The Violence-Inducing Effects of Psychiatric Medication

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

Advertisements

Dr. Rima “Big Pharma & Department Of Defence Are Putting Nanobots In Vaccines Right Now.”

Source: TheRichieAllenShow
March 21, 2017

How Rhode Island Parents Are Winning Back Their Rights To Vaccine Choice


Source: Vactruth.com
Missy Fluegge
August 6, 2016

Families in Rhode Island are winning the war against mandatory vaccination. They have joined together with two powerful advocacy organizations whose efforts have successfully aided the of introduction five legislative bills to their state government related to vaccine choice. Their diligence offers a strong example to other parents who also question the implications of mandating so many vaccines. [1]

Currently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends 69 doses of 16 vaccines by age 18. Different kinds of exemptions, including religious exemptions, medical exemptions, or philosophical exemptions, are available in all fifty states, but some state governments have recently increased their efforts to limit vaccine exemptions and make additional vaccines “mandatory” for school attendance. [2, 3]

Why Parents Are Objecting

In 2015, many Rhode Island parents were outraged when their state Department of Health mandated at least one dose of the HPV vaccine for seventh graders in order for those children to attend school. The HPV vaccine is supposed to protect against a sexually transmitted infection caused by the human papillomavirus, and later, the development of cervical cancer. [4]

The HPV vaccine is currently recommended for young women and young men beginning at age nine, when they may not have even entered puberty and are not yet sexually active. [5, 6]

Gregory Zimet, a psychologist who has studied people’s attitudes toward the HPV vaccine, a vaccine which has generated greater controversy than other vaccines, noted that this vaccination is directed at “11-and 12-year-olds to prevent something that might not become an issue for 10, 20, 30 years.” He added, “It’s hard for people to see the connection and feel it as strongly.” [7]

Furthermore, this vaccine has a history of being unsafe and ineffective.

Elected Officials Are Listening

Rhode Island Families have objected to the mandatory vaccination policy against sexually transmitted infections. Parents have voiced their concerns about the ability of the CDC and state governments recommending and even mandating such a large number of vaccines, with seemingly little oversight, publicity, or public discussion.

One parent, concerned about why a vaccine for a sexually transmitted infection would be mandated, commented in a local news story, “HPV can only be spread sexually, and that shouldn’t be happening during the school day, so why wouldn’t they just recommend this vaccine” (instead of making it mandatory)? [8]

In response, Rhode Island Representative Justin Price has sponsored two bills designed to give parents control of what chemicals are injected into their children’s bodies. Bill H7475, proposed by Price and four other representatives, was introduced on February 4, 2016, and would grant parents the right to opt out of vaccines for diseases that are sexually transmitted, and they would not need a religious reason to do so. [9]

A public hearing was held to introduce the measure.

Scores of concerned parents attended one meeting in support of vaccine choice, but the state health department did not offer any written testimony, nor did they send a representative on their behalf.

Representative Price explained the basis for these two important pieces of legislation:

“This way it’s not just the Department of Health and the CDC making decisions for everyone,” Price said. “The public has the opportunity to have an input in what immunizations pass.”

Another bill, H7476, also introduced by Representative Price and four of his colleagues, would require the state health department to hold public meetings when a vaccine is being considered for a mandate. [10]

Vaccine Choice Supporters Continue To Work Together

Since the introduction of those two bills, three additional bills have been created to support parental rights, due to the resolute efforts of concerned parents and grassroots groups, including Rhode Island Alliance for Vaccine Choice and Rhode Island Against Mandated HPV, as well as the imperative support from their state representatives.

Currently in Rhode Island, parents need a religious reason or a medical exemption to opt out of vaccines.

Bill S2292 includes a provision to grant parents the right to exercise a philosophical exemption to vaccines, regardless of their religious beliefs or their child’s medical history. Additionally, the bill strikes down the requirement for children to be vaccinated against HPV to attend school. [11]

Bill S2295 contains important provisions affecting school attendance and vaccines, preventing the state Department of Health from setting minimum standards regarding vaccination against diseases which are not transmissible in a school setting, such as HPV. This legislation would also require three public hearings on proposed changes to immunization policy. [12]

Finally, bill H7899, introduced on March 9, 2016, by Representative Price and his colleagues, would allow allow parents and custodial caregivers to refuse vaccines for their children for sexually transmitted infections. It would also require all vaccine correspondence, related to any vaccine, to inform parents about the option to opt out of the vaccine. [13]

Is The HPV Vaccine Safe?

