently normal sexual relationships, and in most cases marriages and families. In contrast, the brains of people subjected to psychiatric assault often are not as fully functional because of the physical, biological harm done by the “treatment”. On a TV talk show in 1990, psychoanalyst Jeffrey Masson, Ph.D., said he hopes those responsible for such “therapies” will one day face “Nurnburg trials” (Geraldo, Nov. 30, 1990).

These very same brain-damaging (so-called) neuroleptic/antipsychotic drugs are routinely administered – involuntarily – to mentally healthy old people in nursing homes in the United States. According to an article in the September/October 1991 issue of In-Health magazine, “In nursing homes, antipsychotics are used on anywhere from 21 to 44 percent of the institutionalized elderly… half of the antipsychotics prescribed for nursing home residents could not be explained by the diagnosis in the patient’s chart. Researchers suspect the drugs are commonly used by such institutions as chemical straightjackets – a means of pacifying unruly patients” (p. 28). I know of two examples of feeble old men in nursing homes who were barely able to get out of their wheelchairs who were given a neuroleptic/antipsychotic drug. One complained because he was strapped into a wheelchair to prevent his attempts to try to walk with his cane. The other was strapped into his bed at night to prevent him from getting up and falling when going to the bathroom, necessitating defecating in his bed. Both were so physically disabled they posed no danger to anyone. But both dared complain bitterly about how they were mistreated. In both cases the nursing home staffs responded to these complaints with injections of Haldol – mentally disabling these men, thereby making it impossible for them to complain. The use of these damaging drugs on nursing home residents who are not considered to have psychiatric problems shows that their real purpose is control, not therapy. Therapeutic claims for neuroleptic drugs are rationalizations without factual support.

Studies indicating psychiatric drugs are helpful are of dubious credibility because of professional bias. All or almost all psychiatric drugs are neurotoxic and for this reason cause symptoms and problems such as dry mouth, blurred vision, lightheadedness, dizziness, lethargy, difficulty thinking, menstrual irregularities, urinary retention, heart palpitations, and other consequences of neurological dysfunction. Psychiatrists deceptively call these “side-effects”, even though they are the only real effects of today’s psychiatric drugs. Placebos (or sugar pills) don’t cause these problems. Since these symptoms (or their absence) are obvious to psychiatrists evaluating psychiatric drugs in supposedly double-blind drug trials, the drug trials aren’t really double-blind, making it impossible to evaluate psychiatric drugs impartially. This allows professional bias to skew the results.

Despite various unverified theories and claims, psychiatrists don’t know how the drugs they use work biologically. In the words of Columbia University psychiatry professor Jerrold S. Maxmen, M.D.: “How psychotropic drugs work is not clear” (The New Psychiatry, Mentor, 1985, p. 143). Experience has shown that the effect of all of today’s commonly used psychiatric drugs is to disable the brain in a generalized way. None of today’s psychiatric drugs have the specificity (e.g., for depression or anxiety or psychosis) that is often claimed for them.

It is often asserted that taking a psychiatric drug is like taking insulin for diabetes. Although psychiatric drugs are taken continuously, as is insulin – it’s an absurd analogy. Diabetes is a disease with a known physical cause. No physical cause has been found for any of today’s so-called mental illnesses. The mode of action of insulin is known: It is a hormone that instructs or causes cells to uptake dietary glucose (sugar). In contrast, the modes of action of psychiatry’s drugs are unknown – although advocates of psychiatric drugs as well as critics theorize they prevent normal brain functioning by blocking neuroreceptors in the brain. If this theory is correct it is another contrast between taking insulin and taking a psychiatric drug: Insulin restores a normal biological function, namely, normal glucose (or sugar) metabolism. Psychiatric drugs interfere with a normal biological function, namely, normal neuroreceptor functioning. Insulin is a hormone that is found naturally in the body. Psychiatry’s drugs are not normally found in the body. Insulin gives a diabetic’s body a capability it would not have in the absence of insulin, namely, the ability to metabolize dietary sugar normally. Psychiatric drugs have an opposite kind of effect: They take away (mental) capabilities the person would have in the absence of the drug. Insulin affects the body rather than mind. Psychiatric drugs disable the brain and hence the mind, the mind being the essence of the real self.

