Taking Antidepressants During Pregnancy Adversely Affects Babies’ Brain Chemistry, Finds Study

[Editor’s Note]

For those wishing for more information about this important subject please read:

A Mind Of Your Own – The Truth About Depression & How Women Can Heal Their Bodies by Dr. Kelly Brogan
Toxic Psychiatry – Dr. Peter Breggin

Pregnant women
Source: NaturalNews.com
Isabelle Z.
June 24, 2016

There is now another reason to be concerned about the effects of antidepressant use, particularly if you’re pregnant. A new study out of the Helsinki University Children’s Hospital has uncovered a link between the use of antidepressants by pregnant women, and brain abnormalities in their newborns.

Unfortunately, 15 percent of pregnant women are believed to suffer from depression or anxiety, and around 5 percent of the babies born in the U.S. each year are believed to be exposed to antidepressants in the womb.

Researcher Sampsa Vanhatalo said: “We found many changes in the brain activity of SRI-exposed newborns. Since the changes did not correlate with the mother’s psychiatric symptoms, we have assumed that they resulted as a side effect of maternal drug treatment.”

The researchers are calling for more investigations into the effects of these drugs on fetal brain function. They emphasize the importance of choosing non-pharmacological interventions to treat anxiety and depression in pregnant women.

This study was the first one that directly studied SSRI exposure’s effects on newborn brain activity. It involved 22 mothers who were taking SSRI meds, and 62 controls who did not take any medication.

Some of the effects noted in the electrical activity in the brains of those who were exposed to SSRIs, include weaker synchronization between cortical rhythms, and lower levels of organization in the communication between brain hemispheres.

This study comes on the heels of another recent study that found permanent changes in the areas of the brain responsible for mood and cognition in the brains of mice whose mothers took SSRIs during pregnancy.

Antidepressant use during pregnancy linked to a number of risks

This finding joins a laundry list of other developmental and fetal complications that have already been linked to antidepressant use during pregnancy.

A study published in JAMA Pediatrics found a link between antidepressant use and the development of autism. In that study, University of Montreal researchers found that women who took SSRIs during their second and third trimester of pregnancy had twice the likelihood of giving birth to a baby who would go on to develop autism.

Autism is not the only issue mothers who take antidepressants might have to contend with as their children grow. Research from Canada’s McMaster University discovered that the use of SSRI antidepressants in pregnancy was correlated with obesity, diabetes, and other metabolic complications such as fatty liver in adult offspring.

Another potential risk associated with taking antidepressants during pregnancy is premature birth. A Danish study discovered that women who take SSRIs while pregnant have double the risk of giving birth prematurely than do women who do not take these drugs.

How can pregnant women deal with depression safely?

Even women who are not pregnant would do well to try alternative options for dealing with depression first, given the other serious side effects caused by antidepressants, including the tendency to commit suicide and carry out violent acts.

There are several methods that expectant mothers can use to cope with depression that do not have dangerous side effects for their unborn children. Some people are quick to dismiss alternative methods, but a study out of Johns Hopkins University actually found that meditation is every bit as effective as antidepressants in treating depression and anxiety. This is an excellent starting point for pregnant women, as it does not carry any potential risks.

In addition, eating the right foods can help, not only with depression, but also with giving your child the best start in life. This means eating organic fruits and vegetables and whole grains. Exercise and yoga can also help boost your mood, although pregnant women should use caution and avoid exercises that are too strenuous.

Spending some time outdoors connecting with nature is an often-overlooked yet effective method of dealing with depression. A Stanford University study found that people noted a decrease in negative self-talk after a 90-minute walk in nature, and brain scans actually showed less activity in the part of the brain that is active during the maladaptive thinking that is linked with depression.

The best news is that all of these approaches can bring about other benefits for your unborn child. Healthy eating means your baby won’t be exposed to the many toxins found in processed food, while getting more physical activity can boost your overall health.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Another Study Proves This Simple Activity Rejuvenates The Brain

person in nature
Source: NaturalSociety.com
Christina Sarich
June 11, 2016

There is already a bevy of studies that prove spending time in nature has amazing health benefits. Spending micro-breaks outdoors can rejuvenate the brain. Kids who spend more time in green spaces have elevated cognitive functioning on tests and also enjoy lower stress levels. The list of ways that Mother Nature nurtures our minds is growing, with a study from last year adding to the multitude of positive benefits we get from spending time outdoors.

