Natural News Store

Showing posts with label health. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health. Show all posts

Sunday, August 16, 2009

BRAVE OXFORD RESEARCHERS SAY TAMIFLU IS NOT FOR KIDS

 
By Byron J. Richards, CCN
August 16, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

Governments trying to Push Toxic Drugs for the Flu onto Children

Governments in the United States and Great Britain plan to use antiviral drugs as a first line of defense against the Swine Flu (along with experimental vaccines as they become available), especially in at risk groups such as young children. A new study by Oxford researchers published in the British Medical Journal questions the wisdom of this advice and points out that the risks are likely to outweigh the very slight benefits. (See full study and related commentary). It is worth noting that this is a conflict between government unelected bureaucrats in charge of “herd control” and doctors trying to evaluate the best interests of patients. Unfortunately, public health is never in the best interest of any one patient, and expects collateral damage. And what if that collateral damage is your child?

A systematic review and meta-analysis on the use of anti-viral drugs, Tamiflu and Relenza, on children under 12 was conducted to determine their safety and effectiveness in treating children with flu and in the ability of these drugs to prevent children from getting the flu.

The drugs were found to reduce the duration of the flu by a day, yet not to reduce the complications of the flu such as fewer asthma problems in children with existing asthma or the need to use antibiotics to treat secondary ear infections arising as part of the flu illness process. This data alone suggests any benefits are very weak and offer far less protection than basic nutrients that have no adverse effects such as vitamin Dvitamin Czinc, andacidophilus.

In the preventive sense, a full level treatment dose needs to be given to 13 children simply to prevent one case of the flu – again a very weak result.

On the other hand, 1 in 20 children develop nausea and vomiting from these drugs, which not only could be mistaken for flu symptoms but can cause life-threatening dehydration in any child who gets the flu as well. For such little benefit, public health officials are willing to expose millions of children to potentially serious and life-threatening medical “prevention” treatment.

Part of the reason for the use of Tamiflu is that a massive government stockpiles of these drugs that occurred in preparation for the bird flu that never came are about to expire. During 2006 the U.S. government received at various points in the year 20 million doses of Tamiflu at a cost of 2 billion dollars. The product has a three year shelf life, though I would wonder a little bit about how good it is that close to expiration.

Regardless, Tamiflu will only work, if it works at all, on the first wave of individuals taking it. After that, the Swine flu will mutate around it. This resistance to Tamiflu or other anti-viral drugs will occur relatively quickly.

It should be pointed out that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) added a warning label to Tamiflu back in November of 2006, based on numerous reports of delirium and suicide mostly in children under 17.

Side effects occurred within 24-48 hours of taking the drug and included panic attacks, delusions, delirium, convulsions, depression, loss of consciousness, and even suicide.

Back in 2006 the FDA said “We are concerned that when/if the use of this drug increases in the U.S. … there may be increasing cases of adverse consequence in the U.S.” That time appears to be now – and as typical the FDA is silent when public health is in danger (except they are busy attacking dietary supplement companies trying to help people).

The revised FDA warning states, “People with the flu, particularly children, may be at an increased risk of self-injury and confusion shortly after taking Tamiflu and should be closely monitored for signs of unusual behavior.”

That is a very weak warning considering that three normal children jumped/fell to their death after taking the drug – one even leaving a suicide note. Other children were struck with psychosis, delusions, and paranoia – all in formerly normal children.

These mental health side effects were not part of the Oxford research, which simply pointed out that the drugs have very little value in the first place and carry serious health risks for an unacceptably large percentage of children likely to take them.

Sign up for Byron’s free e-newsletter and be in the know.
© 2009 Wellness Resources, Inc. - All Rights Reserved

Byron J. Richards, Board-Certified Clinical Nutritionist, nationally-renowned nutrition expert, and founder of Wellness Resources is a leader in advocating the value of dietary supplements as a vital tool to maintain health. He is an outspoken critic of government and Big Pharma efforts to deny access to natural health products and has written extensively on the life-shortening and health-damaging failures of thesickness industry.
His 25 years of clinical experience from the front lines of nutrition have made him a popular radio guest who callers find impossible to stump. He has personally developed 75 unique nutraceutical-grade nutritional supplement formulas with a focus on thyroid nutrition, healthy weight loss supplements,cardiovascular nutrition, and stress management.
FREE Subscription to Byron's Health Newsletter, click here.

Saturday, August 15, 2009

Medical journal urges caution over swine flu vaccine

RONAN McGREEVY
COUNTRIES NEED to assess carefully the risks and benefits of the rapid approval of a human swine flu vaccine to avoid the repeat of past problems with mass-vaccination, medical journal The Lancet has said.
The publication said the fast- tracking of vaccines could lead to a repeat of the problems surrounding a 1976 H1N1 vaccination programme in the United States.
Three elderly people died on the day the vaccine was introduced in October 1976, causing panic and the eventual abandonment of the vaccine programme. The Lancet said the vaccine might be licensed without the usual safety and efficacy data requirements and all monitoring will have to be done after the vaccine has been administered.
It also pointed out that the disease has so far been mild with most patients making a full recovery and therefore there should be strong post-marketing surveillance in place before the rolling out of a vaccine.
The vaccines, which are still being developed, are likely to be available in Ireland by October and everybody will be in a position to get them.
The chief medical officer Dr Tony Holohan said they would not be recommending the vaccine to any group unless the balance of risk is in favour of them being vaccinated. Six of the seven foreign students staying on the UCD campus who are suspected of having human swine flu have been released from quarantine.
The other student is being assessed by a GP and has been prescribed paracetamol rather than tamiflu which is usually only given to those who have contracted swine flu. Ten students, who are from Italy and Spain, were also monitored by GPs. They have all been cleared while another student who presented yesterday with flu-like symptoms is being assessed. A spokesman for UCD said the university, the biggest in the country, has a comprehensive plan to prepare for the potential threat which will occur when students and staff return to the college in September.