THE AUTHOR, Lawrence Stevens, is a lawyer whose practice has included representing psychiatric “patients”. His pamphlets are not copyrighted. You are invited to make copies for distribution to those who you think will benefit.


DOWNLOAD AS PAMPHLET – Click on this link to download a file from which you can print a copy of this article, “Psychiatric Drugs: Cure or Quackery?,” in pamphlet form. You will need 8½ by 14 inch paper, a printer capable of Hewlett-Packard Laserjet (PCL 5) emulation, and Corel WordPerfect for Microsoft Windows 95/98. Printer capable of duplexing (i.e., double-sided printing) is recommended. See printing instructions. Most Kinko’s Copy shops in the USA and Canada have the needed hardware and software, often including a duplexing printer, to download and print pamphlets from this website.


1997 UPDATE:
The following is an excerpt from “What is Schizophrenia?” by William C. Wirshing, M.D.:
… 3. Coincident with this observed antipsychotic effect [of Thorazine] was a curious neurotoxicity clinically indistinguishable from idiopathic Parkinson’s disease. They [the drug’s discoverers and developers] were, in fact, so impressed with this correlation that they suggested to their colleagues that patients be dosed to this ‘neuroleptic threshold.’ Thus, toxicity fell into a lockstep with efficacy in the minds of all clinicians and basic researchers who dealt with these molecules. The task that then fell to the basic researchers and the medicinal chemists was, ‘How does Thorazine work?’ The short answer to this question is that, even after a half century of toil, medical science is still not quite sure. … Unfortunately, even in 1997, there is no way to screen a drug preclinically (i.e., in animal or other nonhuman models) for antischizophrenic potency. It appears that the liability to get schizophrenia is uniquely human. The liability, however, to manifest parkinsonism, on the other hand, is shared by many mammalian species. Therefore, if the original clinical observation linking neurotoxicity (the parkinsonism) and antipsychotic efficacy was correct, then all one had to do is search for a molecule that induced neurotoxicity in animals. When given to humans, this would not only induce the neurotoxicity but would result in antipsychotic efficacy. And this is what was done, over and over again-nearly 250 molecules have been elaborated in roughly this fashion during the last half century. Said another way, these drugs were discovered and developed because they produce neurotoxicity in animals. This, therefore, is their primary effect. Clinicians exploit the fortuitous co-occurrence of the side effect of antipsychotic potency. It should be no surprise then that all available “conventional” antipsychotic cornpounds produce neurotoxicity – this is what they were designed to do. … 1) All conventional antipsychotic medications not only shared antipsychotic potential, they also shared neurotoxic liabilities – they are called, after all, ‘neuroleptics,’ which roughly translates as ‘neurotoxic.’ … So then, how does clozapine work? Again, no one knows the answer. [emphasis added]
The author, Willian C. Wirshing, M.D., is an associate professor of psychiatry at UCLA Medical School and director of the Movement Disorders Laboratory at the Brentwood VA Medical Center as well as a member of The JOURNAL Advisory Board and its medical editor.
1998 UPDATE:
The following statements are made by Michael J. Murphy, M.D., M.P.H., Clinical Fellow in Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School; Ronald L. Cowan, M.D., Ph.D., Clinical Fellow in Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School; and Lloyd I. Sederer, M.D., Associate Professor of Clinical Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, in their textbook Blueprints in Psychiatry (Blackwell Science, Inc., Malden, Massachusetts, 1998):
“The mechanism of action of lithium in the treatment of mania is not well determined.” (p. 57)
“The mechanism of action of valproate is likely to be its augmentation of GABA function in the CNS [central nervous system].” (p. 58 – underline added)
“The mechanism of action of carbamazepine in bipolar illness is unknown.” (p. 59)
“Antidepressants are thought to exert their effects at particular subsets of neuronal synapses throughout the brain. … SSRIs [e.g., Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft] act by binding to presynaptic serotonin reuptake proteins … TCAs [TriCyclic Antidepressants] act by blocking presynaptic reuptake of both serotonin and norepinephrine. MAOIs [Mono Amine Oxidase Inhibitors] act by inhibiting the presynaptic enzyme (monoamine oxidase) … These immediate mechanisms of action are not sufficient to explain the delayed antidepressant effects (typically 2 to 4 weeks). Other unknown mechanisms must play a role in the successful psychopharmacologic treatment of depression. … all antidepressants have roughly the same efficacy in treating depression … [Only] approximately 50% of patients who meet DSM-IV criteria for major depression will recover with a single adequate trial (at least 6 weeks at a therapeutic dosage) of an antidepressant.” (p. 54 – underline added)
Comment by web-master Douglas Smith: Of course, about half of all despondent or “depressed” people will feel significantly better in 6 weeks without “medication,” too. What psychiatrists call “other unknown mechanisms” is just the passage of time.

