Explosive: Psychiatric Diagnosis, Surveillance State Linked

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
By: Jon Rappoport
July 23, 2017

Pay close attention to this one. It’s the future coming at you like a strong wind.

First, a bit of background. As my readers know, I’ve assembled conclusive proof that psychiatric diagnosis of mental disorders is a fraud. It’s pseudoscience. There are no defining lab tests. No definitive blood, saliva, hair, brain, genetic tests.

Instead, committees of psychiatrists meet and discuss arbitrary clusters of behaviors, group them and label them with “mental-disorder” names.

But diehards insist that one of the earliest and oldest disorders, schizophrenia, is the exception. That one is solid. That one isn’t pseudoscience. That one is the “gold standard.”

Wrong.

As fiercebiotech.com reports, “…Diagnosing schizophrenia relies on subjective methods…There is no single test for schizophrenia, so diagnosis typically involves observing symptoms and ruling out other potential causes for them…”

Want more? Fiercebiotech: “And while scientists have observed differences in brain scans of healthy people and those with schizophrenia…these are not currently used to diagnose the neurological disorder, according to the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH).” Not used because the brain scans aren’t precise or definitive.

Same old, same old. Committees of psychiatrists “observe symptoms” (behaviors) and invent rules for diagnosis of schizophrenia.

As usual, the public is the last to know.

Now, there is a new project afoot that aims to change the non-objective diagnosis, using MRI images of the brain. IBM and the University of Alberta are working on it:

Fiercebiotech (see also this press release): “The team used machine learning to create a model that identifies schizophrenia based on connections in the brain, IBM said. The fMRI data was taken from different sites, using different machines, but the algorithm could differentiate between the patients with schizophrenia and without 74% of the time.”

No one is popping champagne corks. This was a small pilot study using 95 volunteers. Typically, these projects die out when larger studies are done, because the results aren’t specific enough.

That’s why NO brain tests, for ANY so-called mental disorder, are labeled definitive in the psychiatric bible, the DSM, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.

However, the computer boys and medical pros keep trying—and here is where the Surveillance State enters the scene in an ugly way.

Fiercebiotech: “Mindstrong Health, cofounded by former NIMH [National Institute of Mental Health, a federal agency] chief Tom Insel, is working on technology that analyzes smartphone data to determine a person’s mental state. The company’s tech collects information on which words are used, or a person’s location when using certain apps, for example, and turns them into objective measures of brain function. The company recently raised $14 million…”

“Meanwhile, Boston-based Akili Interactive and Pfizer reported data last year showing that a video game-based diagnostic test could distinguish between people with and without brain amyloidosis, a hallmark of Alzheimer’s disease. And PureTech’s Sonde Health is working on the analysis of ‘vocal biomarkers,’ or changes in nonlinguistic characteristics of a person’s voice, to indicate changes in health.”

To make a long story short: spy on everybody through their cell phones and computers, in order to diagnose them with ANY mental disorder.

The Surveillance State gets a new justification, and the psychiatric establishment gets to play Big Brother, “to protect us all” from mentally ill persons.

This research was kicked into a higher gear by Obama’s Brain Mapping Project, which he announced in the wake of the Sandy Hook school shooting. The Project is necessary, he claimed, to help prevent such future tragedies.

No, the Project is necessary to expand surveillance of the population, for the sake of control.

Psychiatric diagnosis, and the toxic drugging that follows, IS a form of control.

“Well, we have a red-flagged subject in Boston who’s been using key words in his cell phone calls, and the non-linguistic pauses and voice inflections indicate he’s demonstrating a schizoid pattern. According to outlined procedures, we need to step up surveillance on him, do a deep check on his financials, quietly interview a few of his friends and co-workers, determine his voting record, find out what groups he belongs to. He’s a college professor. He teaches American history. Do we have anything on how he interprets the Founding Fathers, the Constitution…oh look, he seems to be making statements about the need to return to limited central government…we’ve got a live one, guys. Get busy…”

Diagnose the prof with schizoid tendencies and put him on an anti-psychotic drug, which will sink him into a brain haze and slow down his motor reflexes, at minimum.