Friday, July 24, 2009

The New Mr. America: Bankrupt, Diseased and Running Out of Options


Friday, July 24, 2009 by: Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor




(NaturalNews) With a military rifle in one hand and a bottle of prescription medications in the other, the new "Mr. America" is over-fed, under-nourished, over-medicated, over-spent and "over there" (waging war in the Middle East). And soon, with Obama's new disease care reform proposals, America will find itself destitute and diseased, unable to climb out of the medication dependence pit it has dug for itself.

See the political cartoon on this topic here:http://www.naturalnews.com/026686_debt_america_disease.html

To understand why this is true from a financial point of view, take a look at these numbers:

If you read the actual federal budget for 2009, it's an astonishing $3.1 trillion. The size of the number itself is mind-boggling, but it's even more disturbing when you realize just how much of the federal budget is spent on these three things:

WAR
DISEASE
DEBT

In fact, let me ask you this question right now: What percentage of the federal budget do you think is spent on these three things? War, Disease and Debt.

Is it 10 percent? Twenty-five percent? Fifty percent?

Keep going...

Of course, if you actually work in Washington, you won't even describe these as "War, Disease and Debt." Instead, you call them:

DEFENSE
HEALTH
THE ECONOMY

It all sounds much nicer when phrased that way. But these terms are intentionally deceptive. We're not really "defending" our way into Iraq, Afghanistan and seventy-five other countries where we have a military presence. Spending on "health care" doesn't have anything to do with health (it's all about disease). And people who say spending more debt money to "help the economy" are mathematical retards. You can't get yourself out of debt by spending more money (even though V.P. Joe Biden insists you can...).

So are you ready for the actual number?

It's an eye-opener. The actual percentage of the U.S. federal budget spent on WAR, DISEASE and DEBT is 87 percent.

Here's how it breaks down according to publicly-available numbers: (Source = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2009 )

Total U.S. Federal Budget for 2009: $3.1 trillion

1) WAR: Department of Defense ($515.4 billion) + War on Terror ($145.2 billion) + Dept. of Veterans Affairs ($44.8 billion) + Dept. of Homeland Security ($37.6 billion) = $743 billion

2) DISEASE: Medicare ($408 billion) + Medicaid ($224 billion) + Dept. of Health and Human Services ($70 billion) =$702 billion

3) DEBT: Debt to the people: Social Security ($644 billion), Social Security Administration ($8.4 billion), Welfare ($360 billion) and Interest on National Debt ($260 billion) = $1,272 billion

(Note: This does not even include the financial cost of the War on Iraq or the War in Afghanistan, as those are budgeted separately as appropriations and are not included in the Dept. of Defense budget. So the actual numbers are far worse than what's shown here...)

Combined spending on War, Disease and Debt: $2,717 billion ($2.7 trillion), which is 87% of the total expenditures by the federal government ($3.1 trillion). 

How do you dig yourself out of this hole?For every tax dollar you send to Washington (and it's about to become a whole lot more of 'em), 87 cents gets spent on war, disease and debt. That leaves just 13 cents on the dollar for roads, schools, parks, technology, science, the environment, adult education and other programs.

If you spent 87% of your own household income on war, disease and debt, leaving only 13 cents on the dollar for food, clothing, transportation and entertainment, how long would your own finances stay solvent? Not very long...

It doesn't take a financial genius to realize that the United States of America has dug itself into a financial trench so deep and so infected with really bad planning that there is virtually no way it can get out. As a result, the American people are increasingly bankrupt, diseased and homeless. (I predict a new wave of tent cities springing up across the American landscape as increasing numbers of Americans lose their jobs and their homes.)

"Mr. America" is burned out, stressed out, tapped out and about to be rubbed out.

It is only a matter of time before economic reality sets in and the American people find their currency is phased out, too.

An economic prison to keep you trapped and pennilessIt's easy to see this from afar (from South America, in my case, where I live full time): America is living in a fantasy world, where the laws of economics have been (temporarily) suspended. There's no such thing as too much spending. No such thing as too many prescription drugs or vaccines. No such thing as too much war. It's all justifiable by the relentless fools in Washington who claim, "We saved the economy!"

Because, you see, we are past the point of dealing with reality in America. There will be no saving the nation from financial demise. There will be no meaningful health care reform. There will be no real changes that preserve your freedom or your bank account. Instead, one hundred percent of the efforts are now focused on preserving the illusionsthat keep America artificially propped up like a morbid human puppet.

The new Congressional bills, the financial bailouts, the empty talk of health care reform -- these are all designed to distract you from the sobering, unavoidable and simple truth: That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else, you were born into bondage, born inside a prison that you cannot smell, taste, or touch. A prison for your mind. [Recognize it?]

That prison keeps you working 60-hour weeks. It keeps you paying your taxes. It keeps you medicated and indoctrinated like a slobbering idiot who buys brand-name products because the logos seem somehow emotionally familiar (TV programming). It keeps you slaving away your precious hours, shoveling the fruits of your labor into a mindless, heartless machine of Big Government that has already mortgaged your assets, sacrificed your health and stolen your future.

And there's always a seductive motivation beckoning you to sacrifice more. If you only work another job, you'll be able to afford that giant TV screen you've always wanted. Here's a credit card to make it easy, or you can just sign over your home. Here, take this vaccine shot for your own protection. Vote for me, and I'll give you free health care. I'll stabilize the economy by spending future generations into yet more debt. Don't worry about paying anything back... we'll let the next President deal with that.

The fraud continues, year after year, with new faces and names at the helm, but the same old failed thinking at the core. You cannot spend your way to prosperity, you must SAVE your way there. You cannot make a population healthy by drugging more people. You cannot make peace by waging war. And you cannot make a nation great by abandoning the real needs of the people and selling out to corporations and their lobbyists.

Sadly, while Mr. America was once a healthy, thriving, hard-working individual, he's now a jobless, indebted medicated heart patient with a caffeine habit and an upside-down mortgage on the home he's about to lose. And the worst part is that the lawmakers in Washington are doing everything in their power to make sure Mr. America stays that way.

