MIND CONTROL: PSYCHIATRY:
Big Pharma - Drugged to Death
Big Pharma - Drugged to Death
Related links:
1. U.S. TeenScreen and planned Universal Mental Screening
2. MIND CONTROL: PSYCHIATRY: Drugs
3. DRUGGING CHILDREN in Foster System
4. VACCINES
Making a Killing: The Untold Story of Psychotropic Drugging
This video provides the facts about psychotropic drugs and the huge profits they create for the pharmaceutical industry. These drugs are not safe and have not been on the market long enough to provide sufficient long term studies regarding their effects.
These drugs do cause addiction, however most "doctors" would call this dependence because you do not have to take an increasing dose over time. They are completely fine with you being addicted to the same amount of any given drug on a daily basis.
Over half of the people that commit suicide in the United States are prescribed to psychotropic drugs. (Ex: Paxil (Paroxetine), Zoloft (Sertraline), Prozac, Wellbutrin (Bupropion), Effexor, Seroquil, Ultram (Tramadol), etc.)
Psychiatry An Industry Of Death Full Length
Documentary starts at 2:44
Documentary starts at 2:44
Confessions of a Pharmacudical Rep
http://www.gwenolsen.com/
Gwen Olsen – the Rx Reformer
Gwen Olsen spent fifteen years as a sales rep in the pharmaceutical industry working for health care giants including Johnson and Johnson, Syntex Labs, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Abbott Laboratories and Forest Laboratories.
Everyone is at risk for a prescription drug tragedy:
Gwen offers an insider’s knowledge of dangers from the pharmaceutical industry.
Her poignant autobiographical journey through the darkness of mental illness and the catastrophic consequences that lurk in medicine cabinets around the country offers an honest glimpse into alarming statistics and a health care system ranked last among nineteen industrialized nations worldwide. As a former sales rep for Pharma, Gwen learned firsthand how an unprecedented number of lethal drugs are unleashed onto an unsuspecting public.
As a mental health activist, Gwen has testified before the Food and Drug Administration’s Psycho-pharmacology committee, as well as many legislative committees, and has led rallies and marches in protest against psychiatric abuse. Gwen’s message is a call to action and a plea for each of us to step up and do our part to help create a medical system that serves all and does harm to none!
Big Bucks Big Pharma:
Marketing Disease and Pushing Drugs
www.crbestbuydrugs.com
http://www.consumerreports.org/health/best-buy-drugs/index.htm
Marketing Disease and Pushing Drugs
www.crbestbuydrugs.com
http://www.consumerreports.org/health/best-buy-drugs/index.htm
Big Bucks, Big Pharma pulls back the curtain on the multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical industry to expose the insidious ways that illness is used, manipulated, and in some instances created, for capital gain. Focusing on the industry's marketing practices, media scholars and health professionals help viewers understand the ways in which Direct-To-Consumer pharmaceutical advertising glamorizes and normalizes the use of prescription medication, and works in tandem with promotion to doctors. Combined, these industry practices shape how both patients and doctors understand and relate to disease and treatment. Ultimately, Big Bucks, Big Pharma challenges us to ask important questions about the consequences of relying on a for-profit industry for our health and well-being.
Featuring interviews with :
Dr. Marcia Angell (Dept. of Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Former Editor New England Journal of Medicine),
Dr. Bob Goodman (Columbia University Medical Center; Founder, No Free Lunch http://www.nofreelunch.org/index.htm),
Gene Carbona (Former Pharmaceutical Industry Insider and Current Executive Director of Sales, The Medical Letter),
Katharine Greider (Journalist; Author, The Big Fix: How the Pharmaceutical Industry Rips Off American Consumers),
Dr. Elizabeth Preston (Dept. of Communication, Westfield State College) and
Dr. Larry Sasich (Public Citizen Health Research Group).
Sections: Introduction / Branding Drugs / Swimming in Pills / Disease Mongering / No Free Lunch / A Healthier Prescription
Featuring interviews with :
Dr. Marcia Angell (Dept. of Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Former Editor New England Journal of Medicine),
Dr. Bob Goodman (Columbia University Medical Center; Founder, No Free Lunch http://www.nofreelunch.org/index.htm),
Gene Carbona (Former Pharmaceutical Industry Insider and Current Executive Director of Sales, The Medical Letter),
Katharine Greider (Journalist; Author, The Big Fix: How the Pharmaceutical Industry Rips Off American Consumers),
Dr. Elizabeth Preston (Dept. of Communication, Westfield State College) and
Dr. Larry Sasich (Public Citizen Health Research Group).
Sections: Introduction / Branding Drugs / Swimming in Pills / Disease Mongering / No Free Lunch / A Healthier Prescription
GlaxoSmithKline whistleblower speaks out about bribery of doctors, off-label marketing of drugs
Published on Jul 16, 2012
This exclusive interview with former GlaxoSmithKline employee and whistleblower Blair Hamrick reveals insider details of GSK's operations, for which the company recently pleaded guilty to felony crimes and paid a $3 billion settlement with the U.S. government.
In this Health Ranger Report video, Blair describes his firsthand knowledge of the "bribery" of physicians, the push for off-label marketing of drugs for unapproved health conditions, the illegal marketing of drugs to children, how 80 percent of physicians were willing to be "on the take," and much more.
More details at www.NaturalNews.com
GlaxoSmithKline Testing Paxil on 7-Year-Olds Despite Suicide Risks
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/06/12/glaxo-testing-paxil-on-7yearolds-despite-suicide-risks.aspx
June 12, 2010
It is well established that Paxil carries a risk of suicide in children and teens. Nonetheless, GlaxoSmithKline has been conducting a study of the antidepressant using children as young as seven.
The drug carries a “black box” stating that it is twice as likely to generate lethal thoughts as a placebo.
BNET reports:
“The primary aim of the study is not to find out why Paxil makes some children kill themselves. Rather, it’s yet another efficacy study, which the drug doesn’t need because it was approved years ago ...
If the results suggest a lower suicide risk, expect GSK to play them up. If they’re bad, expect the company to dismiss them in favor of the primary endpoint results.”
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
The link between suicide and antidepressants like Paxil is so strong that they are required to carry black box warning labels detailing the risk. In young adults, particularly, the link is glaring and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) even sent a warning letter to physicians in 2006 alerting them that Paxil may increase the risk of suicide attempts in young adults.
Despite this, or more likely because of it, the company is now carrying out a study in Japan to test the efficacy of Paxil versus a placebo in children with depression. They are actively recruiting children between the ages of 7 and 17 years, who may be among the most vulnerable to Paxil’s suicidal side effects.
Why would GlaxoSmithKline test Paxil on kids?
It’s clearly not to find out whether it’s effective -- the drug is already approved, so this is a moot point. Instead, they are likely hoping that, come September 2010 when the study is supposed to be completed, they can somehow present their results to show that Paxil is not so bad after all.