See quotations in book review of Your Drug May Be Your Problem by Peter R. Breggin, M.D., and David Cohen, Ph.D., published in 1999.

No Prescription for Happiness: Could it be that antidepressants do little more than placebos?” by Thomas J. Moore, author of Prescription for Disaster, Boston Globe, October 17, 1999.

There is now evidence SSRI (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor) antidepressants such as Prozac, Paxil, and Zoloft cause brain damage: In his book Prozac Backlash, published in 2000, Joseph Glenmullen, M.D., clinical instructor in psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, says: “In recent years, the danger of long-term side effects has emerged in association with Prozac-type drugs, making it imperative to minimize one’s exposure to them. Neurological disorders including disfiguring facial and whole body tics, indicating potential brain damage, are an increasing concern with patients on the drugs. … With related drugs targeting serotonin, there is evidence that they may effect a ‘chemical lobotomy’ by destroying the nerve endings that they target in the brain” (p. 8). He compares brain damage that seems to be caused by SSRI antidepressants (including but not limited to Prozac, Paxil, and Zoloft) to that caused by neuroleptic/major tranquilizer drugs like Thorazine, Prolixin, and Haldol. He presents evidence that the so-called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors are not selective for serotonin but affect other chemicals in the brain, including dopamine. For more information about the book, including excerpts, see the Barnes & Noble and Amazon.com websites.

“Most important, the myth of ‘accurate diagnosis’ severely narrows treatment options for many psychiatric problems and has contributed to the excessive use of medication prevalent in our country today.” Edward Drummond, M.D., Associate Medical Director at Seacoast Mental Health Center in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, in his book The Complete Guide to Psychiatric Drugs (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 2000), page 6. Dr. Drummond graduated from Tufts University School of Medicine and was trained in psychiatry at Harvard University.

“Nothing has harmed the quality of individual life in modern society more than the misbegotten belief that human suffering is driven by biological and genetic causes and can be rectified by taking drugs or undergoing electroshock therapy. … If I wanted to ruin someone’s life, I would convince the person that that biological psychiatry is right – that relationships mean nothing, that choice is impossible, and that the mechanics of a broken brain reign over our emotions and conduct. If I wanted to impair an individual’s capacity to create empathetic, loving relationships, I would prescribe psychiatric drugs, all of which blunt our highest psychological and spiritual functions.” Peter R. Breggin, M.D., in the Foreward to Reality Therapy in Action by William Glasser, M.D. (Harper Collins, 2000), p. xi (underline added).

“All psychiatric drugs produce severe biochemical imbalances and related abnormalities by interfering with the normal brain function.” Peter R. Breggin, M.D., in his book Reclaiming Our Children (Perseus Books, Cambridge, Mass., 2000), page 140.