The new study, by Stanford’s Gregory Bratman and several colleagues from the United States and Sweden, was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, comes from the field of cognitive neuroscience. By scanning neural signatures in the brain after people spent time in nature (people in Japan refer to this as forest bathing), researchers found some interesting results.

Thirty-eight participants with “no history of mental disorder” were divided into two groups and asked to take a walk. One group walked for 90 minutes near the natural area of the Stanford campus, and the other group walked along a busy roadway (El Camino Real) in downtown Palo Alto, California.

Both before and after their walks, the participants answered a questionnaire designed to measure their tendency to ‘ruminate’ on negative self-talk, an inward pattern of thinking that often leads to depression. They also had brain scans before and after their walks, with emphasis on examination of the subgenual prefrontal cortex of the brain – which the study calls:

“an area that has been shown to be particularly active during the type of maladaptive, self-reflective thought and behavioral withdrawal that occurs during rumination.”

As you may have guessed, participants who took the 90-minute nature walk showed a decrease in rumination. The decrease was measured by how they answered the questionnaire and also by their brain scans, which showed decreased activity in the subgenual prefrontal cortex.

Gregory Bratman, the lead author of the study explained:

“This provides robust results for us that nature experience, even of a short duration, can decrease this pattern of thinking that is associated with the onset, in some cases, of mental illnesses like depression.”

Continue Reading At: NaturalSociety.com

Bombshell Study Admits Antidepressants Increase Suicide Attempts In Teens & Are Completely Worthless For Treating Depression

Antidepressants
Source: NaturalNews.com
Julie Wilson
June 13, 2016

A bombshell study published in the medical journal The Lancet admits what Natural News and others in the holistic health community have been reporting for years: antidepressants kill. On Wednesday, researchers published the most comprehensive analysis to date of the safety and efficacy of widely prescribed antidepressants in children and teens.

What they found is that the majority of antidepressants prescribed to young people have far more risks than benefits, doing essentially nothing to ease symptoms of depression, while significantly increasing suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts, CBS News is reporting.

Out of 14 antidepressants analyzed by researchers, only one – fluoxetine (marketed under the name Prozac and Sarafem) – proved effective for relieving symptoms of depression better than a placebo pill. Venlafaxine (Effexor), on the other hand, was shown to increase the risk of suicidal tendencies in children and teens compared to a placebo and five other antidepressants.

The study results are major considering the fact that antidepressant use among young people is at an all-time high. Shockingly, children under 5-years-old are the fastest growing group being prescribed mind-altering drugs.

Most antidepressants do NOTHING to help depression, study finds

Antidepressant use among children and teens rose from 1.3 to 1.6 percent between 2005 and 2012, according to a separate study published in The Lancet.

As the authors of this latest study confirm, the implications of drugging children with powerful, mind-altering drugs is completely unpredictable, which is why international guidelines encourage doctors to use non-drug approaches including “cognitive behavioral or interpersonal therapy.”

Lead study author Dr. Andrea Cipriani says that because brains in children and teens are not yet developed, it’s important to lead with caution when prescribing medication, “because we don’t know the potential implications in the long term … .”

The U.S National Institutes of Health estimates that some 2.8 million children (or about 11 percent) between the ages of 12 and 17 have suffered from at least one episode of depression, for which we now know that antidepressant drugs are totally worthless.

Dr. Cipriani explains that depression in children differs widely from that of adults. “Not only is it still under-diagnosed and under-treated but also it tends to present in a different way,” he said. “Depressive symptoms in children and adolescents are rather undifferentiated. You notice more irritability, aggressive behavior and problems at school. And consequences of depressive episodes in children and adolescents are dramatic because they include impairments in their social functioning but also an increased risk of suicidal ideation and attempts.”

FDA privy to antidepressant harm in children for decades

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has known for more than a decade that antidepressants pose immense harm to patients, particularly children, which is why it implemented “black box” warnings in 2004 for users under the age of 24. The labels clearly state that the drugs up your chances of becoming suicidal or intensify preexisting suicidal thoughts and behavior.

Yet, irresponsible physicians continue to push harmful drugs on children and teens that alter brain chemistry. Not only that, but doctors are increasingly prescribing the drugs for off-label uses.

This was substantiated just weeks ago in a study published in the May issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), which found that nearly half of people prescribed antidepressants aren’t even depressed.

