It’s The Brain-Altering Drugs Stupid: Addictive Opioids, SSRIs, Anti-Psychotics, Benzodiazepines And Suicidality
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge — even to ourselves — that we’ve been fooled.” — Carl Sagan, “The Fine Art of Baloney Detection” (February 1, 1987)
This morning, just as I was about to start writing my weekly Duty to Warn column, I glanced through my local paper, the Duluth News-Tribune, and was confronted by a full-page ad on page A3, essentially identical to the one pictured above, except that the News-Tribuneversion didn’t have any Indiana groups on the poster.
The ad was titled “Rallying to Address Opioid Addiction”. The ad likely cost well over a thousand dollars and was paid for by an entity that I had never heard of before called “Rx ALI Minnesota”. Rx ALI is the abbreviation for Rx [i.e., prescription drug] Abuse Leadership Initiative). The group is apparently a fresh new “alliance” of “concerned” corporate entities that were suddenly interested in the opioid crisis that has been affecting all portions of America for decades.
Or maybe the interest of some of this now-seemingly ubiquitous major alliance that is sponsoring the ad all over America has some ulterior motives, such as trying to obscure the guilt that those behind the initiative should be acknowledging. Perhaps there are hidden entities that have been guilty of actually causing the addiction and suicidality crises in the first place are now trying to unjustly be a part of the many altruistic efforts that are going on already.
Pretending to be a part of the solution is easier than admitting that they were a major cause for the crisis in the first place. Big Businesses are notorious for trying to finagle their way into positions of “leadership” when decisions might be made that could affect their share price, shareholder confidence, prestige or corporate survival.
Five days before the full-page RxADI ad appeared in the News-Tribune, there was an opinion piece published that was written by the CEO of CADCA (Community Anti-Drug Coalition of America), one of the ad sponsors seen at the top of the photo image above. The editorial was about dealing with the national opioid crisis. CADCA’s HQ is located in the Washington, DC area, so it was fair to ask what motivated the CEO to specifically write an opinion piece for Duluth readers? In that piece, which was supposedly written specifically for the News-Tribune, CADCA’s CEO named many of the co-sponsors of the ad that was published 5 days later. I knew right away that the proximity of the two items was no coincidence.
So I had to dig further.
Among the 16 named corporate entities that were listed in the ad (only 13 appeared in the Indianapolis poster, I was first noticed the symbol for Pharmaceutical Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) which had been placed in the lower left corner of both the Indiana poster and the Duluth ad. PhRMA is the notorious billion-dollar trade association that represents hundreds of excessively wealthy, politically powerful – and therefore also sociopathic – corporations that are known to have enriched themselves by manufacturing and marketing opioid drugs and a variety of addictive products, in particular, psychiatric drugs.
There is no question that the Big Pharma corporations represented by PhRMA have been, over the past century, major causes of prescription drug addictions, prescription drug over-doses (accidental, intentional, lethal and non-lethal), prescription drug-induced mental ill health, prescription drug-induced physical and mental disabilities, prescription drug-induced shortened lifespans, prescription drug-induced dementia, prescription drug-induced poverty/homelessness (because of prescription drug unaffordability) and prescription drug-induced suicidality. These entities are guilty, guilty, guilty of the many crises that are plaguing the world.
And now they want a seat at the preventive, therapeutic table. Anybody smell a rat?
Immediately below is a partial list of some of the entities that were pictured on the News-Tribune ad that have serious conflicts of interest. They are all hoping that nobody will find out about the existence of the deep-pocketed pharmaceutical corporations that are trying to finagle their way into the efforts of well-meaning groups that are seriously – without any ulterior motives – trying to address the crisis – beyond simply providing plastic bags designed to make easily disposable the unused prescription drugs easier, which is about all that some of these entities are proposing, while patting themselves on the back.
1 – PhARMA, which represents American pharmaceutical manufacturing corporations, is also in partnership with a number of the other groups in both the RxADI Minnesota ad and the RxADI Indiana Everybody with a modicum of bamboozle-resistance should naturally be suspicious of the motives behind every corporation’s (not just Big Pharma’s) marketing schemes. This story should reinforce those suspicions. Every “good deed” that comes from a Big Business corporation needs to be regarded with skepticism.
