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

Advertisements

Are “Moody Women” Being Drugged Into Submission By Pharma?

Why Can't A Woman Be More Like A Man?
[Editor’s Note]

For those thinking that this might sound insane, books like Toxic Psychiatry by  Peter R. Breggin, MD – who is Harvard-trained psychiatrist and former full-time consultant at NIMH – detail the rampant drugging of society in an incisive/extensive way.

Furthermore, the work of Jon Rappaport, who is an investigative journalist & researcher of over 30 years into the fields of medicine and more, has been pivotal in me being able to learn about this pervasive, and disturbing trend.  Rappoport’s work can be found at NoMoreFakeNews.com and JonRappoport.wordpress.com

Rappoport provides a great starting point regarding this abstruse topic for those wanting to further research this information:

Psychiatry – The Modern Priest Class

—————————————————————————

Source: GreenMedInfo.com
Margie King, Health Coach

Women are now almost twice as likely to be on antidepressants as men. Why? 

“Why can’t a woman be more like a man?” laments Henry Higgins in the 1964 Lerner and Loewe classic musical “My Fair Lady.”  In the show Higgins is stymied by Eliza Doolittle’s emotional reactions to his science-based efforts to re-engineer her in his image of a proper woman.

Click here for Rex Harrison’s rendition of “Hymn to Him” from the movie.

It’s the age-old problem of men and women having different sensibilities. But fast forward 50 years or so, and Henry Higgins may well have the answer to his problem – antidepressants.

A study published in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry finds that more than 69% of people on antidepressants aren’t actually depressed.  They don’t meet the criteria for major depressive disorder (MDD).  And 38% never met the criteria for other conditions for which antidepressants are prescribed, at any time in their life.  These include obsessive-compulsive disorder, panic disorder, social phobia, or generalized anxiety disorder.[i]

But what many of these “patients” have in common is that they are women. The researchers found that being female was statistically associated with antidepressant prescriptions.

In other words, according to actual medical practice, it looks like being a woman may be a treatable mental health condition.

Other major reasons linked to taking antidepressants included being Caucasian, having recent or current physical problems (e.g., loss of bladder control, hypertension, and back pain) or a recent visit to a mental health facility.

Women are now almost twice as likely to be on antidepressants as men.  One in four women is now on psychiatric medication according to Julie Holland, a psychiatrist in New York and the author of “Moody Bitches: The Truth About the Drugs You’re Taking, the Sleep You’re Missing, the Sex You’re Not Having, and What’s Really Making You Crazy.”

In a recent op-ed piece in the New York Times Dr. Holland noted that women are under constant pressure to tamp down their emotions.  “We have been taught to apologize for our tears, to suppress our anger and to fear being called hysterical,” she writes.

Continue Reading At: GreenMedInfo.com

Politicians’ Class-Privilege – Armed Security


Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
January 18, 2016

“After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn’t do it. I sure as hell wouldn’t want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military.” (William Burroughs, Grand Street no. 37, 1992)

Let me state, for the record, that I’m not in favor of selling guns at 7-Elevens or from street vending machines. There are, however, a few nagging questions about gun ownership I want to scratch, claw, and flagellate, so follow along as I try to take apart a weird, wacky, and wonderful subject.

We’ve all heard this one: if a politician wants to disarm the public, he should give up his own security protection. See how he likes it.

What is it about politicians that gives them a special right to have armed professionals stalk their perimeter and mumble into their collars?

I can think of two reasons. One, pols are important. We need them. We need them more than we need, say, electricians or plumbers or pizza delivery boys or dentists.

I fail to admire the class distinction. And that’s putting it generously. In the overwhelming number of cases, the wounding or killing of a politician would result in another pol, very much like him, moving in to take his place. The new entry would vote along party lines, at the instruction of his superiors. He would commit the same unconscionable actions. He would display the same level of incompetence. Or, if you believe politicians are honorable and even insightful, then surely a pol who is taken out of action could be replaced by another who is endowed with the same admirable qualities.

The second reason: top-tier politicians are very visible. They’re widely known. They’re celebrities. As such, they attract crazies. Therefore, they need security.

Ah, but wait. It starts to get tricky here. What about famous actors and athletes? They, too, have many fans, a small percentage of whom are nuts. These private-sector celebs hire their own guards. They can afford to.

But…many politicians don’t have that kind of money. Therefore, they need government to pay for the hired guns, who are other government employees.

So follow this…if money, no-money is the only distinction here, then rich politicians should certainly pay for their own private guards.

In which case, government regulations should be issued that spell out the level of wealth, the demarcation line. A politician who has at least X assets to his name must hire his own protection. Anything below that and he can avail himself of government help. That makes sense, or am I missing something?

I’d like to see John Heinz Kerry sweep into town with his own private muscle. You know, guys with heavy auto-weapons held across their black undershirts. Maybe a band, too, blasting a Springsteen cover. Just for show. Hillary, on the other hand, could go with an all-girl phalanx of Amazons packing sawed offs. With a few drones overhead. I suspect the President has enough cash stashed away by now to afford his own security. He could go straight Sinaloa, or maybe he’d do a mix of cartel soldiers and Syrian “moderate rebels.”

Of course, there’s always the argument that politicians are under extraordinary threat from foreign enemies, and that’s why they require the kind of government protection plain citizens don’t need. As a counter to that, I would simply offer the gun-violence statistics of America. For some esoteric reason, it turns out that people no one has ever heard of are most likely to become shooting victims.

In any case, no one is supposed to protect himself. That’s for sure. It would be vile, ugly. We expect criminals to shoot people. We’re ready for that. But if a law-biding citizen suddenly fires a weapon, in order, for example, to stay alive, it’s an offense to our sensibilities. It looks bad. He could have been shooting bullets for the wrong reason, and even though he wasn’t, the mere suggestion of it is enough to disturb us. We’ve been “triggered,” psychologically. We are the victims. And we must demand justice.

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com

Sharp Rise In Kids Two Or Under Given Psychiatric Drugs

According to the National Center for Health Statistics, the rate of anti-depressant use has increased nearly 400 percent in the past two decades, but those statistics do not include the youngest group of patients being treated with psychiatric drugs. RT’s Marina Portnaya has details on the startling new trend of treating kids two years or under.