“Suppressing Our Children’s Signals
Suppose a group of children is standing on the shore of an island waving their arms crisscross above their heads in the universal distress signal. Now imagine that a ‘hospital ship’ spots the children and comes ashore. Suppose further that the doctor orders the nurses to give the children Prozac or Ritalin to abort their signals of distress. Now suppose the ship departs without finding out why the children are alone on the island, where their parents are, what dangers are surrounding them, or even whether whey want to be rescued.
“That of course sounds ridiculous. Yet in ways small and large this is happening throughout the nation. Millions of children are desperately signaling distress and doctors are sending them home with drugs that suppress their ability to communicate their distress.”
Peter R. Breggin, M.D., in his book Reclaiming Our Children (Perseus Books, Cambridge, Mass., 2000), page 142.

U.S. News & World Report, a news magazine, referring to St. John’s Wort, an herbal preparation with supposedly anti-depressant properties, reports that “Scientists are only beginning to understand how this popular mood-elevator works in the body.” Amanda Spake, U.S. News & World Report, “Natural Hazards,” February 12, 2001, page 43 at 46.

“Neuroleptics have been found to cause a dizzying array of pathological changes in the brain.” Robert Whitaker, Mad in America: Bad Science, Bad Medicine, and the Enduring Mistreatment of the Mentally Ill, (Perseus – Cambridge, Massachusetts 2002), p. 191

A law firm has much revealing information about harm caused by Prozac and Zoloft on its web site: http://justiceseekers.com. Click on the “Prozac/Zoloft Information” link on the left edge of the page.

Protocol for Treatment of Benzodiazephine Withdrawal – by Prof. Heather Ashton, D.M., F.R.C.P. – book by a professor at the University of Newcastle, School of Neurosciences, Division of Psychiatry, about how to stop taking Xanax, Valium, Halcion, Atavan, and similar drugs. Available for $20. For information contact [email protected] or [email protected] or Geraldine Burns, 3 Searle Road, Boston, Massachusetts 02132.

Article critical of Prozac.

See also “Drugging Children with Ritalin to Curb Hyperactivity” – Antipsychiatry Coalition webmaster Douglas A. Smith’s commentary on a Time magazine cover story titled “The Age of Ritalin”


Radiation detected in Massachusetts rainwater as Fukushima crisis worsens

Radiation detected in Massachusetts rainwater as Fukushima crisis worsens

Mike Adams
March 28, 2011

The Fukushima crisis continues to worsen by the day, with nuclear experts around the world finally realizing and admitting we’ve all been lied to. “I think maybe the situation is much more serious than we were led to believe,” said Najmedin Meshkati of the University of Southern California, in a Reuters report (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011…). That same article revealed that recent radiation readings at Fukushima show “contamination 100,000 times normal in water at reactor No. 2 and 1,850 times normal in the nearby sea.”

Massachusetts rainwater has also been found to be contaminated with low levels of radiation from Fukushima, indicating just how widespread the radioactive fallout has become. It’s not just the West Coast of North America that’s vulnerable, in other words: even the East Coast could receive dangerous levels of fallout if Fukushima suffers a larger release of radioactive material into the air.

Rolling blackouts are now continuing throughout Japan due to the drop in power production from Fukushima diminishing Japan’s electricity generating capacity (http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/20…). The only reason Japan isn’t experiencing widespread power blackouts right now is because so many factories were damaged or swept away from the tsunami itself. Once a serious rebuilding effort gets underway, Japan is going to find itself critically short of electrical power.