About the author: Mike Adams is a consumer health advocate with a strong interest in personal health, the environment and the power of nature to help us all heal He has authored and published thousands of articles, interviews, consumers guides, and books on topics like health and the environment, reaching millions of readers with information that is saving lives and improving personal health around the world. Adams is an independent journalist with strong ethics who does not get paid to write articles about any product or company. In 2007, Adams launched EcoLEDs, a maker of energy efficient LED lights that greatly reduce CO2 emissions. He also launched an online retailer of environmentally-friendly products (BetterLifeGoods.com) and uses a portion of its profits to help fund non-profit endeavors. He's also the founder and CEO of a well known email mail merge software developer whose software, 'Email Marketing Director,' currently runs the NaturalNews email subscriptions. Adams also serves as the executive director of the Consumer Wellness Center, a non-profit consumer protection group, and enjoys outdoor activities, nature photography, Pilates and adult gymnastics. 

http://www.naturalnews.com/026693_debt_America_disease.html

Thursday, July 23, 2009

RX FOR DISASTER: 83 MILLION OF US WON'T KEEP OUR INSURANCE

For those who do manage to keep their current insurance -- well, it won't cost $2,500 less, as Obama promised. Lewin estimates it will cost $460 a year more because of new cost-shifting from the government-run plan to private health plans.

That's right. The $1.3 trillion House health-care bill would cause millions of Americans to lose the insurance they have now -- while the rest of us would pay even more than we do now.

Faced with onerous new regulations and the possibility of heavy fines, employers might choose the simpler -- and legally safer -- route of dropping their health plans entirely and simply paying the new 8 percent payroll tax, which will be levied on employers who don't provide the government-approved health insurance.

Jam the phone lines TODAY! Call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202)224-3121 and ask for your Representative to STOP the criminal forced health"care" legislation that will rob everyone of us blind!!


RX FOR DISASTER

83 MILLION OF US WON'T KEEP OUR INSURANCE

By ROBERT A. BOOK & ROBERT E. MOFFIT

July 22, 2009 
Posted: 1:00 am
July 22, 2009

Obama: Breaking oft-repeated promises.

AT tonight's press conference, someone should ask President Obama why he's endorsing, and not threatening to veto, the 1,018-page House health-care reform bill now being rushed to passage: It breaks nearly all his core promises about health-care reform.

"If you have health insurance, then you don't have to do anything," Obama said on Oct. 15, 2008. "If you've got health insurance through your employer, you can keep your health insurance, keep your choice of doctor, keep your plan. . . 

And we estimate we can cut the average family's premium by about $2,500 per year."

Both these solemn pledges, repeated often ever since and as recently as yesterday, are violated in the House bill. Its perverse incentives, plus the onerous regulations Congress plans to impose on employer-provided insurance, would cause more than half of those with employer-provided insurance to lose it -- 83.4 million Americans, according to The Lewin Group, a prominent, politically neutral health-care analysis firm.

And for those who do manage to keep their current insurance -- well, it won't cost $2,500 less, as Obama promised. Lewin estimates it will cost $460 a year more because of new cost-shifting from the government-run plan to private health plans.That's right. The $1.3 trillion House health-care bill would cause millions of Americans to lose the insurance they have now -- while the rest of us would pay even more than we do now.

Most of those who lose their current insurance would be enrolled in Congress' newly created government-run health plan. The health benefits these Americans get would be decided by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, based on the recommendations of a newly created Health Benefits Advisory Committee. The HHS team would decide, year by year, what health-care benefits you would and would not get in the government-approved package.

Change we can believe in, huh?

Congress would authorize the HHS secretary to pay doctors and hospitals who participate in its health plan on the basis of Medicare rates, plus 5 percent.

But Medicare rates are much lower than those in private insurance -- 19 percent lower for doctors and 32 percent lower for hospitals. So the plan means big cuts in payments to health-care providers. They'd try to cover part of their losses by charging more to the private plans still left.

Doctors would lose -- big time. Based on the projected number of people forced out of private insurance and into the public plan, the Lewin Group estimates that physicians will lose $13.4 billion in net income -- equivalent to an average pay cut of 6.3 percent.

Hospitals would be hit even harder, losing $67 billion in revenue. That's more than the total net cash flow of all the hospitals in the country. Facing bankruptcy, a lot of hospitals might have to close their doors.

It could get worse. The Lewin Group's estimate of the rise in premiums only accounts for the possibility that doctors and hospitals would try to raise prices on the privately insured to make up for their losses from patients in the new public plan.

But there's another reason why private insurance premiums might increase even more: The House bill also creates a new office with the Orwellian title "Health Choices Commissioner." After a five-year "grace" period, employer-sponsored private health plans would be subject to approval by this commissioner.

The commissioner would be empowered to set benefit levels, decide what services will be covered regardless of the preferences of patients and otherwise set standards for private health plans. These mandates are all likely to increase health-care costs and therefore private insurance premiums.

Those standards aren't specified in the bill and may never be debated in Congress. They are up to the discretion of the "Choices" commissioner -- who will, of course, limit your choices to "acceptable" plans only.

Your employer's health plan might not be deemed "qualified." In that case, your employer could be fined, and even prohibited from enrolling new employees until the commissioner is satisfied that the violation "has been corrected and is not likely to recur." More change you can believe in . . .

Faced with onerous new regulations and the possibility of heavy fines, employers might choose the simpler -- and legally safer -- route of dropping their health plans entirely and simply paying the new 8 percent payroll tax, which will be levied on employers who don't provide the government-approved health insurance.

In fact, for most employers, paying this tax will be cheaper than paying for the company-based insurance even at today's prices. If the Health "Choices" Commissioner's yet unspecified standards turn out to be sufficiently onerous, Americans could end up with single-payer health care -- universal government health insurance -- by default.

Perhaps that's the idea?