I checked the websites of the seven most influential groups of the 16 on the Duluth ad for details on their hidden corporate sponsors, the corporate boards of directors, the CEOs and the staffs, and I discovered many conflicts of interest that were listed in the websites, but only after considerable digging.
Following is a partial list of the six groups that had the most to hide. I leave it up to the reader to figure out what is going on, and then warn the altruistic groups to beware of these groups; when they come offering their “help”.
2 – The Addiction Policy Forum (APF, with a $17,000,000 annual budget) takes money from the Dublin-based Alkermes Pharmaceutical corporation which manufactures opioid drugs, opioid antagonists and brain-damaging anti-psychotic drugs, including the notoriously neurotoxic, so-called anti-psychotic drug respiridone. APF also takes money from a British drug company called Indivior, which makes a new type of long-lasting antipsychotic drug (actually respiridone) that only requires monthly injections. The CEO of Indivior is on one of the APF’s
3 – CADCA (the Community Anti-Drug Coalition of America) also takes money from Alkermes; Purdue Pharma (the notorious marketer of OxyContin!); Johnson & Johnson(which, among hundreds of other medicinal products, used to aggressively market the highly addictive, so-called childhood “ADHD” drug Concerta (identical to Ritalin), the anti-psychotic drugs Risperdal and Invega and is now marketing the monoclonal antibody drugRemicade, which costs upward of $19,000 a month (which equates to $228,000 per year).
CADCA also takes money from Mallinckrodt PLC which markets the highly addictive opioid drugs Hydrocodone, Oxycodone, Methylphenidate (generic Ritalin) and Dextroamphetamine sulfate. Other drug companies that subsidize CADCA include ENDO, Verde Technologies and Ortho-McNeil (the latter of which markets tramadol, a synthetic opioid).
4 – JUSTUS Health takes money from Janssen, which markets Fentanyl (!), Percodan [an older synthetic opioid] and two anti-psychotics, Haldol and Justus takes money fromJohnson & Johnson (see above) as well as Pfizer, which is the biggest pharmaceutical company in America, and which markets the addictive SSRI so-called antidepressant Zoloft, the dependency-inducing and brain-damaging antipsychotic Geodon and the highly addictive benzodiazepine/tranquilizer Xanax.
5 – The MRHA (Minnesota Rural Health Association) has as its current president, Sue Abderholden, who is Minnesota’s long-term director of NAMI (National Alliance on Mental Illness) the notorious national organization that is heavily funded by PhRMA and every Big Pharma corporation in America that makes and markets psychiatric drugs, many of which are highly addictive and brain-altering. NAMI’s Big Pharma corporate sponsors over the years have included Alkermes, TEVA, AstraZeneca ($300,000.00 in 2009 alone) Schering Plough, Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma America, Inc, Vanda Pharmaceuticals, Wyeth, Lundbeck Inc, Otsuka America, Pfizer, Forest Laboratories, Eli Lilly. FOX Broadcasting, Magellan Health Services, Ortho-McNeil Janssen Pharma. and Sanofi-Aventis.
6 – NCL (National Consumers League) which recently promoted a pharmacy organization’s campaign called “Remember to Take Your Medication Month”.
7 – Lakeville Public Safety Foundation (which innocently accepted a $10,000 grant from PhARMA and the Addiction Policy Forum (to promote safe used-prescription drug disposal in the Lakeville, MN area)
I didn’t take the time to check for any conflicts of interest in the smallest sponsoring organizations that were listed in the ad. I believe that veteran’s groups, sheriff’s departments, realtors and the Grange have no ulterior motives like the others and are just altruistically interested in being part of the solution of a largely Big Pharma-induced prescription drug crisis.
It needs to be noted that the current chairman of the PhRMA board of directors is the CEO of Biogen. The chairman-elect is the CEO of Johnson & Johnson and the board treasurer is the CEO of Novartis (marketers of Ritalin, Clozaril and the Ritalin-me-too drug, Focalin (dexmethylphenidate).