After analyzing a decade of antidepressant prescription records, researchers concluded that only 55 percent were given for depression, while the remaining 45 percent was written for conditions such as anxiety, sleeping problems, pain, panic disorders and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

Doctors prescribing depression pills for pretty much anything

Other off-label uses include digestive problems, eating disorders, migraines and menopausal symptoms. Twenty-nine percent of antidepressant prescriptions were written for off-label uses. The study authors expressed grave concerns about the fact that these drugs, which are proven to be dangerous, are being prescribed for conditions for which there is no evidence supporting their efficacy, or safety for that matter.

The reason doctors are pushing unproven drugs, is because they’re being advised to do so by Big Pharma, and not by scientific research, said the study authors.

Further illustrating just how worthless these drugs are, medical researcher Peter Gotzsche said last year that nearly all psychiatric drugs, including antidepressants, could be withdrawn from the market without damaging public health. In fact, he recommends it.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Book Review: Toxic Psychiatry – Peter R. Breggin, M.D.

Breggin.jpgTheBreakaway
Zy Marquiez
June 12, 2016

World renown Harvard-trained psychiatrist, author, and researcher Dr. Peter R. Breggin, M.D. unleashes a tour de force in his book Toxic Psychiatry that blows an enormous hole into conventional mainstream medical thought.

Dr. Breggin completely eviscerates the mainstream ‘chemical imbalance’ garbage that has been spewed for decades, and he does so in a logical, caring, and unprecedented manner.

The book to me is highly reminiscent of Dr. Brogans recent landmark book A Mind Of Your Own – The Truth About DepressionBoth authors – Breggin & Brogan – in each of their respective books seeks to do the same: destroy the fallacy of “chemical imbalance causes depression” with mountains of scientific evidence while also showcasing some common sense solutions the individual can seek.  For that, each individual should be taken seriously and supported as much as possible.

Moving on, as Dr. Breggins book outlines rather methodically, there is no biological basis for the chemical imbalance theory of depression carried out by the mainstream psychiatric establishment.  This is buttressed by endless data supplied by the author.

In addition, Dr. Breggin sifts through examples of drugs like Lithium, Haldol, Halcion, Prozac & Xanax breaking down study after study after study regarding these drugs and their side effects in a way that mainstream media will never do. After all, Big Pharma pays mainstream media’s bills; who else do you think pays for the tsunami of advertisement we see on TV?

Of course, many folks are on a hair trigger when it comes to solving maladies with pills, and there’s a big reason for this.  Big Pharma/Big Medica has played a megalithic role in how people view drugs, and how people have access to information regarding them.

While in other countries it is downright illegal for Big Pharma to advertise, in America, such is par for the course.  America is one of only two countries in the world that allow this unfortunately.

How does that last fact couple with Dr. Breggin’s book?

As other doctors and investigators have mentioned, it’s no coincidence that there’s been an enormous upswing in how many people take antipsychotic medications over the last few decades.  With over 30 Million Americans taking antipsychotic medications, Big Pharma & the media have been highly instrumental in getting those very individuals asking their doctors for medications.

After all, the Big Pharma advertising engine has created an unprecedented upswing in drug use where Americans now end up taking 1.4 Billion prescriptions yearly.

Disturbingly, as the Dr. Breggin attests, “People assume that FDA approval and the widespread distribution of a drug – with many patients taking it for months or years – means that long-term studies have found it safe in regard to side effects, drug interactions, dependency, addition, and withdrawal.  Thus FDA approval grossly misleads the public, lulling it into an unfounded security.

The PDR admits that Prozac’s effectiveness has not been tested in controlled trials of “more than 5 or 6 weeks” and that “long-term” usefulness has therefore not been demonstrated.”[1]

Statements such as those should make sensible individuals pause.

Of course, many of those prescriptions are still doled out by psychiatrists/psychologists in the tens of millions.

However, this book does not end up pushing a no-medication type of solution.   The author instead strives for a multi-solution approach, where he cites some examples of how other types of alternative care could help individuals if they so chose.

Ultimately, a great component of what the author recommends is fostering an atmosphere of utmost caring, which should have already taken place by now had the system not been so corrupt.

Listening, and doing so patiently would go a much longer way than prescribing most folks more prescription drugs.  Such a simple choice would solve so many inherent issues.

The system that Dr. Breggin expounds upon should be adopted, or at minimum elaborated upon.

After all, if the current Big Psych industry was doing its job, people would be getting cured, drug use would decline and not increase, and overall health would also get better.   However, we know the opposite is taking place.

Ironically, as some have stated, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the very definition of insanity.  To that effect, that’s exactly what the Psychiatric & Medical Establishment have been doing, and health in America has only gotten worse.