The radiation leaking from Reactor No. 2 is now measured at 1,000 millisieverts an hour — more than enough to cause someone’s hair to fall out from a single exposure event. Radiation sickness can begin at just 100 millisieverts. The extremely high levels of radiation are, in fact, making it nearly impossible for workers to continue working at the reactor. “You’d have a lot of difficulty putting anyone in there,” said Richard Wakeford, a radiation epidemiology expert at the Dalton Nuclear Institute in Manchester. “They’re finding quite high levels of radiation fields, which is impeding their progress dealing with the situation.” (http://www.businessweek.com/news/20…)

Taiwan looking to ditch nuclear power?

The worsening Fukushima situation is also starting to spook nearby nations such as Taiwan, which also depends on nuclear power. The DPP opposition party there announced today that it wanted to see nuclear power phased out by 2025. Taiwan is a relatively small island nation, and a Fukushima-like catastrophe would leave most of the island residents with nowhere to go. And like Japan, Taiwan is also vulnerable to earthquakes and tsunamis (as well as hurricanes).

In Germany, massive demonstrations (200,000 people in four large cities) have brought the nuclear safety issue to the forefront, contributing heavily to the defeat of Merkel and the rise to power of the Green Party in southwestern Germany (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/w…). Germans tend to have very strong opposition to nuclear power, in much the same way that most Europeans despise genetically modified foods.

The nuclear power industry turns out to be just as corrupt as Big Pharma

The truth is that many nations are rethinking nuclear power right now, thanks to the corruption, cover-ups and outright deceptions that we’re now finding out were behind the Fukushima power plant catastrophe. The nuclear industry, it turns out, is one big profit incest fest where the regulators are deeply in bed with the very industry they’re supposed to regulate (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100…).

Then again, what rich, powerful industry isn’t in bed with its regulators? It’s true with Big Pharma and the FDA just as much as it is with the nuclear power industry and its corrupt regulators. Every government-run regulator eventually becomes a marketing extension of the industry it was supposed to regulate.

That’s why Big Government never really works: Most of the regulators who are supposed to protect the people inevitably end up operating as industry whores. This entire Fukushima incident is a direct result of that deep-rooted corruption coming back to haunt humanity.

Watch for more reporting on this incident here at NaturalNews.com, and subscribe to our daily email alerts to be kept up to date on the situation: http://www.naturalnews.com/ReaderRe…

The Fukushima situation is nowhere near over. Now regulators are saying this might take not just weeks or months to sort out, but even years to fully rectify.

The half life of plutonium, it turns out, is a whole lot longer than the entire history of human civilization (24,000 years) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium). We would be wise to remember what we’re playing with when we attempt to harness the power of fission.


Will the Japanese government ever reveal the truth?

As five are reported dead, will nuclear officials ever reveal the true heroics of Japan’s ‘Fukushima Fifty’?

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 3:16 AM on 20th March 2011

They are an anonymous band of lower and mid-level managers who are risking their lives at the very heart of Japan’s nuclear crisis.

But as the stricken reactors at the Fukushima nuclear plant appears to stabilise, plant owners are still remaining tight-lipped about the so-called ‘Fukushima Fifty’ – the heroes fighting to save Japan from nuclear catastrophe.

Fifty essential workers stayed behind to stop a catastrophic meltdown at the plant, as 750 of their colleagues were evacuated earlier this week when the over-heating seemed to be getting out of control.

Five are now believed to have died, 15 are injured and others have said they know the radiation will kill them as they battle to cool overheating reactors and spent fuel rods.
Dangerous job: Officials wearing protective clothing and respirators head towards the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant

Dangerous job: Officials wearing protective clothing and respirators head towards the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant
survival seed vault

The original 50 brave souls were later joined by 150 colleagues and rotated in teams to limit their exposure to the radiation spewing from over-heating spent fuel rods after a series of explosions at the site. They were today joined by scores more workers.

Japan has rallied behind the workers with relatives telling of heart-breaking messages sent at the height of the crisis.

A woman said her husband continued to work while fully aware he was being bombarded with radiation. He sent her an email saying: ‘Please continue to live well, I cannot be home for a while.’