Faced with payments that don't cover their expenses, and fewer and fewer private insurers to shoulder the costs, expect even more hospitals to close and more doctors to choose early retirement or another profession.

But at least if they could find a doctor, the House bill would cover every American with something, right? No -- according to Lewin, 16.5 million Americans would still be left uninsured.

This is bad medicine, that will take an already ailing health-care system and render it severely dysfunctional.

Robert A. Book is the senior research fellow in Health Economics at The Heritage Foundation (heritage.org), where Robert E. Moffit directs the Center for Health Policy Studies.


Does OBAMA and the House really want to raise taxes on eight million uninsured people? YES!!!

Jam the phone lines TODAY! Call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202)224-3121 and ask for your Representative to STOP the criminal forced health"care" legislation that will rob everyone of us blind!!

As expected, the House bill would MANDATE that individuals and families have or buy health insurance. And for those who do manage to keep their current insurance -- it will cost you...A LOT MORE!

Posted on July 14th, 2009 by kbh in featuredhealthtaxes 

The President has said he would not allow taxes to be raised on anyone with less than $250,000 of income.
Today for the first time we see the legislative language for and a summary of the health care reform bill that House Democrats intend to try to pass before the August recess.  The following is based on an initial quick scan of the bill and studying a few key sections.  I have been wondering how the drafters were going to solve the problem I am about to describe.  As best I can tell, they didn’t solve it.

As expected, the House bill would mandate that individuals and families have or buy health insurance.
But what if they don’t buy it?
Then Section 401 kicks in.  Any individual (or family) that does not have health insurance would have to pay a new tax, roughly equal to the smaller of 2.5% of your income or the cost of a health insurance plan.
[ Technical note:  From the legislative language, it appears the tax = min( 2.5% * (modified AGI – personal exemption), average premium cost).  In the examples below, for simplicity I assume modified AGI = AGI. ]
I assume the bill authors would respond, “But why wouldn’t you want insurance?  After all, we’re subsidizing it for everyone up to 400% of the poverty line.”
That is true.  But if you’re a single person with income of $44,000 or higher, then you’re above 400% of the poverty line.  You would not be subsidized, but would face the punitive tax if you didn’t get health insurance.  This bill leaves an important gap between the subsidies and the cost of health insurance.  CBO says that for about eight million people, that gap is too big to close, and they would get stuck paying higher taxes and still without health insurance.

Example 1:
Bob is single and earns $50K per year.  He earns more than four times the federal poverty level, so he does not qualify for subsidies under the House bill.
Bob works for a five-person small business that does not provide him with health insurance.  His $50K wage is average for this company, which therefore does not qualify for the new small business tax credits.
This company is small enough that they do not have to pay the IRS any fee for not providing Bob with health insurance.  (See the table on page 184.)
With only $50K of income, Bob cannot afford to buy health insurance.  Under the House bill, he would then have to pay about $1,150 per year in higher taxes to the government.  That’s 2.5% of (his income minus a $3,650 personal exemption).
I went shopping for Bob on eHealthInsurance.com.  He is 50 years old and a non-smoker, living where I do in Virginia.  The cheapest bare bones policy he can get is $1,620 per year.  Most plans are in the $3K – $5K range.  That $470 difference between the tax and the cheapest premium is more than Bob can afford on a $50K pre-tax annual wage.
To summarize, under the House bill:
    Bob is a single 50-year old non-smoking small business employee who makes $50K per year before taxes and does not have health insurance.
    Bob cannot afford a $1,600 bare bones health insurance policy, much less a $3K — $5K policy.
    Bob would get no subsidies under this bill, and his employer would face no penalty for not providing him with health insurance.
    Bob would end up without health insurance and would have to pay $1,150 more in taxes.

Example 2:
Freddy and Kelsey are married with two kids.  They earn $90K per year.  They earn more than four times the federal poverty level, and therefore do not qualify for subsidies under the House bill.
Freddy and Kelsey own and run a small tourist shop in Orlando, Florida.  They are the only two employees.  Their wages exceed the amounts that would qualify them for small business tax credits under the House bill.
Because their business is so small, the House bill would impose no financial penalty for not complying with the employer mandate.  Even if they did, the tax penalty would come out of their own bottom line, since the two of them are the business.
Freddy and Kelsey are both 40 years old.  They have a 15-year old son and a 12-year old daughter.  None of them smoke.
Shopping on eHealthInsurance, the cheapest plan I could find for them is a high-deductible PPO plan with a $6,000 annual deductible.  That would cost them more than $3,800 per year.  And it’s a bare-bones plan.
They can’t afford that.  Maybe they are recovering from a hurricane, or dealing with the real estate collapse in Florida.  They are also saving for their kids’ college, which is only a few years away.  Even with $90K of income, money is tight for a family of four.
If they cannot afford the (at least) $3,800 in health insurance premiums, then the House bill would make them pay more than $2,050 in higher taxes.
To summarize, under the House bill:
    Freddy and Kelsey are a 40-year old couple with two kids.  They own and run a small tourist shop in Orlando, Florida.
    They are the only employees, and earn a combined $90K per year.
    They cannot afford even an inexpensive health insurance plan, and so the House bill would make them pay $2,050 in higher taxes.

These two examples show the difficulty of making an individual mandate work.  To get people to comply with the mandate, you have to impose a significant tax penalty on those who don’t comply.  This will change the calculation for many who were previously uninsured – they will buy health insurance, because the delta between the cost of having insurance and the tax penalty cost of not having it has shrunk, so they might as well buy it.
The bigger this gap, the fewer people will switch.  And for those who do not or cannot comply with the mandate, they end up in the worst of all worlds – uninsured and paying higher taxes.
From CBO’s new tables, it appears that about eight million U.S. citizens would fall into this category.  I expect that very few of these people would have more than $250,000 of income, the no-tax-increase line defined by the President.
I expect the House Democrats will emphasize that their bill would result in 97 percent of U.S. citizens having coverage.  Those other three percent, however, really get shafted, and that’s about eight million people.
If the President were to sign such a bill into law, I cannot figure out how his team could reconcile this consequence with his pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class.
But without the tax penalty, the mandate isn’t effective, and the number of resulting uninsured goes way up.
The House bill drafters have made a hard policy choice.  It is important that Members of Congress and the public understand the benefits and the costs of the approach they have chosen.