As Big Pharma analyst Jim Edwards wrote on BNET:
“It’s not clear why the company would want to draw more attention to its already controversial pill, but it appears as if GSK might be hoping to see a reduced suicide risk in a small population of users — a result the company could use to cast doubt on the Paxil-equals-teen-suicide meme that dominates discussion of the drug.”
Kids Increasingly Targeted With Antidepressants
Every year, 230 million prescriptions for antidepressants are filled, making them one of the most prescribed drugs in the United States.
The UK banned nearly all antidepressants in kids in 2004, due to the increased risk of suicide. The United States, however, is still allowing Big Pharma to rake in the profits from selling these deadly, mind-altering drugs to kids.
The amount of drugs being given to U.S. children is outrageous, and the extent of the problem becomes clear when you compare the statistics with other countries. U.S. children are getting three times more prescriptions for antidepressants and stimulants, and up to double the amount of antipsychotic drugs than kids from Germany and the Netherlands.
Depression can indeed progress to suicide if left untreated. One would think that antidepressant drugs would be useful here but interestingly they actually have been shown to CAUSE both suicidal and homicidal thoughts and behaviors. For example, seven of the last 12 school shootings were done by children who were either on antidepressants or going through withdrawal.
It’s not just the drugs prescribed, but the diagnoses that are in question, particularly in children. Six million children have been diagnosed with serious psychiatric disorders warranting drug treatment -- 1 million with bipolar disorder, long believed to occur only in adults.
The fact remains that most of the kids being given antidepressants should simply not be taking them.
What Happens When You Take Your Child to a Psychiatrist …
Mental health issues, including depression and unresolved emotional traumas, are among the most significant factors contributing to disease. And psychiatry is the branch of medicine that should be best suited to address this wounding.
Unfortunately, psychiatry has long ago elected to follow a drug-based paradigm in their resolution of this wounding and in so doing has done its patients an extreme disservice.
This is not a new occurrence, but rather one that has been going on for years and seems to only be getting worse. It reminds me of one particularly poignant letter written by Dr. Loren Mosher, a board-certified psychiatrist who received his BA from Stanford University and M.D. from Harvard Medical School in 1961, where he also subsequently took his psychiatric training.
In his letter, which is a resignation letter sent to the president of the American Psychiatric Association in 1998, Dr. Mosher stated:
“After nearly three decades as a member it is with a mixture of pleasure and disappointment that I submit this letter of resignation from the American Psychiatric Association. The major reason for this action is my belief that I am actually resigning from the American Psychopharmacological Association.
Luckily, the organization's true identity requires no change in the acronym.
Unfortunately, APA reflects, and reinforces, in word and deed, our drug dependent society …
APA likes only those drugs from which it can derive a profit-directly or indirectly. This is not a group for me. At this point in history, in my view, psychiatry has been almost completely bought out by the drug companies.
The APA could not continue without the pharmaceutical company support of meetings, symposia, workshops, journal advertising, grand rounds luncheons, unrestricted educational grants etc. etc. Psychiatrists have become the minions of drug company promotions.”
This type of blatant conflict of interest continues to plague the psychiatric profession today.
One of the most telling examples surrounds Dr. Joseph Biederman of Harvard Medical School, who is a world-renowned child psychiatrist. His work has helped fuel an explosion in the use of powerful antipsychotic medicines in children … and he earned at least $1.6 million in consulting fees from drug makers from 2000 to 2007.
So you should know, plain and simple, that if you’re worried your child may be depressed or suffering from any other mental health issue, and you take him or her to a psychiatrist, you will most likely leave with a prescription and the advice to start medicating your child.
This is especially concerning in light of new findings that indicate antidepressants may actually worsen depression.
Antidepressants May Lead to Chronic Depression
In my recent interview with medical journalist and Pulitzer Prize nominee Robert Whitaker, he shared some very concerning insights about long-term use of antidepressants, which often happens when kids start taking them at young ages.
According to Whitaker:
“… that’s one of the things I looked at in this book and there are really two things that you find.
You find that even with major depression, in the pre-antidepressant era – and this is depression so severe people were hospitalized – they could expect to get better. The episode would eventually pass.
… So when antidepressants were introduced, the thought was okay, we really can hope to improve on this sort of natural recovery, but maybe we can help people recover quicker? So that really was the rationale for the use of antidepressants.
But it’s really interesting if you follow this course through, forward in history. The minute they start using antidepressants in any sort of large numbers, doctors start saying, “Well, you know, my patients may be getting better, the depression may be lifting faster, but then we’re noticing that they’re also relapsing more frequently than before, back into depression.”
This begs the question, does the drug treatment actually put people on a more chronic course than before?”
Long-term studies now indicate that of people with major depression, only about 15 percent that are treated with an antidepressant go into remission and stay well for a long period of time.
The remaining 85 percent start having continuing relapses and become chronically depressed.
“By the 1990s, this change in the long term course of depression was so pronounced that finally it was addressed by researchers,” says Whitaker.
“Giovanni Fava from Italy said, 'Hey, listen, the course is changing with antidepressants. We’re changing it from an episodic illness to a chronic illness, and we really need to address this.'
Not only that, but the depression is sinking into people [on antidepressants] in a deeper way than before.”
According to Whitaker’s research, this tendency to sensitize the brain to long-term depression appears to be the same both for the earlier tricyclic antidepressants and the newer SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors).
Another famous psycho pharmacologist named Ross Baldessarini at the Harvard Medical School also began asking whether or not these drugs may in fact be depressogenic (causing depression).
Unfortunately, the evidence points that way, and the long-term prognosis when taking antidepressants is quite bleak, as this type of drug treatment has a whopping 85 percent chronic relapse rate.
Antidepressants are NOT the Solution
If your child is suffering from an emotional or mental challenge, please seek help, but do so from someone who does not regard psychotropic drugs as a first line of defense.
The research is very clear that, along with the side effects, antidepressants do not work any better than sugar pills. Some studies have even found that sugar pills may produce better results than antidepressants.
Even meta-analysis of published clinical trials indicates that 75 percent of the response to antidepressants can be duplicated by placebo!
Personally, I believe the reason for these astounding findings is that both pills work via the placebo effect, but the sugar pills produce far fewer detrimental side effects…
Unfortunately, antidepressants are far less innocuous than sugar pills, and aside from increasing the risk of suicidal thoughts they also increase your risk of diabetes and harm your immune system, among other risks.
Resolving Depression Naturally
If your child is depressed, you will likely need to find someone outside of the conventional psychiatric medical community to help you work through the problem without drugs.
When someone very close to me was suffering from depression, it was energetic techniques that assisted this person in full recovery from depression.
In that case, a very advanced form of cranial osteopathy was administered by a skilled physician, however, there are other similar tools, such as Emotional Freedom Technique/Meridian Tapping Technique (EFT/MTT), which I’ve found can make an enormous difference if you suffer from depression or any other kind of emotional dysfunction.
For serious problems, it would be best to contact a trained health care professional to assist you in these techniques. Here’s a helpful list of certified practitioners worldwide.
I strongly believe that energy psychology is the single most important tool to resolve depression, but its effectiveness will certainly be significantly improved if combined with an appropriate Nutritional Type diet, along with dramatically lowered intake of sugar, grains, and processed foods.