One girl tweeted in a message translated by ABC: ‘My dad went to the nuclear plant, I’ve never seen my mother cry so hard. People at the plant are struggling, sacrificing themselves to protect you. Please dad come back alive.’

‘Continue to live well’: This woman said her husband continued to work despite the danger and sent her a heart-breaking email from the plant.

One lone woman worker, Michiko Otsuki, this week spoke up for her ‘silent’ colleagues on a Japanese social networking site to insist that they were ‘not running away’ as the crisis intensified.

She wrote in a blog translated by The Straits Times: ‘People have been flaming [plant operators] Tepco, But the staff of Tepco have refused to flee, and continue to work even at the peril of their own lives. Please stop attacking us.’

‘As a worker at Tepco and a member of the Fukushima No. 2 reactor team, I was dealing with the crisis at the scene until yesterday (Monday).’

‘In the midst of the tsunami alarm (last Friday), at 3am in the night when we couldn’t even see where we going, we carried on working to restore the reactors from where we were, right by the sea, with the realisation that this could be certain death,’ she said.

‘The machine that cools the reactor is just by the ocean, and it was wrecked by the tsunami. Everyone worked desperately to try and restore it. Fighting fatigue and empty stomachs, we dragged ourselves back to work.’

‘There are many who haven’t gotten in touch with their family members, but are facing the present situation and working hard.’

The plant operators raised the maximum radiation limit that its workers could be exposed to from 100 milisieverts to 250milisieverts as the crisis intensified.

At its peak radiation was leaking from the stricken plant at 400 milisieverts per hour and the site was abandoned for hours on Wednesday as the radiation became too dangerous. Four hours of exposure to that level of radiation would cause raditiation sickness and increase the risk of cancer.

At the height of the disaster some experts speculated that the workers were on a suicide mission.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1367929/Japan-nuclear-power-plant-As-5-dead-officials-reveal-Fukushima-Fiftys-heroics.html#ixzz1HFjIutP4

WHO warns of “serious” food radiation in disaster-hit Japan

By Risa Maeda and Kiyoshi Takenaka

TOKYO | Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:51pm GMT

TOKYO (Reuters) – The World Health Organization said on Monday that radiation in food after an earthquake damaged a Japanese nuclear plant was more serious than previously thought, eclipsing signs of progress in a battle to avert a catastrophic meltdown in its reactors.

Engineers managed to rig power cables to all six reactors at the Fukushima complex, 240 km (150 miles) north of Tokyo, and started a water pump at one of them to reverse the overheating that has triggered the world’s worst nuclear crisis in 25 years.

Some workers were later evacuated from one of the most badly damaged reactors when smoke briefly rose from the site. There was no immediate explanation for the smoke, but authorities had said earlier that pressure was building up at the No. 3 reactor.

Smoke was also seen at the No. 2 reactor.

The March 11 earthquake and tsunami left more than 21,000 people dead or missing and will cost an already beleaguered economy some $250 billion, making it the world’s costliest ever natural disaster.

The head of the U.N. atomic agency said the nuclear situation remained very serious but it would be resolved.

“I have no doubt that this crisis will be effectively overcome,” Yukiya Amano, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told an emergency board meeting.

“We see a light for getting out of the crisis,” a Japanese government official quoted Prime Minister Naoto Kan as saying.

But news of progress at the nuclear plant was overshadowed by mounting concern that radioactive particles already released into the atmosphere have contaminated food and water supplies.

“Quite clearly it’s a serious situation,” Peter Cordingley, Manila-based spokesman for the World Health Organization’s (WHO) regional office for the Western Pacific, told Reuters in a telephone interview.

“It’s a lot more serious than anybody thought in the early days when we thought that this kind of problem can be limited to 20 to 30 kilometers … It’s safe to suppose that some contaminated produce got out of the contamination zone.”

However, he said there was no evidence of contaminated food from Fukushima reaching other countries.

Fukushima is the world’s worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl, but signs are that it is far less severe than the Ukrainian disaster.