Psychiatry and the Surveillance State:

Kissing cousins.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Revisiting Psychopathy

Source: CorbettReport.com
James Corbett
July 24, 2017

SHOW NOTES & MP3: https://www.corbettreport.com/?p=3515 Previously on The Corbett Report we examined the topic of psychopathy. A number of articles, papers, documentaries and books have emerged to shed more light on the issue. But as this growing understanding of psychopathy begins to shape the way we understand the global economic collapse and the moves toward political tyranny, do we run the risk of starting a new witch hunt? Link to ‘I Am Fishead’ documentary: http://bit.ly/2urqoHP

I Am Fishead: Are Corporate Leaders Egotistical Psychopaths?
Time Reference:	04:36

 

Episode 090 – Our Leaders Are Psychopaths
Time Reference:	06:23

 

Weeding out corporate psychopaths
Time Reference:	07:43

 

The Corporate Psychopaths Theory of the Global Financial Crisis
Time Reference:	10:16

 

Interview 423 – Clive Boddy
Time Reference:	10:29

 

Defense Against the Psychopath (Video)
Time Reference:	18:20

 

Defense Against the Psychopath (Book Excerpt)
Time Reference:	27:22

 

Website of Dr. Robert Hare
Time Reference:	29:44

 

Blade Runner VK Test on Leon
Time Reference:	31:20

 

Bladerunner – Film, Literature and the New World Order
Time Reference:	34:22

 

The Psychopath Test by Jon Ronson
Time Reference:	35:27

SICK: Children under six are being prescribed antidepressants by doctors

Source: NaturalNews.com
Frances Bloomfield
June 22, 2017

What sort of world are we living in when children below the age of six are being given antidepressants? A rather sordid one if the National Health Service (NHS) figures are anything to go by. Of the 198,906 prescriptions of antidepressants handed out to those under 18 in the UK, a shocking 12,756 of those were children between the ages of seven and 12, while 617 of them were aged six and younger. Even more disturbing is that these statistics covered the period between April 2015 to September 2016, so those figures may have only inflated since then.

According to the organization Young Minds, that may very well be the case. The rates of anxiety and depression among teenagers have grown a staggering 70 percent in the last 25 years. Further statistics from the charity paint more disturbing picture: three in four children with a diagnosable mental health condition are unable to access the support they need.

This support, of course, being psychological therapy, which should be given to them in the first place instead of antidepressants like setraline and fluoxetine, more commonly known as Zoloft and Prozac. As per the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), children under 18 should be prescribed antidepressants only if they suffer from moderate or severe depression. And even then, these should be given alongside psychological treatment. Among children between the ages of five and 11, they should be given antidepressants only when therapy has failed them.

“The rise in the number of children and young people being prescribed antidepressants is worrying,” Marc Bush, senior policy adviser at Young Minds, told the DailyMail.co.uk. “Long waiting times and high thresholds for treatment mean that [general practitioners] may feel under pressure to prescribe antidepressants to children. There can be a place for medication in treating young people’s mental health problems, but it shouldn’t be used as a sticking plaster for poor access to talking therapies.” (Related: Antidepressant drugs may cause aggressive, violent behavior in youth)

Indeed, the sheer volume of antidepressant prescriptions may speak loudly about the state of healthcare more than anything else.

“There is no doubt a significant link between the growing use of antidepressants and the immense pressure children’s mental health services are under,” said Norman Lamb, health spokesman for the Liberal Democrat party. “Children’s mental health services are in desperate need of more resources. The Conservative government has failed to invest properly and has failed to make good on the funding promises we made in the coalition. Money isn’t getting through to the frontline, and now we are seeing the consequences of this neglect.”

Yet as disconcerting as these figures are, the UK isn’t the first country to have them. In 2009, five deaths have already been linked to antidepressants in Australian children aged 10 to 19; moreover, 89 recorded adverse reactions in children under nine were associated with antidepressants. Dr. Joe Tucci, Chief Executive of the Australian Childhood Foundation, said: “I cannot think of a good reason why any six-year-old, or younger, should be treated with antidepressants. I think it’s gone up because medication is being used to treat the symptoms and not the cause.”

Whatever the case, antidepressants should only be prescribed when all other options have been thoroughly exhausted. They are temporary fixes for children, not solutions.

For other stories about mental health, visit Psychiatry.news.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources include:

DailyMail.co.uk
YoungMinds.org.uk
DailyTelegraph.com.au
TheGuardian.com

The Violence-Inducing Effects of Psychiatric Medication

Source: GreenMedInfo.com
Kelly Brogan, M.D.
May 23, 2017

Originally published on KellyBroganMd.com

Psychiatric medications have some dangerous, often-overlooked side effects, which could include suicide and homicide.