The following information about Big Pharma was mostly obtained from the internet, including Wikipedia:
“Antipsychotic drugs are the top-selling class of pharmaceuticals in America, generating annual revenue of about $14.6 billion. Every major company selling the drugs – Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson – has either settled recent government case (under the False Claims Act) for hundreds of millions of dollars (or is currently under investigation for possible health care fraud). Following charges of illegal marketing, two of the settlements set records for the largest criminal fines ever imposed on corporations. One involved Eli Lilly’s antipsychotic Zyprexa and the other involved Pfizer’s Bextra (a Cox-2 inhibitor whose mechanism of action is similar to Merck’s notorious anti-inflammatory drug Vioxx and Pfizer’s Celebrex). In the Bextra case, the government also charged Pfizer with illegally marketing its antipsychotic, Geodon; Pfizersettled that part of the claim for $301 million, without admitting any wrongdoing.
“On 2 July 2012, GlaxoSmithKline pleaded guilty to criminal charges and agreed to a $3 billion settlement of the largest health-care fraud case in the U.S. and the largest payment by a drug company. The settlement is related to the company’s illegal promotion of prescription drugs, its failure to report safety data, bribing doctors, and promoting medicines for uses for which they were not licensed. The drugs involved were Paxil, Wellbutrin, Advair, Lamictal and Zofran for off-label, non-covered uses. Those and the drugs Imitrex, Lotronex, Flovent, and Valtrex were involved in kickback schemes.”
To conclude this week’s column, I attach one of my old Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletters (which I published before my retirement and mainly emailed to my patients). PPEN # 18 concerned prescription drug-induced suicidality.
The article was written by Dr. Ann Blake Tracy, author of Prozac: Panacea or Pandora? – Our Serotonin Nightmare and the original research which she writes about was done by Dr Ari Khan and colleagues. The original papers were first published in 2001, but the important data was ignored by the FDA, the CDC, the NIH, the NIMH, the AMA, the APA, the AAFP, every busy psychiatrist and physician and every Big Pharma corporation that should have been paying attention (if the well-being of patients was really important, that is).
Obviously the corporate elites that decide what research gets proper attention had no interest in the truths mentioned below. The share prices of the manufacturers and marketers of the brain-altering prescription drugs investigated would have been badly impacted if Khan’s research had been given proper publicity. These guilty corporate elites are perpetually trying to escape the punishment that they so richly deserve for their part in America’s addiction and suicide epidemics. Tragically, they have had – and still have – the propaganda power to bamboozle anybody and everybody, especially the mainstream media, major party politicians, the media-addicted public and even physicians and nurses.
Read the following important information strongly linking Big Pharma’s psych drugs to suicide from back in 2002 and weep. Opioids were not examined back then because there was no Fentanyl, oo OsyContin and no Purdue Pharma.
Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter # 18
Astonishing 6,500+% Increase in Rates of Completed Suicides from BOTH SSRIs and Atypical Antipsychotics!!
By Dr. Ann Blake Tracy, Executive Director,
International Coalition for Drug Awareness – 9-8-2002
First we had the thalidomide tragedy, then the fen-phen fiasco, then LSD and PCP as prescription drugs, yet none of them begins to compare with the scandal below. Never in the history of the FDA do I recall something as tragic or terrible or as shocking or as criminal as is the following revelation! “Mass murder by prescription” is the only expression that fits.
Blockbuster Study – 68 Times Greater Suicide Risk with Serotonergic Meds!
New research presented at a recent NIH (National Institute of Health) sponsored meeting demonstrates a 68 times greater risk of suicide with the new serotonergic antidepressants (SSRIs) and (the so-called “atypical”) antipsychotics than if a patient never took anything.
These shocking figures of increased suicide risk show that a patient’s chances of suicide jump from 11 out of 100,000 to as much as 718 out of 100,000 if one is taking one of these new SSRI antidepressants (Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Luvox, Celexa) – medications touted to alleviate depressive symptoms and rid one of suicidal tendencies. And the risk is even higher for the new antipsychotics (Zyprexa, Risperdal, Seroquel) – 752 out of 100,000!