Its time for a change.  This book helps lay part of that much-needed foundation.
_________________________________________________________________
Reference:

[1] Peter R. Breggin, M.D., Toxic Psychiatry,  P168-169
_________________________________________________________________

P.S. For those curious about more avenues regarding health, besides Dr. Breggin, other great doctors that might be of interest to many of you would be as mentioned before Dr. Brogan, Dr. Mercola, Dr. Duzanne Humphries, Dr. Sircus, Dr. Natasha Campbell-Mcbride, Dr. Russell Blaylock, Tetyana Obukhanych Ph.D and the work of Sarah Ballantyne PhD. These people all put out very high quality information regularly and are concerned with various aspects of health. But don’t take my word for it, do your own research so you can be better informed.

Do 5 Million Americans Really Have Bipolar Disorder?

Source: GreenMedInfo.com
Dr. Kelly Brogan M.D.
June 8, 2016

Bipolar Disorder is one of the biggest mental health concerns in the United States, but instead of addressing the true, spiritual nature of the disease, the normal course of treatment involves harmful pharmaceuticals. 

“I have Bipolar disorder”

…say 5.7 million Americans.

These patients have been labeled, categorized, and offered an understanding of themselves as diseased, sick, and permanently broken.

Considered one of the more severe mental illnesses, perhaps because it presents almost as an amalgamation of psychosis and depression in particularly volatile form. In my training, I was taught to medicate these patients, often with multiple medications, and often against their will.

Poetically, these patients, desperate to understand who they are in a system that condemns them to a life of struggle and suffering, will be vindicated by modern science.[1]

The Modern Science of Bipolar Disorder

Modern science honors complexity. It seeks to revel more and more in a picture of dynamic interconnectedness between bodily systems and between bodies and nature. This science is embodied by new fields with long names, like psychoneuroimmunology, and by a burgeoning literature exploring our microbial selves.

Modern science[2] has this to say about Bipolar:

The very fact that no single gene, pathway, or brain abnormality is likely to ever account for the condition is itself an extremely important first step in better articulating an integrated perspective on both its ontological status and pathogenesis.

Did you catch that?

The implications of this statement decimate the current myth of an inherited chemical imbalance underlying Bipolar Disorder. No, you weren’t born with a brain chemical problem that you are destined to manage with prescriptions for your entire life. This is a complex syndrome, personal to you, that has to do with how your lifestyle exposures are interacting with your genes – yes your stress, food, sleep (or lack of it), chemical exposures. All of these variables impact how your genes are expressed and are within your control.

So if Bipolar isn’t an inherited chemical imbalance, then what is it?

Just like depression (and ADHDOCD, Panic Disorder, and even Schizophrenia), what we are calling Bipolar is a fever of the body. It is a symptom that serves as a final common pathway from many different sources.

The incidence of Bipolar disorder appears to be skyrocketing because people are struggling with more and more complex physiologic and pyschospiritual crises and because the guild of psychiatry is generating more patients through medication treatment. I remember that, even over the course of my residency, Bipolar and its “softer” variant Bipolar II, seemed to be ballooning in incidence, now encompassing up to 13% of the population.[3] In fact, according to Robert Whitaker’s platform, madinamerica.com:

Prior to 1955, bipolar illness was a rare disorder. There were only 12,750 people  hospitalized with that disorder in 1955. In addition,  there were only about 2,400 “first admissions” for bipolar illness yearly in the country’s mental hospitals.

Outcomes were relatively good too. Seventy-five percent or so of the first-admission patients would recover within 12 months.  Over the long-term, only about 15% of all first-admission patients would become chronically ill, and 70% to 85% of the patients would have good outcomes, which meant they worked and had active social lives.

So we have more diagnosis, but we also have more people actually struggling with what is labeled as Bipolar. What’s driving these struggles?

This root cause perspective leads us to consider at least 3 major contributors that need to be examined for potentially reversible and resolvable triggers.

Inflammation

Inflammation is the body’s purposeful messaging system around perceived distress or threat. It results from myriad sources from psychosocial stress to gut microbial imbalance to toxicant exposure (environmental to pharmaceutical), and in today’s environment, can be persistent and chronic. Research has elucidated several important factors around Bipolar states and inflammatory response, namely that both mania and depression are associated with increased inflammatory markers[4] [5], which track linearly with symptoms.[6] Immune dysfunction[7] that results from prolonged inflammatory signaling can easily provoke the canary in the coalmine – the thyroid, documented to be altered in the setting of mania.[8] In fact, those with a Bipolar diagnosis can be 2.5 times more likely to have elevated thyroid hormone levels.[9] In this way, bodily disharmony from gut to immune to hormones can express, in some people as severe depression alternating with periods of extreme behavioral impulsivity.