Update
Thanks to a friend for pointing this out: We know the President understands this point.  Here is then-Senator Obama in a debate with then-Senator Clinton on February 21, 2008, opposing her proposal for a universal individual mandate to purchase health insurance (emphasis added):
SENATOR OBAMA:  Number one, understand that when Senator Clinton says a mandate, it’s not a mandate on government to provide health insurance, it’s a mandate on individuals to purchase it. And Senator Clinton is right; we have to find out what works.
Now, Massachusetts has a mandate right now. They have exempted 20 percent of the uninsured because they have concluded that that 20 percent can’t afford it.
In some cases, there are people who are paying fines and still can’t afford it, so now they’re worse off than they were. They don’t have health insurance and they’re paying a fine.
(APPLAUSE)
In order for you to force people to get health insurance, you’ve got to have a very harsh penalty, and Senator Clinton has said that we won’t go after their wages. Now, this is a substantive difference. But understand that both of us seek to get universal health care. I have a substantive difference with Senator Clinton on how to get there.

Thursday, July 16, 2009

The Mothers Act Disease Mongering Campaign - Part I

Thursday, July 16, 2009 by: Evelyn Pringle, health freedom writer

(NaturalNews) The Mothers Act represents the ultimate example of disease mongering at its worst because the eight-year attempt to pass this federal legislation has evolved into profiteering never before exhibited so conspicuously.

Disease mongering "is the selling of sickness that widens the boundaries of illness and grows the markets for those who sell and deliver treatments," according to Ray Moyniahan and David Henry in the April 11, 2006 paper in PLoS Med, titled, "The Fight against Disease Mongering." 

"It is exemplified most explicitly by many pharmaceutical industry -- funded disease-awareness campaigns -- more often designed to sell drugs than to illuminate or to inform or educate about the prevention of illness or the maintenance of health," the authors explain. 

"Drug companies are by no means the only players in this drama," they point out. "Through the work of investigative journalists, we have learned how informal alliances of pharmaceutical corporations, public relations companies, doctors' groups, and patient advocates promote these ideas to the public and policymakers -- often using mass media to push a certain view of a particular health problem." 

The Mothers Act campaign has operated under the guise of helping women suffering from postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis to develop a new industry, complete with specialties like, "reproductive psychiatry," or "reproductive mental health," with a plan to "screen" and "treat" women of childbearing years for a long list of "perinatal" mental disorders, to financially benefitpsychiatric drug makers, as well as the treatment providers and "experts" in the new self-created field. 

"Drug companies have been trying for years to get a better deal with pregnant women by saying they were under a lot more stress than people realize," according to UK pharmacology expert, Dr David Healy, author the new book, "Mania: A Short History of Bipolar Disorder."

This is now the easiest marketing for the drug makers, he says. In fact, "almost too easy because lots of people are cooperative." 

The Mothers Act has already passed in the House and Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), is the main sponsor of the bill in the Senate. In 2006, his home state of New Jersey became the first state in the nation to enact a law forcing all new mothers to submit to mandatory screening.

Lobbyists paid big bucks to push drugs in WashingtonA June 24, 2009 report by the public interest advocacy group, "Common Cause," lists Menedez as one of the top 20 recipients of healthcare industry campaign contributions in the Senate between 2000 and 2008. Since the year 2000, Menendez has received a total of $2,252,169, including $723,550 from Big Pharma. 

On June 8, 2009, a headline on New Jersey.com, read: "E-mail: Drug lobbyist targeted Menendez to help with importation bill," and reported that the subject line of the email said: "URGENT"

The strategy to pursue Menendez became known when the email from the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the industry trade group, ended up with Senator John McCain, a drug importation advocate. "And McCain read it on the Senate floor -- twice," the article notes.

The email called for New Jersey drug companies to ask Menendez to be their champion on an amendment that would effectively kill any attempt to allow cheaper drugs to be imported from other countries, according to the report.

"We need to locate a Democratic lead cosponsor for the second degree amendment," the e-mail said. "Can … [Johnson & Johnson], Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and the other New Jersey companies coordinate and contact Senator Menendez's office and ask him to take the lead?"

"Menendez's office said that while he supports the drug companies' position, he did not act as their champion," according to New Jersey.com.

Officially known as the "Melanie Blocker-Stokes Post Partum Depression Research and Care Act," the bill is "named after Melanie Stokes, a woman who suffered emotional difficulties after giving birth and was subsequently prescribed a cocktail of intensely controversial psychiatric drugs including anti-psychotic, anti-anxiety, and anti-depressant drugs before being subjected to electroshock treatment," according to a letter made available on the AbleChild, website for persons to sign and send to Senators, via the internet, encouraging them to vote against the Act. 

"Melanie Stokes was in the mental health system, was prescribed drugs, was hospitalized, was subjected to the still barbaric practice of electroshock and only after receiving mental health "treatment" did she commit suicide," it further explains.

"That is what the mental health industry did for a new mother named Melanie," the letter points out.

The Mothers Act "quite simply is a feeder line for the psycho-pharmaceutical industry and will result in more mothers and infants being put at risk for being prescribed antidepressant and other dangerous psychiatric drugs," the AbleChild letter warns.

Suicide Prevention HoaxThe disease mongering campaigns for the new generation of psychiatric drugs over the last 20 years were accomplished under the ruse of suicide prevention. However, in 1987, the year Prozac was approved, and kicked off the bogus epidemic of mental illness in this country, the number of suicides was 30,796, and in the latest year reported on the website of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, the number of suicides was 33,292 in 2006.