This is particularly true for children. I have treated many hundreds of children with behavioral and mental disorders and have consistently seen them improve once underlying toxicities and food changes were addressed.
Artificial colors, flavors, sweeteners, and preservatives can have a very negative impact on your mental state as well as your physical health, so browse through my nutrition plan to find out what type of diet your child should be eating.
Using Exercise to Treat Depression
Regular exercise is one of the “secret weapons” to overcoming depression.
As Dr. James S. Gordon, MD, a world-renowned expert in using mind-body medicine to heal depression, said:
“What we’re finding in the research on physical exercise is, the physical exercise is at least as good as antidepressants for helping people who are depressed … physical exercise changes the level of serotonin in your brain.
It changes, increases their levels of “feel good” hormones, the endorphins. And also -- and these are amazing studies -- it can increase the number of cells in your brain, in the region of the brain, called the hippocampus.
These studies have been first done on animals, and it’s very important because sometimes in depression, there are fewer of those cells in the hippocampus, but you can actually change your brain with exercise. So it’s got to be part of everybody’s treatment, everybody’s plan.”
This is a very effective and beneficial treatment strategy. One study conducted by Duke University in the late 1990s divided depressed patients into three treatment groups:
1. Exercise only
2. Exercise plus antidepressant
3. Antidepressant drug only
After six weeks, the drug-only group was doing slightly better than the other two groups. However, after 10 months of follow-up, it was the exercise-only group that had the highest remission and stay-well rate.
Some countries are taking these types of research findings seriously, and are starting to base their treatments on the evidence at hand.
The UK, for example, does not routinely recommend antidepressants as the first line of therapy for mild to moderate depression anymore, and doctors there can write out a prescription to see an exercise counselor instead.
I suggest you take these findings to heart now, and encourage your child to stay active if he or she is struggling with depression.
More Natural Tips to Address Depression
I also strongly recommend supplementing your child’s diet with a high-quality, animal-based omega-3 fat, like krill oil. This may be the single most important nutrient to battle depression.
Making sure your child is getting enough sunlight exposure to have healthy vitamin D levels is also a crucial factor in treating depression or keeping it at bay. One previous study found that people with the lowest levels of vitamin D were 11 times more prone to be depressed than those who had normal levels. Vitamin D deficiency is actually more the norm than the exception, and has previously been implicated in both psychiatric and neurological disorders.
How Psychiatric Drugs Can Kill Your Child - Documentary Video
The Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) is a nonprofit mental health watchdog, responsible for helping to enact more than 150 laws protecting individuals from abusive or coercive practices. CCHR has long fought to restore basic inalienable human rights to the field of mental health, including, but not limited to, full informed consent regarding the medical legitimacy of psychiatric diagnosis, the risks of psychiatric treatments, the right to all available medical alternatives, and the right to refuse any treatment considered harmful. http://www.cchr.org/.
Dead Wrong: How Psychiatric Drugs Can Kill Your Child. From the makers of the award-winning documentaries Making a Killing: The Untold Story of Psychotropic Drugging and The Marketing of Madness: Are We All Insane? comes this searing new documentary, exposing how devastating—and deadly—psychiatric drugs can be for children and families.
Behind the grim statistics of deaths, suicides, birth defects and serious adverse reactions is the human face of this global drugging epidemic—the personal stories of loss and courage of those who paid the real price. Psychiatrists claim their drugs are safe for children? Once you hear what eight brave mothers, their families, health experts, drug counselors and doctors have to say instead, you will come away convinced of one thing... Psychiatrists are DEAD WRONG.
The Marketing of Madness: The Truth About Psychotropic Drugs
Psychiatry is fake science. The Thud Experiment proof
Transcript for above video:
Commentator: "Laing was now a celebrity in America and was one of the leaders of what was called the 'Anti-psychiatry movement'. Psychiatry, Laing said, was a fake science used as a system of political control to shore up a violent collapsing society. Its categories of madness and sanity had no reality. Madness was simply a convenient label used to lock away those who wanted to break free."
"Hundreds of young psychiatrists came to Laing's talks and one of them was inspired and decided to find a way of testing whether what Laing said was true or not. Could psychiatrists in America distinguish between madness and sanity?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment
"He was called David Rosenhan and he devised a dramatic experiment. He assembled 8 people, including himself, none of whom had ever had any psychiatric problems.
Each person was sent across the country to a specific mental hospital. At an agreed time, they all presented themselves at their hospital and told the psychiatrist on duty they were hearing a voice in their head that said the word "Thud". That was the only lie they should tell otherwise they were to behave and respond completely normally."
Question: "and then what happened?"
David Rosenhan: "They were all diagnosed as insane and admitted to the hospital."
Question: "All of them?"
David Rosenhan: "All of them."
Question: "And were any of them insane?"
David Rosenhan: "No. There was nobody who could have judged these people as insane. ... but I told friends, I told my family, I get out when I get out; that's all. Be there for a couple of days and then I get out. Nobody knew I would be there for 2 months!"
Commentator: "Once admitted, all 8 fake patients acted completely normally yet the hospitals refused to release them and diagnosed 7 as suffering from schizophrenia and one from bipolar disorder. They were all given powerful psychotropic drugs.
They found there was nothing they could do to convince the doctors they were sane and it quickly became clear that the only way out would be to agree that they were insane and then pretend to be getting better.
David Rosenhan: "The only way out was to point out that they're correct. They said I was insane, I am insane, but I am getting better. That was an affirmation of their view of me."
The effect of The Thud Experiment was a disaster for American psychiatry. It destroyed the idea that they were a privileged elite with specialist knowledge.
But those in charge realised that psychiatry could not just give up. Another way had to be found of understanding and managing people's inner feelings in modern society."
Peter Breggin MD Psychiatric Drugs Part I
Peter Breggin, MD talks about dangers of psychiatric drugs for children and adults and his new book,Medication Madness, now available at http://www.breggin.com. Learn more about Dr. Peter Breggin's work including scientific papers, weekly audio reports, and sign up for our newsletter at http://www.breggin.com
Peter Breggin MD Psychiatric Drugs Part II
Peter Breggin MD Psychiatric Drugs Part III
Reclaiming Our Children:
A Healing Solution for a Nation in Crisisby Peter R. Breggin, M.D.
reviewed by Douglas A. Smith
Reclaiming Our Children is a truly wonderful book about how biological psychiatry is harming children - and adults. It is about reclaiming our children from biological psychiatry and the pseudo-experts who prescribe mind-altering drugs for young people. It is also about doing our jobs as parents properly and wisely. In narratives of several of Dr. Breggin's counseling or psychotherapy sessions (he uses "counseling" and "therapy" interchangeably), he shows that young people's objectionable behavior attributed by advocates of biological psychiatry to "chemical imbalances" or other abnormality of the brain are actually caused by the way they have been treated, or mistreated, by their parents or others. He shows how he has saved children and adolescents brought to him from the administration of psychiatric drugs or a lifetime of psychiatric stigma caused by psychiatric hospitalization by identifying the real problems, which are psychological rather than biological, and persuading parents to change the way they relate to their children. By giving the reader an understanding of children's thinking, he illustrates the stupidity of the underlying assumption of biological psychiatry, namely, that children's (and adult's) problems are caused by abnormalities of their brains, which in turn, to the ignorant, justifies the use of psychiatric drugs.