Drugs

Rather than parsing them into benefits and side effects, in my opinion, the chemical effects of pharmaceuticals should all be referred to as simply, effects. These effects are not unlike the effects of drugs like cocaine and alcohol – some are desirable or temporarily adaptive, and some are problematic. Many patients begin their Bipolar journey through the gateway drug of an antidepressant. In fact, treatment of depression and anxiety with an antidepressant results in an almost 3 fold increase in diagnosis with Bipolar Disorder,[10] interpreted by another study as 20-40% of all those diagnosed with depression, ultimately receiving a diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder.[11] Over time, antidepressants can also perpetuate chronic instability (dubbed “rapid cycling”) and poor functional outcomes[12], which can persist even after the antidepressant is withdrawn. [13]

Perhaps, as Anatomy of an Epidemic argues (and references!), we have pharmaceuticals to thank for the nature of Bipolar disability today:

In the pre-drug era, bipolar patients were usually asymptomatic between episodes; 85% returned to their usual occupations; and they showed no signs of long-term cognitive decline. Today, bipolar patients are much more symptomatic; only about one-third return to their usual occupations; and they become cognitively impaired over the long term.

Perhaps doing something, in the form of medication, is actually worse than doing nothing.

The use of plants such as cannabis and psychedelics may also open up an experience of perceptual expansion that a given individual, their community, and our culture cannot withstand, condone, or support. Evidence is mounting that first episode psychosis can be kicked off by these substance encounters. [14]

The French have even recently coined the term antibiomania to refer to frank mania with psychosis induced by antiviral and antibiotic medication, reversible with cessation of the offending medication. Could pills be inducing what we are calling an inherited chemical imbalance?

Psychospirituality

Psychiatry has a long history of relishing a Cartesian separation between mind and body. Desperate to “medicalize” this field of conjecture and subjectivity, the guild of psychiatry has attached to a biochemical model of pathology while relegating the secondary considerations of “psychology” to supportive therapy.

Is there another layer of root-cause to consider when it comes to mania and depression? If it isn’t an inflammatory process kicked off by environmental mismatch, and it’s not a fire lit by the match of a substance, then could it be a psychospiritual process?

Considering the cultural subjectivity around pathologizing heightened states of energy, it seems that there may be a role for the chemical straight jacket in preserving American ideals around an aspiritual existence.

I’ve written:

Psychiatry pathologizes states of mindfulness, as dissociative, and is quick to label many who would otherwise be regarded as having awakenings, as psychotic. Recent literature even speaks to the difficulty a psychiatrist might have in distinguishing spirituality from psychosis:

Continue Reading At: GreenMedInfo.com

_________________________________________________________________

© June 8, 2016 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.
_________________________________________________________________

Elites Link Anti-Government Thought to Mental Illness, Lay Groundwork for Incarceration

[Editor’s Note]

The below is cited at length due to the pressing concerns it exacerbates.

government-dissent-mental
Source: DailyBell.com
March 11, 2016

Believe in conspiracy theories? You’re probably a narcissist: People who doubt the moon landings are more likely to be selfish and attention-seeking … Psychologists from the University of Kent carried out three online studies … -UK Daily Mail

We are seeing an increasing number of academic studies analyzing the psychology behind “conspiracy theorists” and those who question government propaganda. The idea being that people who don’t trust government may be mentally ill.

These analyses are published in prominent publications in the UK and are building a “scientific” literature revolving psychological dysfunction and “conspiracy theory.”

More:

Do you think the moon-landings were faked, vaccines are a plot for mind control, or that shadowy government agencies are keeping alien technology locked up in hidden bunkers?

If so, chances are you’re a narcissist with low self-esteem, according to psychologists. In the internet age conspiracy theories can incubate in quiet corners of the web, but it may be psychological predispositions of believers which keep them alive, rather than cold hard facts.

The article goes on to explain that researchers at the University of Kent have used online studies  from hundreds of people to generate the study’s conclusions.

The findings appeared in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science with the suggestion that those who adopt conspiracy theories have “outwardly inflated self-confidence” but may be “overcompensating for a lack of belief in themselves.”

The article mentions a previous study conducted by Oxford’s Dr. David Robert Grimes.