Our gratitude for alerting us to this new research goes to Vera Hassner Sharav with the Alliance for Human Research Protection (AHRP). (www.researchprotection.org)
Dr. Arif Khan presented his research at a recent meeting sponsored by the NIMH (National Institute of Mental Health). This was a meeting of the New Clinical Drug Evaluation Unit. The essence of the research was an analysis of the data on the suicide rates for patients who participated in the clinical trials for these new drugs – over 71,604 people were involved. These were the clinical trials where the drugs were tested on the public to see if they were “safe and effective.” This clinical data is then presented to the FDA for approval for marketing of the new compounds.
In his presentation Dr. Khan made note of what we learned long ago when this information was revealed through court documents in SSRI wrongful death cases – that is, that “actively suicidal” patients are excluded from the clinical trials on the SSRI antidepressants. What he found shocking about this is that despite the fact that actively suicidal patients were excluded from these clinical trials, the suicide rate among those taking these medications ABSOLUTELY SKYROCKETED from 11 out of 100,000 to 718 out of 100,000!! (718/11 = 6500% increase in relative risk.)
What is really frightening at this point is the realization that millions of patients are going into withdrawal from these drugs. The rapid or abrupt withdrawal from these antidepressants can produce suicide, mania, seizures, psychotic breaks, etc. at an even greater rate than while on the drugs. Extreme caution MUST be taken.
Here are the suicide rates (for the 5 classes of prescription psychiatric drugs that were analyzed by Khan). Keep in mind as you read through these that the rate of 11 out of 100,000 persons per year is the suicide rate for the population at large.
1) 752 suicides per 100,000 for those treated with atypical antipsychotics–risperidone (Risperdal), olanzapine (Zyprexa), and quetiapine (Seroquel); (752/11 = 6800% relative risk increase).
2) 718 per 100, 000 for those treated with the SSRIs – Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Luvox, Celexa); (718/11 = 6500% relative risk increase) (See the American Journal of Psychiatry article for the analysis of suicidality and antidepressant drugs at: Khan A, Khan S, Kolts R, Brown WA. “Suicide rates in clinical trials of SSRIs, other antidepressants, and placebo: analysis of FDA reports,” Am J Psychiatry 2003;160: 790-2.)
3) 425 per 100,000 for those treated for “social anxiety disorder” with nefazodone (Serzone), mirtazapine (Remeron), and bupropion (Wellbutrin/Zyban); (425/11 = 3800% relative risk increase).
4) 136 per 100,000 for those treated for panic disorder–with benzodiazepine alprazolam (Xanax); (136/11 = 1200% relative risk increase).
5) 105 per 100, 000 persons for those treated for obsessive-compulsive disorder with anticonvulsant valproate (Depakote). (105/11 = 950% relative risk increase).
These figures clearly speak for themselves. A massive number of wrongful death suits will obviously follow, but at least loved ones will know why they have lost those who meant so much to them via such tragic circumstances.
Keep in mind as you read through this data that the new “atypical” anti-psychotics listed here are basically a combination of the older anti-psychotics and the SSRIs. They too have a strong effect upon serotonin levels, (actually blocking serotonin receptor sites as well as dopamine receptor sites – Ed note).
Also the most likely reason researchers saw an even higher rate of suicide in placebo cases with the anti-psychotics is that these patients were likely being abruptly discontinued from their older anti-psychotics for the clinical trials. This abrupt withdrawal can cause suicidal depression.
Dr. Ann Blake Tracy, Executive Director, International Coalition for Drug Awareness
www.drugawareness.org and author of Prozac: Panacea or Pandora? – Our Serotonin Nightmare (800-280-0730)
No Credible Evidence for Anti-Suicidal Effect from Psychotropic Drugs
Carl Sherman, Contributing Writer to Clinical Psychiatry News Online
BOCA RATON, FLA. – Psychotropic therapy did not appear to have a marked impact on suicide risk, examination of a large database indicated-in fact, no class of medication had much more or less effect than placebo, Dr. Arif Khan said at a meeting of the New Clinical Drug Evaluation Unit sponsored by the National Institute of Mental Health.