On May 17, 2017, we learned that Chris Cornell of Soundgarden had reportedly committed suicide by hanging. His family reports knowing a different Chris than one who would make this fatal decision, and suspect his anti-anxiety prescription in the altered state he was witnessed to be in the night he died. Perhaps an “addict turned psychiatric patient”, like so many, Chris Cornell seemed to have left the frying pan of substance abuse for the fire of psychiatric medication risks.

For reasons that remain mysterious, those under the influence of psychiatric medication often specifically choose to hang themselves in their moment of peak impulsivity. Some, like Kim’s husband Woody who was never depressed a day in his life but prescribed Zoloft by his internist, even verbalize a felt experience of his head coming apart from his body in the days before he was found hanged in his garage.

Then there’s 14 year old Naika, a foster child in Florida who hanged herself on a FB livestream after being treated with 50mg of Vyvanse, a drug treatment for ADHD that leads to a domino effect of diagnoses and psychiatric meds including a 13 fold increase in likelihood of being prescribed an antipsychotic medication and 4 fold increase in antidepressant medications than controls.[1]

Are these just rare anecdotes? Is this just the cost of treatment that is helpful for most? Are we blaming medication for what might have been severe mental illness that was undertreated and/or undiagnosed?

Informed consent: the premise of ethical medicine

I believe first and foremost in informed consent. If you are informed of the risks, benefits, and alternatives to a given treatment, you will be empowered to make the best decision for yourself based on your personal, family, philosophical, and religious life context. But the truth is that prescribers are not in a position to share the known risks of medications because we learn only of their purported benefits with a short-tagline of dismissively rare risks that are thought to be invariably outweighed by the presenting clinical concern.

But what about serious risks – including impulsive suicide and homicide – surely we are informing patients of that possibility, right?

Wrong.

In fact, the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry have gone to great lengths to conceal multiple signals of harm so we certainly can’t expect your average prescriber to have done the investigative work required to get at the truth.

In fact, from 1999-2013, psychiatric medication prescriptions have increased by a whopping 117% concurrent with a 240% increase in death rates from these medications[2]. So let’s review some of the evidence that suggests that it may not be in your best interest or the best interest of those around you for you to travel the path of medication-based psychiatry. Because, after all, if we don’t screen for risk factors – if we don’t know who will become the next victim of psych-med-induced violence – then how can we justify a single prescription? Are we at a point in the history of medicine where random acts of personal and public violence are defensible risks of treatment for stress, anxiety, depression, inattention, psychosocial distress, irritable bowel syndrome, chronic fatigue, and even stress incontinence?

Let the science speak

Suicide

Prescribed specifically to “prevent” suicide, antidepressants now come with a black box warning label of suicide risk since 2010. Multi-billion dollar lawsuits like the settlement of Study 329[3] have been necessary to unlock the cabinet drawers of an industry that cares more about profit than human lives. A reanalysis of study 329[4] which initially served as a landmark study in 2001 supporting the prescription of antidepressants to children, has now demonstrated that these medications are ineffective in this population and play a causal role in suicidal behavior. Concealing and manipulating data that shows this signal of harm, including a doubling of risk of suicide with antidepressant treatment,[5] [6] [7] has generated seeming confusion around this incomprehensibly unacceptable risk profile. In fact, a reanalysis[8] of an influential US National Institute of Mental Health 2007 study, revealed a four-fold increase in suicide despite the fact that the initial publication[9] claimed no increased risk relative to placebo.

According to available data – 3 large meta-analyses – more psychiatric treatment means more suicide.[10] [11] [12] Well, that might seem a hazard of the field, right? Where blaming medications for suicide would be like saying that umbrellas cause the rain.

That’s why studies in non-suicidal subjects[13] and even healthy volunteers who went on to experience suicidality after taking antidepressants are so compelling[14].

Benzodiazepines (like what Cornell was taking) and hypnotics (sleep and anxiety medications) also have a documented potential to increase risk of completed and attempted suicide[15] and have been implicated in impulsive self-harm including self-inflicted stab wounds during changes to dosage[16]. We also find the documented possibility that suicidality could emerge in patients who are treated with this class of medications even when they are not suicidal with recent research stating, “benzodiazepine receptor agonist hypnotics can cause parasomnias, which in rare cases may lead to suicidal ideation or suicidal behavior in persons who were not known to be suicidal”[17]. And, of course, these medications themselves provide the means and the method with a known lethal poisoning profile[18].