“The few measurements of radiation reported in food so far are much lower than around Chernobyl in 1986, but the full picture is still emerging,” Malcolm Crick, secretary of the U.N. Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, told Reuters.


Japan’s health ministry has urged some residents near the plant to stop drinking tap water after high levels of radioactive iodine were detected.

Cases of contaminated vegetables and milk have already stoked anxiety despite assurances from officials that the levels are not dangerous. The government has prohibited the sale of spinach from all four prefectures near the plant and also banned selling of raw milk from Fukushima prefecture.

Kaspersky Lab E-Store

There were no major reports of contaminated food in Tokyo, a city of about 13 million people. City officials however said higher-than-standard levels of iodine were found in an edible form of chrysanthemum.

“From reports I have heard so far, it seems that the levels of radioactive iodine and caesium in milk and some foodstuffs are significantly higher than government limits,” said Jim Smith, a specialist in earth and environmental sciences at Britain’s Portsmouth University.

“This doesn’t mean that consumption of these products is necessarily an immediate threat, as limits are set so that foodstuffs can be safely consumed over a fairly long period of time. Nevertheless, for foodstuffs which are found to be above limits, bans on sale and consumption will have to be put in place in the affected areas.”

Japan is a net importer of food, but has substantial exports — mainly fruit, vegetables, dairy products and seafood — with its biggest markets in Hong Kong, China and the United States.

China will monitor food imported from Japan, the Xinhua news agency said, citing the country’s quality control watchdog. South Korea will expand radioactivity inspection to processed and dried agricultural Japanese food, from just fresh produce.

In Taipei, one of the top Japanese restaurants in the city is offering diners the use of a radiation gauge in case they were nervous about the food.


The prospects of a nuclear power plant meltdown in the world’s third-biggest economy and its key position in global supply chains rattled investors worldwide last week and prompted rare joint currency intervention by the G7 group of rich nations to stabilize markets.

Moody’s Investors Service said in a report that the downside risks from the crisis had increased over the past week for the economy, sovereign credit, banking, insurance and non-financial corporate sectors.

Tokyo’s markets were closed for a holiday on Monday. The Nikkei index shed 10 percent last week, wiping $350 billion off market capitalization, and at one point had lost as much as 20 percent in value.

In a much-needed boost for the battered market, billionaire investor Warren Buffett said the earthquake and tsunami were an “enormous blow” but should not prompt the selling of Japanese shares. Instead, he called events a “buying opportunity”.

“It will take some time to rebuild. But it will not change the economic future of Japan. If I owned Japanese stocks, I would certainly not be selling them,” Buffett said during a visit to a South Korean factory run by a company that is owned by one of his funds.


At Fukushima, 300 engineers have worked around the clock inside an evacuation zone to contain the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl, Ukraine, in 1986.

They have been spraying the coastal complex with thousands of tonnes of sea water so fuel rods will not overheat and emit more radiation. Hopes for a more permanent solution depend on electricity cables reactivating on-site water pumps at each of the six reactors.

The most badly damaged reactors are No. 3 and 4, which were both hit by explosions last week.

Official tolls of dead and missing are rising steadily — to 8,450 and 12,931 respectively.

The death toll could jump dramatically since police said they believed more than 15,000 people had been killed in Miyagi prefecture, one of four that took the brunt of the tsunami.

The 9.0-magnitude quake and ensuing 10-meter (32-ft) tsunami made more than 350,000 people homeless. Food, water, medicine and fuel are short in some parts, and near-freezing temperatures during Japan’s winter are not helping.

(Additional reporting by Paul Eckert in Tokyo, Yoko Kubota and Chang-ran Kim in Rikuzentakata, Jon Herskovitz and Chisa Fujioka in Kamaisha, and Sui-Lee Wee in Beijing; Writing by Andrew Cawthorne and Jason Szep; Editing by Dean Yates, John Chalmers and Daniel Magnowski)