The suicide related adverse event reports submitted to the FDA's MedWatch system are summarized on the "Adverse Psychiatric Drug Reaction" website. For a two-year period between January 2004 and December 2006, the top 20 list of most commonly reported adverse events for Prozac, included 187 suicides and 68 attempts. Zoloft had 154 suicides and 162 suicide attempts. Paxil's top 20 list included 841 suicides, Celexa had 232 suicide reports, and Lexapro had 189 suicides, and 87 suicide attempts, reported to MedWatch. Only between one and ten percent of adverse events ever get reported to the FDA's system.

In May 2009, journalist, Philip Dawdy, reported on the popular Furious Seasons website, that Wyeth's new Effexor me-too drug, Pristiq, approved in early 2008, had already generated 1,272 adverse event reports in MedWatch by the end of 2008. 

"It's discouraging that 17 of those reports involve completed suicides through the end of 2008," Dawdy said. "There are also 48 reports of suicidal ideation."

Symptoms Equal Side EffectsPurely for profit, patients are told to stay on antidepressants indefinitely to prevent a relapse of depression or anxiety disorders. It's doubtful that patients realize that their sex lives could be ruined by taking the drugs or that the use of common pain relievers, vitamins and alcohol is dangerous or that their driving ability might be altered, for years on end.

The website Prozac.com lists depression symptoms as: depressed mood most of the day, nearly every day; lack of interest or pleasure in your usual activities and a lack of motivation; changes in appetite; sleep problems; anxiety or restlessness; feelings of guilt, worthlessness, and insecurity; difficulty concentrating and thinking clearly; fatigue or lack of energy; and thoughts of suicide.

Compare those "symptoms" to the severity and number of adverse events listed and described on the "Safety Information" page for Prozac, which includes the following statement:

"Patients on antidepressants and their families or caregivers should watch for worsening depression symptoms, unusual changes in behavior and thoughts of suicide, as well as for anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, difficulty sleeping, irritability, hostility, aggressiveness, impulsivity, restlessness, or extreme hyperactivity."


Under the heading, "What are possible side effects of PROZAC?" the website states:

"Some people experience side effects like nausea, difficulty sleeping, drowsiness, anxiety, nervousness, weakness, loss of appetite, tremors, dry mouth, sweating, decreased sex drive, impotence, or yawning."


"PROZAC can cause changes in sexual desire or satisfaction," it warns.

Sexual dysfunction, including lack of libido, orgasmic dysfunction and delayed ejaculation, are common side effects of using SSRIs, according to the May 2005 report, "The Marketing of Depression: The Prescribing of SSRIAntidepressants to Women," by Dr Janet Currie.

"Since SSRIs are prescribed more often for women, women are more frequently affected by SSRI-induced sexual dysfunction," she explains.

"Because SSRIs can also lead to a worsening of depression, paradoxical effects, emotional blunting or detachment, reduced emotional activity, memory loss and confusion, these effects, in conjunction with sexual dysfunction, can negatively affect intimate relationships," she warns.

"There are concerns that not all sexual dysfunction may fully resolve after termination of treatment," Currie also reports. 

"Be sure to tell your doctor if you are taking PROZAC and are taking or plan to take non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or aspirin since combined use of these drug products have been associated with an increased risk of bleeding," the Prozac website advises.

"Also, tell your doctor if you are taking or plan to take any vitamins, herbal supplements or alcohol," the warning says.

An October 2007 study by researchers led by Dr Sonal Singh, published online in Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics, reported that SSRIs may double the risk of bleeding in the upper digestive gastrointestinal tract including the esophagus, stomach or upper intestine. 

The researchers also noted that when SSRIs are taken with aspirin or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), such as prescription Celebrex or over-the-counter Aleve, the risk of bleeding was 6 times higher than in persons not on the drugs.

"Do not drive a car or operate dangerous machinery until you know what effects PROZAC may have on you," the Prozac website instructs. 

A December 2006 study in the, "Journal of Clinical Psychiatry," reported that about seven out of every ten people who take antidepressants have impaired driving ability and that 16% of the people on the drugs have severe motor impairments. 

A new May 2009 study, in the "American Journal of Psychiatry," reports that long term use of antidepressants raises the risk of diabetes, especially in moderate to high doses. SSRIs increased the risk by 106% and tricyclic antidepressants increased the risk by 77%.

The precaution section on the labeling for Prozac states: "Hyponatremia may occur as a result of treatment."

"Signs and symptoms of hyponatremia include headache, difficulty concentrating, memory impairment, confusion, weakness, and unsteadiness, which may lead to falls," it explains. 

"More severe and/or acute cases have been associated with hallucination, syncope, seizure, coma, respiratory arrest, and death," the label warns.

Antidepressants lose patent profitabilitySince the new generation of antidepressants lost their patent profitability, the treatment for all the "mood" and "anxiety" disorders women will be diagnosed with as a result of the Mothers Act disease mongering campaign, now includes not only antidepressants, but drugs used as "mood stabilizers," such as the antipsychotics Zyprexa, Seroquel, Risperdal, Invega, Geodon and Abilify, and antiseizure medications including Lamictal, Depakote, Topamax, Trileptal, Neurontin, Gabitril and Lyrica, along with benzodiazepines like Xanax, Ativan, Valium and Klonopin, and sleeping pills such as Ambien or Lunesta.

In 2008, psychiatric drug makers had overall US sales of $14.6 billion from antipsychotics, $9.6 billion off antidepressants, $11.3 billion from antiseizure drugs, and $4.8 billion in sales of ADHD drugs, for a grand total of $40.3 billion.

"In 2008, 85 million prescriptions were filled for the top 20 benzodiazepines, an increase of 10 million over 2004, according to IMS Health, a health-care information company," the Wall Street Journal reported on June 30, 2009. 

"Worldwide revenue for Xanax rose to $350 million last year, up nearly 50 percent from 2003, according to pharmaceutical company Pfizer's financial reports," the Journal reported. Xanax sold for $203 for 100 middle dose tablets, and Ativan cost $230 per hundred at DrugStore.com on July 13, 2009.