I've said for years, the reason people look for biological explanations for psychological problems is they don't understand the problem from a psychological standpoint. Once you understand behavior or emotions from a psychological standpoint, the erroneousness of the biological theories become obvious. For example, you might assume children who become murderers do so because they have too much of a particular chemical in their brains (that could have been corrected by a psychiatric drug) before you learn they were bullied, humiliated, and ostracized by those who became their targets.
Dr. Breggin's narratives of his counseling sessions with children and their parents brought tears to my eyes again and again. I felt overwhelmed with sorrow by the foolishness of parents and the harm inflicted on children (and adults) by the rise of biological psychiatry. Part of the reason for my reaction is Dr. Breggin's examples caused me to recall my own parents' overbearing stupidity and cocksure ignorance and my own victimization by psychiatry when my parents, out of not just stupidity but also lack of respect for my rights as a human being, had me involuntarily committed to the psychiatric ward of a hospital because of my refusal to participate in useless outpatient "psychotherapy" I'd tried before and found to have no value - this being their only way to force me into "therapy" they thought would be helpful. I cried also because of two particularly charming children I know, 9 and 11 years of age, both of whom stole my heart, who, according to a neighbor or a member of their family, were later given drugs such as Ritalin or Dexadrine because of their boundless energy and exuberance. These weren't bad children but, on the contrary, were children who I found so charming I wished they were mine. Yet their parents drugged them to make them more docile and easier to manage. Dr. Breggin is right when he says it is often the best and brightest children who become victims of biological psychiatry.
The world would be a safer place for children if everyone were to read this book.
Nothing in the field of mental health will do more good and reduce more harm than encouraging withdrawal from psychiatric drugs. The time is past when the focus in mental health was on what drugs to take for what disorders. Now we need to focus on how to stop taking psychiatric drugs and to replace them with more person-centered, empathic approaches. The goal is no longer drug maintenance and stagnation; the goal is recovery and achieving well-being.
My new book, Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal: A Guide for Prescribers, Therapists, Patients and Families, responds to a citizen rebellion that demands, “Help us get off these drugs!” It also encourages a professional revolution among concerned therapists who want to reject the idea of enforcing “patient compliance.”
It’s time for therapists—psychologists, nurses, social workers, family therapists, and counselors—to stop pushing their clients and patients to take psychiatric drugs that cause brain damage, harm the body, and shorten their patients’ lives. In Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal, therapists will learn about psychiatric drugs to actively participate with patients and families in the medication decision-making process.
The book provides a new roadmap for prescribers, therapists, patients and their families that will enable patients to taper off their drugs and achieve emotional and physical recovery and well-being. At the same time, it provides an improved treatment approach for all patients regardless of whether they are taking psychiatric drugs.
Prescribers of psychiatric drugs should welcome much greater participation of therapists, patients, and their families in decision-making about psychiatric drugs. This new emphasis on patient partnership and well-being will greatly increase awareness of adverse psychiatric drug effects and facilitate patients withdrawing before the harm becomes irreparable. It will improve the prescriber’s overall satisfaction and effectiveness as a service provider.
Some therapists have told me they are afraid of being sued if they offer opinions or participate in psychiatric-drug decision making. In my extensive forensic experience, this almost never happens, and I know of no such successful suit against a therapist. Instead, the highest level of professional ethics requires the therapist to confront the risks and dangers associated with their patients’ psychiatric drugs.
There is now so much scientific evidence proving that psychiatric drugs damage the brain and overall health and lifespan, that the major concern should be “How to stop taking psychiatric drugs.” It can be dangerous and even agonizing to stop, and people need to take charge of the process and no longer let prescribers like psychiatrists, general practitioners, and pediatricians dictate to them how long they or their children need to stay on drugs.
Up to now, professionals—when agreeing to withdraw patients from drugs—have withdrawn them at their own predetermined rate and often much too abruptly. This book explains and illustrates a Person-Centered Collaborative Partnership that focuses on the patient’s feelings and needs throughout the withdrawal process.
Therapists are often the first to realize that their patients are overly or unnecessarily medicated but they have been discouraged from voicing their opinions or discussing them with their clients or patients. They have also been discouraged from participating in medication decision-making and have been urged or mandated to enforce medication compliance. This book offers a new pathway for therapists to participate in an active patient and family partnership, along with the prescriber. It begins with a review of the dangers associated with psychiatric drugs and then describes and illustrates the process of person-centered withdrawal and mental health recovery, often with the collaboration of the therapist and family.
Patients often come to me wishing to withdraw from psychiatric drugs but are terrified because their previous prescribers, if agreeing to drug withdrawal, have withdrawn them much too rapidly and without regard for their suffering in the process. Nothing is more important than the patient’s sense of control over the process and the timing of withdrawal.
At a time when scientific research is demonstrating the harm from long-term drug exposure, the proposed new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V) will be pushing for increasingly widespread drug prescription.
The mental health field needs to reverse itself by vastly increasing emphasis on psychiatric drug withdrawal and drug-free recovery.
This model for a patient-centered collaborative team approach not only transforms drug withdrawal but mental health treatment in general with its greater emphasis on the patient partnership and well-being. Its approach transforms treatment for all mental health clients and patients. The book is especially vital for the treatment of dependent children and adults, individuals struggling from emotional crises and serious mental turmoil, the elderly, and anyone with compromised judgment and cognitive ability.
The Person-Centered Collaborative Partnership approach ushers in a new era of patient- and family-centered treatment. It offers a whole new level of drug-free recovery and enhanced well-being. The goal is no longer a drug-induced holding pattern, but genuine physical and psychological recovery and growth.
Psychiatric Disorders: The Facts Behind the Billion Dollar Marketing Campaign
Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal:
A Guide for Prescribers, Therapists, Patients and their Families
By Peter Breggin, M.D. http://www.breggin.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=296A Guide for Prescribers, Therapists, Patients and their Families
Nothing in the field of mental health will do more good and reduce more harm than encouraging withdrawal from psychiatric drugs. The time is past when the focus in mental health was on what drugs to take for what disorders. Now we need to focus on how to stop taking psychiatric drugs and to replace them with more person-centered, empathic approaches. The goal is no longer drug maintenance and stagnation; the goal is recovery and achieving well-being.
My new book, Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal: A Guide for Prescribers, Therapists, Patients and Families, responds to a citizen rebellion that demands, “Help us get off these drugs!” It also encourages a professional revolution among concerned therapists who want to reject the idea of enforcing “patient compliance.”
It’s time for therapists—psychologists, nurses, social workers, family therapists, and counselors—to stop pushing their clients and patients to take psychiatric drugs that cause brain damage, harm the body, and shorten their patients’ lives. In Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal, therapists will learn about psychiatric drugs to actively participate with patients and families in the medication decision-making process.