Homicide

Clearly murderers are mentally ill, right? What if I told you that the science supports the concern that we are medicating innocent civilians into states of murderous impulsivity?

When Andrew Thibault began to research the safety of a stimulant drug recommended to his son, he entered a rabbit hole he has yet to emerge from. After literally teaching himself code to decrypt the data on the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System website, he was able to cull 2000 pediatric fatalities from psychotropic medications, and 700 homicides. A Freedom of Information Act and a lawsuit later, he continues to struggle with redacted and suppressed information around 24 homicides directly connected to the use of psychotropics including the homicide by a 10 year old treated with Vyvanse of an infant. Another case, ultimately recovered, involved statements from a 35 year old perpetrator/patient, who murdered her own daughter, as directly implicating as “When I took nortriptyline, I immediately wanted to kill myself. I’d never had thoughts like that before”.

To begin to scientifically explore the risk of violence induced by psychotropic medication, a study sample needs to be representative, the reason for taking the drug needs to be taken into consideration, the effect needs to be controlled for, as do any other intoxicants. Professor Jari Tiihonen’s research group analysed the use of prescription drugs of 959 persons convicted of a homicide in Finland and found that pre-crime prescription of benzodiazepines and opiates resulted in the highest risk (223% increase) of committing homicide[19].

Relatedly, eleven antidepressants, six sedative/hypnotics and three drugs for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder represented the bulk of 31 medications associated with violence reported to the FDA[20]. Now an international problem, a Swedish registry study identified a statistically significant increase in violence in males and females under 25 years old prescribed antidepressants[21].

Implicated in school shootings, stabbings, and even the Germanwings flight crash, prescribing of psychotropics prior to these incidences has been catalogued on https://ssristories.org/ leading me to suspect psychiatric prescribing as the most likely cause in any and all reports of unusually violent behavior in the public sphere.

Is Association Really Causation?

Beyond the cases where violence to self or others was induced in a non-violent, non-depressed, non-psychotic individual, what other evidence is there that speaks to how this could possibly be happening?

The most seminal paper in this regard, in my opinion, was published in 2011 by Lucire and Crotty[22]. Ten cases of extreme violence were committed by patients who were prescribed antidepressants – not for major mental illness or even for depression – but for psychosocial distress (ie work stress, dog died, divorce). What these authors identified was that these ten subjects had variants to liver enzymes responsible for drug metabolism exacerbated by co-administration of other drugs and substances including herbs. All returned to their baseline personalities when the antidepressant was discontinued.

Now referred to as akathisia-induced impulsivity[23], the genetic risk factors for this Russian Roulette of violence are not screened for prior to psychotropic prescribing. Akathisia is a state of severe restlessness associated with thoughts of suicide and homicide. Many patients describe it as a feeling-less state of apathy – and what I would describe as a disconnection from their own souls, their own experience of human connection, and any measure of self-reflection.

The genetic underpinnings of this kind of medication-induced vulnerability are just beginning to be explored[24] with identification of precursor symptoms to violence including severe agitation. In a randomized, placebo-controlled trial, healthy volunteers exhibited an almost 2 fold increased risk of symptoms that can lead to violence[25]. A 4-5 fold increased risk was noted in patients prescribed a generic version of the antidepressant Cymbalta, off-label, for stress urinary incontinence (a non-psychiatric indication)[26].

There is another way

Perhaps it’s as if we are offering the blade edge of a knife to those falling off the cliff of struggle and suffering. Because the idea of managing a chemical imbalance with chemicals seems to make sense. But at what cost? The laundry list of acute and chronic adverse effects is growing, and the unpredictable risk of medication-induced violence should lead to an urgent cessation of all psychotropics. Because it takes 17 years[27] for physician practice to reflect published science, we need grassroots level information sharing. We need to inform ourselves before we consent to engage a system that regards you as an impersonal statistic.

We live in a cultural context that makes no room for the relevance, meaning, and significance of symptoms – symptoms are simply bad and scary and they must be managed. We don’t make room for patients to ask why they are not ok.