Currently, three versions of the HPV vaccine have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA): Gardasil, Gardasil 9, and Cervarix. These vaccines are administered in a three-dose series over a six-month period. According to the CDC, 92 percent of adverse reactions are “non-serious.” [14]

However, many parents and HPV vaccine-injured children have a different story to tell. Adverse reactions to the HPV vaccine include paralysis, seizures, miscarriage, Guillain-Barre syndrome, symptoms of multiple sclerosis, blindness, speech problems, ovarian cysts, and death. [15]

Additionally, some research shows that the Gardasil vaccine may actually increase a young woman’s chance of developing cervical cancer. This research came from an organization you would not expect — from Merck itself, the manufacturer of the vaccine — which may explain why this information is not widely circulated in the mainstream media.

In 2013, a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit revealed that, at that time, nearly $6 million had already been paid to victims of adverse reactions from the HPV vaccine. [16]

Is The HPV Vaccine Effective?

According to research, girls who are unvaccinated against HPV actually have a much lower incidence of contracting this infection:

“In 2007-2010, the overall prevalence of HPV was 50 percent in the vaccinated girls (14-19 years), but only 38.6 percent in the unvaccinated girls of the same age.

Therefore, HPV prevalence dropped 27.3 percent in the unvaccinated girls, but only declined by 5.8 percent in the vaccinated group. In four out of five different measures, the unvaccinated girls had a lower incidence of HPV.” [17]

A separate, 2012 study from the University of British Columbia, reviewed clinical trials of HPV vaccines and concluded that there is no data to support that HPV vaccines have prevented a single case of cervical cancer. The researchers stated that the safety trials were based on a “highly flawed design,” determining that the safety of the HPV vaccine has been misstated.

The researchers also noted:

“accumulating evidence from vaccine safety surveillance databases and case reports which continue to link HPV vaccination to serious adverse outcomes (including death and permanent disabilities).” [18]

Disturbingly, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) stated in 2003 about HPV, “most infections are short-lived and not associated with cervical cancer,” yet they continue to recommend this vaccine. [19]

Why Grassroots Efforts Of Concerned Parents Are So Important

Families who have faced a vaccine injury are motivated by passion and a unbreakable desire to help other families avoid the same tragedy. The Rhode Island Alliance for Vaccine Choice (RVIAC) has provided the means for parents to collaborate in their desire to protect and restore their parental rights. According to their website, they advocate “for legislation that supports parental rights and informed consent.”

They believe:

“All individuals should be given full knowledge of possible risks and benefits relating to medical procedures and vaccines including the HPV vaccine. The RI Alliance for Vaccine Choice works with our state legislators and government officials to eliminate the HPV vaccine mandate. We assert that individuals have the right to make vaccination decisions after discussing their healthcare treatment with their physician.” [20]

Their website states that their leadership comes from “all backgrounds” and “all walks of life,” people with diverse experiences, including “an average working man, a chiropractor, a photographer, real estate agent, a retired office worker, retired teacher and a person who works with non-profits,” who have formed a cohesive unit to support parents who want a choice about administering pharmaceuticals and other toxins into their children’s bodies. [21]

Their determined efforts have been fruitful, as upcoming legislation may grant more parents the choice to decline vaccines in a state which has boasted about its highest rate of HPV vaccination among young males (and the third highest rate of HPV vaccination for females) in the country. [22]

According to Dr. Mercola, a leading health expert:

“Everyone should have the right to evaluate the potential benefits and real risks of any pharmaceutical product, including vaccines, and opt out of any vaccine they decide is unnecessary or not in the best interest of their child’s health. Every child is different and has a unique personal and family medical history, which may include severe allergies or autoimmune and neurological disorders, that could increase the risks of vaccination.

It is your parental right to make potentially life-altering health decisions for your own children. Why wouldn’t you want to keep that right—even if you want your child to receive most or all vaccinations currently available?”

Unanswered Questions

Finally, we leave you with one more piece of important information to consider, an afterthought in this important struggle to give parents a choice about what is injected into their children’s bodies.

The state of Rhode Island participates in a “Vaccinate Before You Graduate” program, provided through a collaboration with a for-profit company, whose website admonishes parents that their child may need vaccines to get a job or get into college. This organization is known as The Wellness Company, the ultimate misnomer. “If you had to pay for all of these vaccinations, it could cost as much as $1200!” their website states. [23]

Who, then, is paying for the vaccinations administered by this for-profit “wellness” company? Informed readers already know the answer to that question.

What is the cost to our society of the lasting effects of vaccine injuries?

And why are governments and schools cooperating with private entities to administer pharmaceuticals to children?