The book provides a new roadmap for prescribers, therapists, patients and their families that will enable patients to taper off their drugs and achieve emotional and physical recovery and well-being. At the same time, it provides an improved treatment approach for all patients regardless of whether they are taking psychiatric drugs.
Prescribers of psychiatric drugs should welcome much greater participation of therapists, patients, and their families in decision-making about psychiatric drugs. This new emphasis on patient partnership and well-being will greatly increase awareness of adverse psychiatric drug effects and facilitate patients withdrawing before the harm becomes irreparable. It will improve the prescriber’s overall satisfaction and effectiveness as a service provider.
Some therapists have told me they are afraid of being sued if they offer opinions or participate in psychiatric-drug decision making. In my extensive forensic experience, this almost never happens, and I know of no such successful suit against a therapist. Instead, the highest level of professional ethics requires the therapist to confront the risks and dangers associated with their patients’ psychiatric drugs.
There is now so much scientific evidence proving that psychiatric drugs damage the brain and overall health and lifespan, that the major concern should be “How to stop taking psychiatric drugs.” It can be dangerous and even agonizing to stop, and people need to take charge of the process and no longer let prescribers like psychiatrists, general practitioners, and pediatricians dictate to them how long they or their children need to stay on drugs.
Up to now, professionals—when agreeing to withdraw patients from drugs—have withdrawn them at their own predetermined rate and often much too abruptly. This book explains and illustrates a Person-Centered Collaborative Partnership that focuses on the patient’s feelings and needs throughout the withdrawal process.
Therapists are often the first to realize that their patients are overly or unnecessarily medicated but they have been discouraged from voicing their opinions or discussing them with their clients or patients. They have also been discouraged from participating in medication decision-making and have been urged or mandated to enforce medication compliance. This book offers a new pathway for therapists to participate in an active patient and family partnership, along with the prescriber. It begins with a review of the dangers associated with psychiatric drugs and then describes and illustrates the process of person-centered withdrawal and mental health recovery, often with the collaboration of the therapist and family.
Patients often come to me wishing to withdraw from psychiatric drugs but are terrified because their previous prescribers, if agreeing to drug withdrawal, have withdrawn them much too rapidly and without regard for their suffering in the process. Nothing is more important than the patient’s sense of control over the process and the timing of withdrawal.
At a time when scientific research is demonstrating the harm from long-term drug exposure, the proposed new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V) will be pushing for increasingly widespread drug prescription.
The mental health field needs to reverse itself by vastly increasing emphasis on psychiatric drug withdrawal and drug-free recovery.
This model for a patient-centered collaborative team approach not only transforms drug withdrawal but mental health treatment in general with its greater emphasis on the patient partnership and well-being. Its approach transforms treatment for all mental health clients and patients. The book is especially vital for the treatment of dependent children and adults, individuals struggling from emotional crises and serious mental turmoil, the elderly, and anyone with compromised judgment and cognitive ability.
The Person-Centered Collaborative Partnership approach ushers in a new era of patient- and family-centered treatment. It offers a whole new level of drug-free recovery and enhanced well-being. The goal is no longer a drug-induced holding pattern, but genuine physical and psychological recovery and growth.
"The following points are addressed in full in the text below:
1) There are no tests in existence that can prove mental disorders are medical conditions. Psychiatric diagnosis is based solely on opinion.
2) Yes, people can get depressed, sad, anxious and even act psychotic. That doesn’t make them mentally “diseased.”
3) The campaign to “STOP THE STIGMA OF MENTAL ILLNESS” is brought to you by…Big Pharma.
4) Why Psychiatric labels are the problem.
5) Psychiatric drugs are big business and the psychiatric pharmaceutical industry is making a killing—$84 Billion per year.
6) Where to get facts—international drug regulatory warnings/studies about psychiatric drug risks and side effects
7) Why safe effective medical treatments to mental difficulties are kept buried.
20 million children are labeled with "mental disorders" that are based solely on a checklist of behaviors. There are no brain scans, x-rays, genetic or blood tests that can prove they are mentally ill, yet these children are prescribed dangerous and life-threatening psychiatric drugs. Child drugging is a $4.8 billion-a-year industry."
1) THERE ARE NO TESTS IN EXISTENCE THAT CAN PROVE MENTAL “DISORDERS” ARE MEDICAL CONDITIONS. PSYCHIATRIC DIAGNOSIS IS BASED SOLELY ON OPINION.
The psychiatric/pharmaceutical industry spends billions of dollars a year in order to convince the public, legislators and the press that psychiatric disorders such as Bi-Polar Disorder, Depression, Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD/ADHD), Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, etc., are medical diseases on par with verifiable medical conditions such as cancer, diabetes and heart disease. This is simply a way to maintain their hold on a $84 billion dollar-a-year psychiatric drug industry that is based on marketing and not science. Unlike real medical disease, there are no scientific tests to verify the medical existence of any psychiatric disorder. Despite decades of trying to prove mental disorders are biological brain conditions, due to chemical imbalances or genetic factors, psychiatry has failed to prove even one of their hundreds of so-called mental disorders is due to a faulty or “chemically imbalanced” brain. To counter this obvious flaw in their push to medicalize behaviors, the psychiatric industry will claim that there are certain medical conditions that do not have a verifiable test so this is why there isn’t one for “mental illness.” This is frankly a lame argument; Whereas there may be rare medical conditions that do not have a verifiable medical test, there are virtually no psychiatric disorders that can be verified medically as a physical abnormality/disease. Not one.
In fact the “brain scans” that have been pawned off as evidence that schizophrenia or depression are brain diseases, are simply bogus. Most have not been done on drug naive patients, meaning someone who has not been on psychiatric drugs such as antipsychotic drugs, documented to cause brain atrophy (shrinkage). Other brain scans have shown the brains of smaller children to show smaller brains in comparison to larger/older children and then claimed children with ADHD have smaller brains. None have been conclusively proven to verify mental disorders as abnormalities of the brain.
If there were such verifiable brain scans, or in fact any medical/scientific test that could show a physical/medical abnormality for any psychiatric disorder, the public would be getting such tests prior to being administered psychiatric drugs.
This is fact: There are no genetic tests, no brain scans, blood tests, chemical imbalance tests or X-rays that can scientifically/medically prove that any psychiatric disorder is a medical condition. Period. Whereas real diseases are discovered in labs, psychiatric disorders are invented by committee and voted into existence.