If you knew that your symptoms were reversible, healable, transformable, you might consider walking that path instead of assuming this level of risk for placebo-level efficacy of psychotropic medication. We would only euthanize a “mental patient” if we felt their condition was lifelong and unremitting. In fact, every woman I have ever tapered off of psychiatric drugs into experiences of total vitality once believed that she would be a medicated psychiatric patient for life. If you knew that radical self-healing potential lies within each and every one of us, if you only knew that was possible, you might start that journey today. It’s side effect free…

Read More At: GreenMedInfo.com

References

[1] http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0706743716689055

[2] http://meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/data_stats/download_data_files_results.jsp?cboDataYear=All&cboDataTypeY=2%2CHousehold+Event+File&buttonYearandDataType=Search&cboPufNumber=All&SearchTitle=Prescribed+Medicines

[3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11437014 

[4] http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h4320

[5] http://www.bmj.com/content/330/7488/396

[6] http://www.bmj.com/content/352/bmj.i65?etoc=

[7] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12601224

[8] http://content.iospress.com/articles/international-journal-of-risk-and-safety-in-medicine/jrs0645

[9] http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=210055

[10] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15555028 

[11] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26713983_The_Relationship_Between_General_Population_Suicide_Rates_and_Mental_Health_Funding_Service_Provision_and_National_Policy_a_Cross-National_Study 

[12] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160252713000587 

[13] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2301661/

[14] http://davidhealy.org/articles/#Suicide_Articles

[15] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28257172

[16] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2047018/ 

[17] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27609243

[18] http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303061

[19] https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-06/uoef-fsa052515.php

[20] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3002271/ 

[21] http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001875

[22] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3513220/ 

[23] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27138119 

[24] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27324805 

[25] http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0141076816666805

[26] http://www.cmaj.ca/content/189/5/E194 

[27] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22179294

Dr. Kelly Brogan – Depression: Busting Myths & Finding Answers

TheBreakaway
Vid Source: SacredScienceDoc
Zy Marquiez
April 3, 2017

Dr. Kelly Brogan’s book, A Mind Of Your Own – The Truth About Depression, was one of the top 3 Books of the Year for 2016 at The Breakaway. The depth and scope of the information presented within that book was not unlike what Dr. Peter Breggin did in his quintessential Toxic Psychiatry.

Interviewed below, Dr. Brogan goes into many of the pervasive myths taking place within the field while offering her insights on issues within psychiatry.
__________________________________________________________________________

To learn more about alternative ways of treating depression and other conditions, visit us at http://www.thesacredscience.com/.

A few months ago we had the chance to sit down with Dr. Kelly Brogan, a NYC-based psychiatrist who’s offering a new approach to healing.

Trained in the ways of Western Medicine, but having seen first hand the way the system has evolved into what it is today, under the influence of pharmaceuticals, she is shining the light on some very important truths and turning everything we know about the topic of depression on its head.

The question “is pain and suffering a good thing?” might seem like something only the Dalai Llama would ask, but in our interview, Kelly discusses how going through tough times and hardships actually make us stronger, and equip us with the tools to combat even harder struggles down the line.

If you’re interested in learning about the true meaning of depression and how to treat it the right way, or what we may be losing by the death of the rites of passage, or why all mainstream media outlets said no to sharing the information in her new book “A Mind of Your Own,” even though it was backed by one of the biggest names in publishing, you should definitely watch this interview.

The knowledge she shares will change the way you think about what you or your loved ones have gone through, or are going through now, and more importantly, how to move forward in the best way possible…

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

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

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

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.

TheBreakaway
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 Depression.  Both 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 ADHD, OCD, 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.
_________________________________________________________________

Dr. Brogan is boarded in Psychiatry/Psychosomatic Medicine/Reproductive Psychiatry and Integrative Holistic Medicine, and practices Functional Medicine, a root-cause approach to illness as a manifestation of multiple-interrelated systems. After studying Cognitive Neuroscience at M.I.T., and receiving her M.D. from Cornell University, she completed her residency and fellowship at Bellevue/NYU. She is one of the nation’s only physicians with perinatal psychiatric training who takes a holistic evidence-based approach in the care of patients with a focus on environmental medicine and nutrition. She is also a mom of two, and an active supporter of women’s birth experience. She is the Medical Director for Fearless Parent, and an advisory board member for GreenMedInfo.com. Visit her website.