Conclusion

Parents who are resolute in their efforts to safeguard their parental rights are making significant progress in the war against vaccine mandates. They recognize the power they have to influence government policies about vaccination. They find ways to connect with elected officials to voice their concerns about protecting their children from unwanted exposure to the chemicals, toxins, and foreign DNA contained in vaccines. They know their children don’t need a government-mandated vaccine against a sexually transmitted infection, especially at the young age of nine or ten years old.

If you live in Rhode Island, please contact your elected officials and encourage them to support the human rights legislative bills listed in this article.

If you are a parent or grandparent who would like to join with other concerned citizens to promote vaccine choice and medical freedom, you may wish to access the resources offered by the Rhode Island Alliance for Vaccine Choice on their website. They offer Ten Tips for Testifying Before a Legislative Committee, as outlined by the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island.

You can also download their parent information packet, filled with helpful information about informed consent, sample letters to send to legislators, and religious and medical exemption forms.

Finally, if your child has been injured by the Gardasil or Cervarix vaccine, we encourage you to share your story in the comment section.

Read More At: VacTruth.com

References:

  1. https://vaccinechoiceri.com/tag/vaccine-choice/page/2/
  2. https://www.nvic.org/CMSTemplates/NVIC/pdf/49-Doses-PosterB.pdf
  3. http://www.nvic.org/vaccine-laws/state-vaccine-requirements.aspx
  4. http://warwickonline.com/stories/bills-would-limit-state-ability-to-mandate-vaccines,110522
  5. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/07/16/hpv-vaccine-effectiveness.aspx
  6. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/downloads/child/0-18yrs-child-combined-schedule.pdf
  7. https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/09/07/rhode-island-mandate-for-hpv-vaccine…
  8. http://warwickonline.com/stories/bills-would-limit-state-ability-to-mandate-vaccines,110522
  9. http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText16/HouseText16/H7475.pdf
  10. http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText/BillText16/HouseText16/H7476.pdf
  11. http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText/BillText16/SenateText16/S2292.pdf
  12. http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText/BillText16/SenateText16/S2295.pdf
  13. http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText/BillText16/HouseText16/H7899.pdf
  14. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/hpv-vaccine.html
  15. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/01/24/hpv-vaccine-victim-sues-merck.aspx
  16. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/07/16/hpv-vaccine-effectiveness.aspx
  17. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/07/16/hpv-vaccine-effectiveness.aspx
  18. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23016780
  19. http://www.naturalnews.com/Report_HPV_Vaccine_2.html
  20. https://vaccinechoiceri.com
  21. https://vaccinechoiceri.com/tag/vaccine-choice/
  22. http://www.health.ri.gov/data/vaccination/
  23. http://www.thewellcomp.com/vbyg12gr.htm

Mass fluoridation violates the AMA’s medical ethics on informed consent

Source: NaturalNews.com
Julie Wilson
January 11, 2016

Water fluoridation
Thanks to emerging research, the health effects connected to water fluoridation are finally being acknowledged by the mainstream media as being, at the very least, controversial and most likely damaging.

For over 65 years, the federal government has told us that water fluoridation is good for our health; however, research continues to illustrate the long-term damaging effects of adding an industrial byproduct to the water supply.

Not only is fluoride bad for your health, but the concept of adding it to the public’s water without informed consent is completely unethical and arguably criminal. Forced medication is not to be taken lightly, according to the American Medical Association’s (AMA) (the largest association of physicians and medical students) own standards for medical ethics.

Science continues to validate earlier claims about the adverse health effects of water fluoridation

As Natural News has been reporting for years, and as new science continues to support such claims, water fluoridation may cause a variety of health problems, including lowered IQs, hypothyroidism and increased risks for certain cancers.

About 50 percent of all fluoride ingested is stored in the body, accumulating in tissues such as teeth, bones and the pineal gland in the brain, according to Richard Wiles, co-founder of the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a research organization based in Washington, D.C.

One of the most recent studies documenting the adverse health effects of water fluoridation comes from the University of Kent, a public research university in the United Kingdom.

Scientists studied data obtained from nearly every medical practice in England and discovered that fluoride may be increasing the risk for hypothyroidism, a condition in which the thyroid gland fails to produce enough hormones, resulting in symptoms such as fatigue, obesity and depression.

Published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, the study included the largest population ever analyzed in relation to the adverse health effects caused by water fluoridation.

Because an underactive thyroid is known to cause depression, weight gain, fatigue and aching muscles, the study showed that nearly 15,000 people could be unnecessarily suffering from these symptoms due to fluoride being added to the water.

New science showing adverse health effects of fluoride further implicates the government in the mass water fluoridation scandal

With this new information, it makes adding fluoride to the water without informed consent even more criminal.

Continue Reading At: NaturalNews.com