2. YES, PEOPLE CAN GET DEPRESSED, SAD, ANXIOUS AND EVEN ACT PSYCHOTIC. THAT DOESN’T MAKE THEM MENTALLY “DISEASED”
No one is saying that people don’t get depressed, sad, troubled, anxious, nervous or even sometimes act psychotic. The question then is simple—is this due to some mental “disease” that can be verified as one would verify cancer or a real medical condition? And the answer is No. For example, can soldiers returning from war experience extreme and often debilitating stress? Yes. It is something wrong with their brain? No. It’s the horrors of war. Can children become distracted and not pay attention? Since time immemorial, the answer is yes. But psychiatry has pathologized childhood behaviors into a “mental illness.” The same is true of mothers. Can a new mother become distraught after a joyous occasion such as the birth of a child? Yes. Is it a brain abnormality or mental disease? No. And is the most humane solution to put these people on drugs documented by international regulatory agencies to cause mania, psychosis, worsening depression, heart attack, stroke, sudden death? Or for new or nursing mothers to risk birth defects or damage to their infants from being prescribed such powerful drugs?
This is also true of people diagnosed “schizophrenic.” There is no medical test to verify someone has a brain abnormality or medical condition of schizophrenia. And while no one claims people can’t become psychotic, the fact remains there is no biological evidence to support schizophrenia as a brain disease or chemical abnormality. And consider this, if people do become psychotic, or irrational, is it in fact caused by some underlying medical (not psychiatric) problem? And why did a 15-year multiple follow up study find that there was a 40% recovery rate for those diagnosed schizophrenic who did not take antipsychotics, versus a 5% rate for those who did? What happened to their supposed “brain disease?” Did it simply vanish? Moreover, if they could recover from such a mental state, do they deserve the “stigma” of “schizophrenia” still being part of their permanent medical record? For life? Think about it. Imagine you were extremely overweight—obese. You lose all the weight so you are no longer obese. Yet your medical records continue to say that you are.
And if schizophrenia is in fact a “disease” despite the fact there is no medical or biological evidence (note we did not say speculation, or theories, but evidence) then why is it that psychiatrist Loren Mosher, the former Chief of Schizophrenia Research for the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) would openly state there is no biological condition of schizophrenia as a disease or brain malfunction? And why didn’t the mental health industry take advantage of his 2-year-outcome studies proving that those diagnosed schizophrenic could recover without the use of drugs? Is it because this proved that recovery was possible and thereby disproved the theory that something was wrong with their brain? Or was it the fact that they recovered without the use of drugs, thereby threatening a multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical industry? Maybe this explains why Mosher was fired from his position at NIMH.
3. THE CAMPAIGN TO “STOP THE STIGMA OF MENTAL ILLNESS” IS BROUGHT TO YOU BY… BIG PHARMA
With a seemingly altruistic agenda, the fact is the campaign to end the “stigma” of mental illness is one driven and funded by those who benefit from more and more people being labeled mentally ill—pharma, psychiatry and pharmaceutical front groups such as NAMI and CHADD to name but a few. For example, take NAMI’s campaign to stop the “stigma” and “end discrimination” against the mentally ill—the “Founding Sponsors” were Abbott Labs, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Novartis, SmithKline Beecham and Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. (For an in-depth look at what else Pharma funds and how this funding not only helps set mental health policies but campaigns such as this, read Pharmaceutical Industry Agenda Setting in Mental Health Policies at the bottom of this post)
The fact is that the “stigmatization ” is coming from those that benefit from people being labeled/stigmatized with mental disorders that have no medical/biological evidence. Case in point, if you are rebellious, you are “stigmatized” with the label “oppositional defiant disorder.” If your kid acts like a kid he is “stigmatized” with the label “ADHD.” If you are sad, unhappy (even temporarily) you are “stigmatized” with the label “depressive” or “bi-polar disorder.” If you are shy you are “stigmatized” with the label “social anxiety disorder.” Moreover, you or your child are now stigmatized for life as this label, which is based solely on opinion, is now part of your medical record, despite the fact there is no medical evidence to prove you are “mentally ill”.
4. WHY PSYCHIATRIC “LABELS” ARE THE PROBLEM
Increasing numbers of people realize that just because a child fidgets, or loses pencils or toys—criteria for an “ADHD” diagnoses, this doesn’t mean a child is mentally ill. In fact many now claim that children diagnosed “ADHD” are really suffering from lead toxicity, or allergies, or poor diet, or lack of reading skills, and not a mental “illness.” The problem is that they continue to use the psychiatric label, ADHD, which stigmatizes a child as “mentally ill.” If in fact a child suffers from led toxicity, then why not call it lead toxicity? If he hasn’t been taught to read, why don’t we just say he hasn’t been taught to read? The same is true of all psychiatric diagnoses—every single psychiatric label stigmatizes the person being labeled. Psychiatric diagnoses are simply lists of behaviors that psychiatrists have compiled into little lists, given a name, added “disorder” on the end— then voted them into their billing bible, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) as “legitimate.” This is big, big business, but it isn’t even close to legitimate diagnoses. Not in any medical or scientific context. A profit making context? Sure. Because coming up with new lists of behaviors and new “disorders” is the bedrock of the multi-billion dollar psychiatric/pharmaceutical industry. Its how they get paid. Remember, no psychiatric label, no billing insurance. No psychiatric label, no drug prescribed. So until we stop using these psychiatric labels, which mean nothing other than what some psychiatrists decided was a mental “illness, ” we will never stop the “stigma.” Because the psychiatric labels are backed by corporate interests—not medicine, and not science.
5. PSYCHIATRIC DRUGS ARE BIG BUSINESS—AND THE PSYCHIATRIC/PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY IS MAKING A KILLING—$84 BILLION PER YEAR.
The primary reason people take psychiatric drugs is because they’ve been taught to believe they have a medical condition called a psychiatric disorder, which then justifies taking drugs to treat it. This is a brilliant marketing campaign, but it is not science. Any drug changes behavior or mood, whether cocaine, alcohol, marijuana or heroin. This does not mean someone who acts or feels differently on cocaine does so because they had a cocaine imbalance which the cocaine then corrected. It means that drugs changes mood, emotion and behavior. But while the illicit use of drugs is universally frowned upon, and considered a bad way for people to deal with their problems, psychiatric drugs are made out to be “good” drugs, despite the fact many are more addictive than cocaine or heroin, and have side effects that rival such hardcore street drugs as LSD, heroin and crack cocaine.
6. WHERE TO GET THE FACTS ABOUT PSYCHIATRIC DRUGS RISKS AND SIDE EFFECTS
Because the public has been so mislead by the psychiatric/pharmaceutical industry on the dangers of psychiatric drugs, CCHR has created a one-of-a-kind, easy to search psychiatric drugs side effects database, containing all international studies and drug regulatory warnings that have been issued on both classes of drugs (antidepressants, antipsychotics, anti-anxiety drugs, stimulants, etc) and brand names such as Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Risperdal, Seroquel, Ritalin etc. These are provided by CCHR as a free public service to help people make educated decisions based on facts, not marketing campaigns
7. WHY SAFE, EFFECTIVE TREATMENTS TO MENTAL DIFFICULTIES ARE KEPT BURIED
The larger problem is that the biological drug model (based on the bogus mental disorders are a disease marketing campaign) prevents governments from funding real medical solutions for people experiencing difficulty. And there are workable, non-harmful medical treatments that do not receive government funding because the psychiatric/pharmaceutical industry spends billions of dollars on advertising and lobbying efforts, including hundreds of their pharma funded “patient’s rights” groups to counter any medical modality that does not support their biological drug model of mental disorders as a disease. Why? Billions of dollars in revenue for the psycho/pharma industry would be lost. This is an industry that time and again, has been proven to put profit above patients lives.