From what we’ve written on this study:

Grimes had the idea that mathematics could prove or disprove certain conspiracy theories. A physicist, he “developed a mathematical equation to derive the truth of conspiracy theories,” according to the Christian Science Monitor …

Grimes calculated that the moon landing and climate change conspiracies “would require about 400,000 secret-keepers each, the unsafe vaccination conspiracy would involve 22,000 people, and the cancer cure conspiracy would involve over 710,000 people.”  Even with the utmost secrecy, Grimes reports, his equations show within four years the conspiracies would be exposed nonetheless.

At the time, we commented on Grimes’s apparent “earnestness” in struggling to “understand how people can even engage in conspiratorial thinking to begin with.” We made this comment in relationship to yet a third article on the psychology of conspiracy.

This commentary appeared in the Guardian and, as we pointed out, “argued against conspiratorial thinking based on a new book, Suspicious Minds … written by Rob Brotherton.”

Basically, the idea is that people are naturally prone to conspiracy theories because of the way their brains have evolved. “Identifying patterns and being sensitive to possible threats,” the article explains, “is what has helped us survive in a world where nature often is out to get you.”

Brotherton explains in the article that he decided that the best way to present his thesis was to avoid confronting conspiracy theories head on. Instead, he wanted to explain how people adopted such theories for psychological reasons.

“I wanted to take a different approach, to sidestep the whole issue of whether the theories are true or false and come at it from the perspective of psychology. The intentionality bias, the proportionality bias, confirmation bias. We have these quirks built into our minds that can lead us to believe weird things without realising that’s why we believe them.”

So here we have three explanations of conspiracy theories presented by major publications in less than three month’s time. And, who knows, perhaps there were more.

In the conclusion to our Grimes’ analysis, we noted that: “It looks as if a more powerful and disciplined program may be underway. Something to ponder along with a further moderation of certain public declarations.”

By “public declarations” we meant those of individuals prone to mentioning conspiracy theories in non-appropriate contexts. As it turns out, we anticipated the current news cycle only by a couple of months.

Just this week, in fact, Attorney General Loretta Lynch attended a Senate Judiciary Hearing and acknowledged discussions at the Department of Justice of taking civil action against “climate change deniers.”

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) questioned her on the issue and drew comparisons between such deniers and the tobacco industry that claimed for decades that the tobacco was not proven to cause ill health.

The Clinton administration eventually brought a successful civil suit against Big Tobacco. And Whitehouse suggested that civil or criminal charges might be brought against “anti-warmists.”

The forces of intolerance are gathering in the US, just as overseas.

We have urged in the past that people pay close attention to these growing trends. By turning statements of opinion into a psychological condition they are trying to discredit anyone who speaks out against the government.

Continue Reading At: DailyBell.com

Pure Insanity! – Passion for eating healthy food declared a mental disorder by ‘expert’ psychiatrists

Confusion

Source: NaturalNews.com
J.D. Heyes
January 18, 2016

It’s no secret to tens of millions of Americans that Big Food is poisoning us daily with their fare. If that were not the case, then GMO-free restaurant chains like Chipotle wouldn’t be as popular as they are, and sales of organic foods would not be reaching record levels year after year.

Big Food, of course, isn’t taking that lying down. “Mainstream” food producers may be enlisting the help of academia in getting Americans who believe in sustainable, clean food, declared mentally unstable.

As reported by Waking Times, scientists at the University of Northern Colorado, who recently conducted a case study about the obsession with healthy eating, have concluded that such clean-food preoccupation could be a mental disorder. They’ve even given it a name (because you can’t have a disorder without a name, right?) – orthorexia nervosa, or ON for short, and researchers say the condition is made worse by a fear of being unhealthy and shunning low-quality, pesticide-ridden, GMO-laden, gluten-stuffed foods.

It’s ‘mental’ to eat processed foods

As the Waking Times reported further:

The psychologists conducting the study argue that healthy eating can become dangerous if one becomes fixated on the types of ingredients in food, how the food is cooked, and what materials are used to prepare it. Those “suffering” from orthorexia may take extra time to prepare their food and carefully consider what they are willing to eat.

The horror.

The news site noted that today, 90 percent of products sitting on grocery store shelves in the U.S. are packed with processed foods, much of which are scientifically engineered to create physical and mental addiction. As such, these overly processed foods, which are also mega-portioned, have led to all sorts of medical problems – diabetes especially, but also heart disease and cancer, obesity and other chronic conditions. Given that even traditional medical science knows this, why would conscientious efforts by Americans to lower their risk of contracting these diseases – thereby driving the cost of health care down – not be encouraged, rather than vilified and misdiagnosed as crazy?

Continue Reading At: NaturalNews.com