Benzodiazepines are often prescribed to manage anxiety, panic and sleep disorders, the Journal noted. "Health professionals and consumers are increasingly recognizing that taking the drugs for more than a few weeks can lead to physical dependence, often ending with a grueling withdrawal," the article said. 

Psychiatric drugs are now doled out in multiple drug cocktails to treat "co-occurring" mental illnesses such as "anxiety disorders" and "treatment resistant" depression, or the latest rage, "Adult ADHD."

In an April 2008 report, the market research firm, Datamonitor, announced: "ADHD - Immature adult market continues to offer greatest commercial potential." 

"Estimated to be twice the size of the pediatric ADHD population," the reports states, "the highly prevalent, yet largely untapped, adult ADHD population continues to represent an attractive niche to target."

"The rising awareness of ADHD brought about by marketing campaigns for Adderall XR and Strattera has paved the way for the entry of additional adult ADHD drugs," it notes.

"The US dominates the ADHD market with a 94% market share," Datamonitor points out, demonstrating that the rest of the world has apparently not lost the ability to concentrate without the use of "legal speed."

Last year, Adderall and Vyvanse maker, Shire, issued a press release on May 12, 2008, to announce a "Nationwide Adult ADHD Mobile Awareness Tour," and launched a "13-city mobile screening initiative" for adults with ADHD.

"The screening initiative, known as the "RoADHD Trip," is housed, transported and anchored by the RoADHD Trip Tractor Trailer which expands into a tented area housing eight self-screening stations," Shire explained in the press release.

Shire claims that ADHD "affects approximately 4.4 percent of the U.S. adult population aged 18-44 according to the National Comorbidity Survey Replication, a nationally representative household survey." 

Dr David Stein, author of, "Unraveling the ADD/ADHD Fiasco," warns that stimulant drugs are "near the top of the heap of potentially addictive drugs." 

There is no way of pinpointing which people are at risk of becoming addicted, he says, and "psychiatry has an extremely poor track record for treating addiction problems."

Profitable Victims Spur Disease MongeringWhen drugs are peddled through mental illness disease mongering campaigns, stories in the media seldom mentionmedication prices, much less the number of drugs commonly prescribed together to treat the various disorders; leaving the public unaware of the enormous profit motive behind the mass drugging of the victims.

A women diagnosed with ADHD and treatment resistant depression might end up taking Strattera, Cymbalta andZyprexa, all sold by Eli Lilly. The recent prices of these drugs at a middle dose on DrugStore.com were $427 for 100 capsules of Strattera, $391 for 90 capsules of Cymbalta, and Zyprexa was $1,195 per ninety pills. A year of these three drugs would bring in roughly $24,156, per patient, for Lilly and the pharmacy alone, not counting the prescribing doctors' fees and the cost of any therapy sessions deemed necessary.

Bristol-Myers Squibb's Abilify is now approved as an "Adjunctive Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder," at a price of $1,230 for ninety capsules at DrugStore.com. The "Information for Patients," section on the labeling states in part: 

"Patients, their families, and their caregivers should be encouraged to be alert to the emergence of anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility, aggressiveness, impulsivity, akathisia (psychomotor restlessness), hypomania, mania, other unusual changes in behavior, worsening of depression, and suicidal ideation, especially early during antidepressant treatment and when the dose is adjusted up or down."

"A syndrome of potentially irreversible, involuntary, dyskinetic movements may develop in patients treated with antipsychotic drugs," the Abilify labeling warns. 

On April 29, 2009, Philip Dawdy's headline on Furious Seasons, read: "10 Percent Of Depressed Patients Now Take Antipsychotics," based on statements made during a conference call by executives of Bristol-Myers Squibb.

"Forget about Prozac Nation, this is Atypical Nation," he said. "Antipsychotics are now the top revenue producing class of drugs, topping even statins.

Zyprexa and Prozac are combined in Lilly's Symbyax, recently approved for "treatment resistant" depression and the Abilify warnings are also on the labeling of this drug. The price of Symbyax was $1,564 for ninety 12-25mg capsules on DrugStore.com in May 2009, meaning each patient could bring in $18,768 per year for Lilly and the pharmacy alone.

A 2007 study titled, "Serious Adverse Drug Events Reported to the Food and Drug Administration," between 1998-2005, by Thomas Moore, Michael Cohen, and Curt Furberg, in the Archives of Internal Medicine, found the number of fatal adverse event reports to the FDA had increased nearly 300%, from 1998 to 2005. The top 15 drugs with the most fatalities included the antipsychotics, Clozaril with 3,277 deaths, Risperdal with 1,093, and Zyprexa with 1,005. Paxilalso made the top 15 list with 850 death reports.

In 2008, the FDA warned that anticonvulsants double the risk of suicidal behavior or ideation, with epilepsy treatment having the highest risk, ruling out psychiatric disorders, such as depression, as the underlying culprit. The prices for anticonvulsants at a middle dose ran as high as $1,029 for 180 tablets of GlaxoSmithKline's Lamictal, and $1,286 for 180 tablets of Johnson & Johnson's Topamax, in May 2009. 

Unconscionable Disease Mongers Target the Nursery"The rights of the unborn to a safe and healthy birth are being taken away by this legislation," says Mothers Act opponent Larry Bone. 

"One third of pregnant women in the US already take psychiatric drugs at some point during their pregnancies and most are never warned of the known risks for themselves, their unborn and nursing babies, depriving them of their right to informed consent," according to Dr Fred Baughman, author of the "ADHD Fraud," and former director of the March of Dimes, Birth Defects Clinic of Western Michigan.

"Should the Act pass," he warns, "it will guarantee that more mothers-to-be, their unborn still-developing babies, and more nursing mothers and their nursing infants, will join the ranks of the psychiatrically drugged." 

A young Texas mother, Amy Philo, is the leader of "Unite for Life," a coalition of 53 groups fighting against the Mothers Act, which includes the Alliance for Human Research Protection, AbleChild, Citizens Commission on Human Rights, International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology; International Coalition For Drug Awareness; Law Project for Psychiatric Rights, Mindfreedom International, and the National Association for Rights Protection and Advocacy. 