Choosing healthy foods now called a mental disorder
http://www.naturalnews.com/029098_orthorexia_mental_disorder.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/029098_orthorexia_mental_disorder.html
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger Editor of NaturalNews.com
In its never-ending attempt to fabricate "mental disorders" out of every human activity, the psychiatric industry is now pushing the most ridiculous disease they've invented yet: Healthy eating disorder.
This is no joke: If you focus on eating healthy foods, you're "mentally diseased" and probably need some sort of chemical treatment involving powerful psychotropic drugs. The Guardian newspaper reports, "Fixation with healthy eating can be sign of serious psychological disorder" and goes on to claim this "disease" is called orthorexia nervosa -- which is basically just Latin for "nervous about correct eating."
But they can't just called it "nervous healthy eating disorder" because that doesn't sound like they know what they're talking about. So they translate it into Latin where it sounds smart (even though it isn't). That's where most disease names come from: Doctors just describe the symptoms they see with a [Latin]name like osteoporosis (which means "bones with holes in them").
Getting back to this fabricated "orthorexia" disease, the Guardian goes on to report, "Orthorexics commonly have rigid rules around eating. Refusing to touch sugar, salt, caffeine, alcohol, wheat, gluten, yeast, soya, corn and dairy foods is just the start of their diet restrictions. Any foods that have come into contact with pesticides, herbicides or contain artificial additives are also out."
Wait a second. So attempting to avoid chemicals, dairy, soy and sugar now makes you a mental health patient? Yep. According to these experts. If you actually take special care to avoid pesticides, herbicides and genetically modified ingredients like soy and sugar, there's something wrong with you.
But did you notice that eating junk food is assumed to be "normal?" If you eat processed junk foods laced with synthetic chemicals, that's okay with them. The mental patients are the ones who choose organic, natural foods, apparently.
What is "normal" when it comes to foods? I told you this was coming. Years ago, I warned NaturalNews readers that an attempt might soon be under way to outlaw broccoli because of its anti-cancer phytonutrients. This mental health assault on health-conscious consumers is part of that agenda. It's an effort to marginalize healthy eaters by declaring them to be mentally unstable and therefore justify carting them off to mental institutions where they will be injected with psychiatric drugs and fed institutional food that's all processed, dead and full of toxic chemicals.
The Guardian even goes to the ridiculous extreme of saying, "The obsession about which foods are "good" and which are "bad" means orthorexics can end up malnourished."
Follow the non-logic on this, if you can: Eating "good" foods will cause malnutrition! Eating bad foods, I suppose, is assumed to provide all the nutrients you need. That's about as crazy a statement on nutrition as I've ever read. No wonder people are so diseased today: The mainstream media is telling them that eating health food is a mental disorder that will cause malnutrition!
Shut up and swallow your Soylent Green It's just like I reported years ago: You're not supposed to question your food, folks. Sit down, shut up, dig in and chow down. Stop thinking about what you're eating and just do what you're told by the mainstream media and its processed food advertisers.
Questioning the health properties of your junk food is a mental disorder, didn't you know? And if you "obsess" over foods (by doing such things as reading the ingredients labels, for example), then you're weird. Maybe even sick.
That's the message they're broadcasting now. Junk food eaters are "normal" and "sane" and "nourished." But health food eaters are diseased, abnormal and malnourished.
But why, you ask, would they attack healthy eaters? People like Dr. Gabriel Cousens can tell you why: Because increased mental and spiritual awareness is only possible while on a diet of living, natural foods.
Eating junk foods keeps you dumbed down and easy to control, you see. It literally messes with your mind, numbing your senses with MSG, aspartame and yeast extract. People who subsist on junk foods are docile and quickly lose the ability to think for themselves. They go along with whatever they're told by the TV or those in apparent positions of authority, never questioning their actions or what's really happening in the world around them.
In contrast to that, people who eat health-enhancing natural foods -- with all the medicinal nutrients still intact -- begin to awaken their minds and spirits. Over time, they begin to question the reality around them and they pursue more enlightened explorations of topics like community, nature, ethics, philosophy and the big picture of things that are happening in the world. They become "aware" and can start to see the very fabric of the Matrix, so to speak.
This, of course, is a huge danger to those who run our consumption-based society [and to those who are forcing this one world government on us] because consumption [and forcing the NWO on us] depends on ignorance combined with suggestibility. For people to keep blindly buying foods, medicines, health insurance and consumer goods, they need to have their higher brain functions switched off. Processed junk foods laced with toxic chemicals just happens to achieve that rather nicely. Why do you think dead, processed foods remain the default meals in public schools, hospitals and prisons? It's because dead foods turn off higher levels of awareness and keep people focused on whatever distractions you can feed their brains: Television, violence, fear, sports, sex and so on.
But living as a zombie is, in one way quite "normal" in society today because so many people are doing it. But that doesn't make it normal in my book: The real "normal" is an empowered, healthy, awakened person nourished with living foods and operating as a sovereign citizen in a free world. Eating living foods is like taking the red pill because over time it opens up a whole new perspective on the fabric of reality. It sets you free to think for yourself.
But eating processed junk foods is like taking the blue pill because it keeps you trapped in a fabricated reality where your life experiences are fabricated by consumer product companies who hijack your senses with designer chemicals (like MSG) that fool your brain into thinking you're eating real food.
If you want to be alive, aware and in control of your own life, eat more healthy living foods. But don't expect to be popular with mainstream mental health "experts" or dieticians -- they're all being programmed to consider you to be "crazy" because you don't follow their mainstream diets of dead foods laced with synthetic chemicals.
But you and I know the truth here: We are the normal ones. The junk food eaters are the real mental patients, and the only way to wake them up to the real world is to start feeding them living foods.
Some people are ready to take the red pill, and others aren't. All you can do is show them the door. They must open it themselves.
In the mean time, try to avoid the mental health agents who are trying to label you as having a mental disorder just because you pay attention to what you put in your body. There's nothing wrong with avoiding sugar, soy, MSG, aspartame, HFCS and other toxic chemicals in the food supply. In fact, your very life depends on it.
Oh, and by the way, if you want to join the health experts who keep inventing new fictitious diseases and disorders, check out my popular Disease Mongering Engine web page where you can invent your own new diseases at the click of a button! You'll find it at: http://www.naturalnews.com/disease-mongering-engine.asp
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger Editor of NaturalNews.com
In its never-ending attempt to fabricate "mental disorders" out of every human activity, the psychiatric industry is now pushing the most ridiculous disease they've invented yet: Healthy eating disorder.
This is no joke: If you focus on eating healthy foods, you're "mentally diseased" and probably need some sort of chemical treatment involving powerful psychotropic drugs. The Guardian newspaper reports, "Fixation with healthy eating can be sign of serious psychological disorder" and goes on to claim this "disease" is called orthorexia nervosa -- which is basically just Latin for "nervous about correct eating."
But they can't just called it "nervous healthy eating disorder" because that doesn't sound like they know what they're talking about. So they translate it into Latin where it sounds smart (even though it isn't). That's where most disease names come from: Doctors just describe the symptoms they see with a [Latin]name like osteoporosis (which means "bones with holes in them").
Getting back to this fabricated "orthorexia" disease, the Guardian goes on to report, "Orthorexics commonly have rigid rules around eating. Refusing to touch sugar, salt, caffeine, alcohol, wheat, gluten, yeast, soya, corn and dairy foods is just the start of their diet restrictions. Any foods that have come into contact with pesticides, herbicides or contain artificial additives are also out."
Wait a second. So attempting to avoid chemicals, dairy, soy and sugar now makes you a mental health patient? Yep. According to these experts. If you actually take special care to avoid pesticides, herbicides and genetically modified ingredients like soy and sugar, there's something wrong with you.
But did you notice that eating junk food is assumed to be "normal?" If you eat processed junk foods laced with synthetic chemicals, that's okay with them. The mental patients are the ones who choose organic, natural foods, apparently.
What is "normal" when it comes to foods? I told you this was coming. Years ago, I warned NaturalNews readers that an attempt might soon be under way to outlaw broccoli because of its anti-cancer phytonutrients. This mental health assault on health-conscious consumers is part of that agenda. It's an effort to marginalize healthy eaters by declaring them to be mentally unstable and therefore justify carting them off to mental institutions where they will be injected with psychiatric drugs and fed institutional food that's all processed, dead and full of toxic chemicals.
The Guardian even goes to the ridiculous extreme of saying, "The obsession about which foods are "good" and which are "bad" means orthorexics can end up malnourished."
Follow the non-logic on this, if you can: Eating "good" foods will cause malnutrition! Eating bad foods, I suppose, is assumed to provide all the nutrients you need. That's about as crazy a statement on nutrition as I've ever read. No wonder people are so diseased today: The mainstream media is telling them that eating health food is a mental disorder that will cause malnutrition!
Shut up and swallow your Soylent Green It's just like I reported years ago: You're not supposed to question your food, folks. Sit down, shut up, dig in and chow down. Stop thinking about what you're eating and just do what you're told by the mainstream media and its processed food advertisers.
Questioning the health properties of your junk food is a mental disorder, didn't you know? And if you "obsess" over foods (by doing such things as reading the ingredients labels, for example), then you're weird. Maybe even sick.
That's the message they're broadcasting now. Junk food eaters are "normal" and "sane" and "nourished." But health food eaters are diseased, abnormal and malnourished.
But why, you ask, would they attack healthy eaters? People like Dr. Gabriel Cousens can tell you why: Because increased mental and spiritual awareness is only possible while on a diet of living, natural foods.
Eating junk foods keeps you dumbed down and easy to control, you see. It literally messes with your mind, numbing your senses with MSG, aspartame and yeast extract. People who subsist on junk foods are docile and quickly lose the ability to think for themselves. They go along with whatever they're told by the TV or those in apparent positions of authority, never questioning their actions or what's really happening in the world around them.
In contrast to that, people who eat health-enhancing natural foods -- with all the medicinal nutrients still intact -- begin to awaken their minds and spirits. Over time, they begin to question the reality around them and they pursue more enlightened explorations of topics like community, nature, ethics, philosophy and the big picture of things that are happening in the world. They become "aware" and can start to see the very fabric of the Matrix, so to speak.
This, of course, is a huge danger to those who run our consumption-based society [and to those who are forcing this one world government on us] because consumption [and forcing the NWO on us] depends on ignorance combined with suggestibility. For people to keep blindly buying foods, medicines, health insurance and consumer goods, they need to have their higher brain functions switched off. Processed junk foods laced with toxic chemicals just happens to achieve that rather nicely. Why do you think dead, processed foods remain the default meals in public schools, hospitals and prisons? It's because dead foods turn off higher levels of awareness and keep people focused on whatever distractions you can feed their brains: Television, violence, fear, sports, sex and so on.
But living as a zombie is, in one way quite "normal" in society today because so many people are doing it. But that doesn't make it normal in my book: The real "normal" is an empowered, healthy, awakened person nourished with living foods and operating as a sovereign citizen in a free world. Eating living foods is like taking the red pill because over time it opens up a whole new perspective on the fabric of reality. It sets you free to think for yourself.
But eating processed junk foods is like taking the blue pill because it keeps you trapped in a fabricated reality where your life experiences are fabricated by consumer product companies who hijack your senses with designer chemicals (like MSG) that fool your brain into thinking you're eating real food.
If you want to be alive, aware and in control of your own life, eat more healthy living foods. But don't expect to be popular with mainstream mental health "experts" or dieticians -- they're all being programmed to consider you to be "crazy" because you don't follow their mainstream diets of dead foods laced with synthetic chemicals.
But you and I know the truth here: We are the normal ones. The junk food eaters are the real mental patients, and the only way to wake them up to the real world is to start feeding them living foods.
Some people are ready to take the red pill, and others aren't. All you can do is show them the door. They must open it themselves.
In the mean time, try to avoid the mental health agents who are trying to label you as having a mental disorder just because you pay attention to what you put in your body. There's nothing wrong with avoiding sugar, soy, MSG, aspartame, HFCS and other toxic chemicals in the food supply. In fact, your very life depends on it.
Oh, and by the way, if you want to join the health experts who keep inventing new fictitious diseases and disorders, check out my popular Disease Mongering Engine web page where you can invent your own new diseases at the click of a button! You'll find it at: http://www.naturalnews.com/disease-mongering-engine.asp
The following video is about cancer BUT is included because it shows the selfish selfserving mindset of the pharmaceutical industry and how the industry seized control of the medical field
Cancer the Forbidden Cures - Full Documentary
A documentary by Massimo Mazzucco.
Cancer is the only disease that has been defeated dozens of times without anyone knowing it. In the last 100 years, doctors, scientists, and researchers have developed diverse and effective solutions against cancer only to be thwarted by the political and propaganda power of the drug-dominated medical profession. This is the story of Essiac, Hoxsey, Laetrile, Shark Cartilage, Mistletoe, and Bicarbonate of Soda all put together in a stunning overview that leaves no doubt that inexpensive cures for cancer do exist but are systematically blocked by Big Pharma because they come from nature and cannot be patented. Highly informative.
Cancer is the only disease that has been defeated dozens of times without anyone knowing it. In the last 100 years, doctors, scientists, and researchers have developed diverse and effective solutions against cancer only to be thwarted by the political and propaganda power of the drug-dominated medical profession. This is the story of Essiac, Hoxsey, Laetrile, Shark Cartilage, Mistletoe, and Bicarbonate of Soda all put together in a stunning overview that leaves no doubt that inexpensive cures for cancer do exist but are systematically blocked by Big Pharma because they come from nature and cannot be patented. Highly informative.