The coalition points out that there is no language in the bill that will ensure mothers are granted the most fundamental right of "informed consent," meaning they will be told about all the risks of the proposed treatments and all the alternatives. 

"If this bill was really for moms with PPD," Amy says, "it would ensure express written informed consent and ensure that all medical testing and non-drug options are explored."

"When the sponsors in the Senate refuse to add informed consent language and an examination of existing data on risks of existing treatments, then you know something is wrong," she says. "Seriously wrong."

The lack of an informed consent provision also concerns other experts in the field. "In every case in which a doctor writes a prescription, the person receiving the drug must be fully and understandably provided a statement of the risks associated with treatment," says Harrisburg, Pennsylvania psychiatrist, Dr Stefan Kruszewski, who serves as an expert in litigation on the harms of psychiatric drugs. 

"This is never more serious than when two lives are potentially at risk, such as the pregnant or nursing mother and her infant," he advises.

"The risks for a pregnant mom on antidepressants may include withdrawal, akathisia or rapid mood swings," he warns. "For the fetus, the overwhelming worry is a withdrawal syndrome and congenital malformations, resulting in complications for both mother and child."

Drugged VictimsIn 2004, Amy was prescribed Zoloft, to "prevent" PPD, because she became extremely anxious and concerned after she witnessed her newborn son's life-threatening choking incident, based on a recommendation of a home visiting nurse.

Without any explanation of alternative treatments, or warnings about side effects, the doctor told Amy that Zoloft would make her and her nursing infant happy, in a consultation lasting about two minutes. 

Zoloft caused Amy to become homicidal and suicidal and she ended up locked in a mental ward away from her baby for two days. Rather than recognize the side effects of Zoloft, the "professionals" upped the dose and also tried to feed Amy Zyprexa, Celexa, Ambien, and Klonopin, which she refused to take because she was nursing.

Amy's obsessive homicidal and suicidal thoughts persisted for five months, until she weaned herself off Zoloft against medical advice, and they disappeared and never returned. Her recently obtained medical records show she was labeled with obsessive-compulsive disorder and major depression. These stigmatizing labels will stay in her records forever with no explanation that Zoloft was the cause of any alleged mental disorder.

The family's insurance was billed about $8,000 for the 2-day stay in the mental ward, and Amy and her husband were stuck with an $800 co-payment. Ninety 100mg tablets of Zoloft cost $318, at DrugStore.com on July 13, 2009. Of the drugs Amy refused to take, Celexa sold for $355 for 100 20mg tablets, Klonopin was $209 for 100 2mg tablets, and Ambien cost $173 for 30 10mg pills. As mentioned above, Zyprexa recently sold for $1,195 per ninety tablets.

Andrea Yates is another example of a women drugged into madness. On June 20, 2001, the Texas housewife and former nurse, filled a bathtub with water 3 inches from the top and methodically drowned her five children one by one. After she was done she called 911. When the policemen arrived she led them to the bodies.

"Contrary to the mantra that it is untreated mental illness that causes these tragic events, more often than not, we see these events occurring in individuals who are receiving mental health "treatment," almost always in the form of psychotropic drugs," warns attorney, Karen Barth Menzies, who has worked on cases involving drug-induced homicide and suicide, as well as SSRI birth defect litigation. 

"From everything I have read about the Yates case," she says, "it is a tragic consequence of an incompetent, failing and corrupt mental health system." 

"Ms Yates was on a chemical soup of various medications and, therefore, it is difficult to point the finger at any one drug," she explains. 

"But it seems clear that the drugs she was taking did nothing but exacerbate her condition," she adds.

"I think the drug manufacturers who grossly oversell the benefits of their drugs and the doctors who pile on drug after drug, bear responsibility for the death of these children and deserve to be criminally charged as well," Menzies states.

"What we have observed, particularly in criminal cases," she says, "is that people taking these drugs will commit crimes they normally would never have committed due to a combination of side effects."

"For over a decade, antidepressant manufacturers have monitored the criminal courts for suspects who became violent while taking an antidepressant -- and they secretly help prosecutors fight against an SSRI-antidepressant defense," Menzies reports. 

"The last thing drug companies want is for juries (and the public) to learn the truth - that these drugs can cause people to become violent and homicidal," she advises. 

"Of course, the drug companies do not give the prosecutors the whole story," she says. "To protect the reputation of their money-making drug, the companies hide the internal evidence of people in clinical trials who become violent and homicidal on their drug, but then fully-recovered once they were off."

"These adverse reactions normally include an agitated state as well as a condition called "depersonalization" where the individual becomes disconnected from the reality of their actions, where everything seems unreal, as if they are watching a movie," Menzies explains.

"Often times," she notes, "there is a state of disinhibition, where normal inhibitions are no longer present, such as when people become intoxicated or are on street drugs."

"Unfortunately," she says, "the cost to bring a drug-induced violence (involuntary intoxication) defense is extraordinary, especially because the state is backed by drug company resources to fight this defense."

"Not exactly a level playing field," she says, "And the drug companies, as we've seen, will spare nothing when it comes to protecting the profits they make on these drugs!"

An April 20, 2009 press release by Senator Menendez claimed the Mothers Act legislation would increase federal efforts to combat postpartum depression by:

"Creating a grant program to public or nonprofit private entities to deliver or enhance outpatient, inpatient and home-based health and support services, including case management and comprehensive treatment services for individuals with or at risk for postpartum conditions. 

"Activities may also include providing education about postpartum conditions to new mothers and their families, including symptoms, methods of coping with the illness, and treatment resources, in order to promote earlier diagnosis and treatment."

As will be shown in the next parts of this series, the "public or nonprofit private entities" are already in place and the profiteers are waiting with their hands out for the tax dollars to start rolling into their bank accounts.

http://www.naturalnews.com/026634_drugs_suicide_adhd.html