Overall, attempted and completed suicides among patients with diverse psychiatric conditions are substantially more frequent than had been expected, the analysis suggested.
“Given that suicide is such a complex behavior … we have to ask if medication is the only way to [approach] it,” said Dr. Khan of Northwest Clinical Research Center, Bellevue, Wash.
The conventional response to suicidality in psychiatry is pharmacotherapy. The assumption that this will be beneficial “is never challenged much,” Dr. Khan said, and raises ethical questions about clinical trials, such as whether patients assigned to placebo may be exposed to increased mortality risk. Some observers, on the other hand, have suggested that psychotropics may themselves increase the risk of suicide.
In fact, the only biologic treatments for which there are many data on this score are ECT and lithium, which have been shown to reduce suicidality. More limited data support a similar effect for clozapine.
Dr. Khan reported an analysis of clinical trial data for drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration between 1985 and 2000. This included suicide and attempted suicide rates for more than 71,604 patients treated with the atypical antipsychotics risperidone (Risperdal), olanzapine (Zyprexa), and quetiapine (Seroquel); all the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Luvox, Celexa; nefazodone (Serzone), mirtazapine (Remeron), and bupropion (Wellbutrin/Zyban); the benzodiazepine alprazolam (Xanax; and the anticonvulsant valproate (Depakote).
One striking finding was the elevated rate of completed suicides for patients during these trials. Compared with the rate of 11/100,000 persons per year for the population at large, the rates of completed suicide were 752/100,000 persons per year for those in anti-psychotic trials; 718 in antidepressant trials; 425 in trials of medication for social anxiety disorder; 136 for panic disorder; and 105 for obsessive-compulsive disorder.
This was particularly surprising in light of the attempt, in most clinical trials, to exclude patients who are actively suicidal, Dr. Khan said.
Figures on attempted suicide found similarly increased risk. The figures implied that 5% of patients who enroll in anti-psychotic trials will attempt suicide in the following year; 3.7% of those in antidepressant trials will make an attempt; and 1.2% of those in trials of medication for anxiety disorders will attempt suicide.
Suicide rates were higher, in the trials taken as a whole, for patients who were assigned to placebo than to the investigational drug (1,750/100,000 persons per year vs. 710/100,000 persons per year). But because participants were exposed to placebo for far less time than to the drugs (a mean of 33 days vs. 148 days), this could not be assumed to indicate an anti-suicidal effect of medication, he said. (The most likely reason researchers saw an even higher rate of suicide in placebo with the anti-psychotics is that these patients were likely being abruptly discontinued from their older anti-psychotics for the clinical trials. This abrupt withdrawal can cause suicidal depression. – Ann Blake Tracy)
In the case of trials for depression and anxiety disorders, suicide rates were in fact higher among those who received the investigational drug than placebo, Dr. Khan said.
The high rates of suicide among patients studied might suggest an “iceberg effect” in the general population. The numbers that come to light under the close scrutiny of the clinical trial situation indicate the extent to which attempted and completed suicides are concealed or mislabeled in the community, Dr. Khan speculated.
Dr Gary G. Kohls is a retired family physician from Duluth, MN, USA. Since his retirement from his holistic mental health practice he has been writing his weekly Duty to Warn column for the Duluth Reader, northeast Minnesota’s alternative newsweekly magazine. His columns, which are re-published around the world, deal with the dangers of American fascism, corporatism, militarism, racism, malnutrition, Big Pharma’s over-drugging and Big Vaccine’s over-vaccination agendas, as well as other movements that threaten human health, the environment, democracy, civility and the sustainability of all life on earth. Many of his columns have been archived at a number of websites, including http://duluthreader.com/search?search_term=Duty+to+Warn&p=2; http://www.globalresearch.ca/author/gary-g-kohls; http://freepress.org/geographic-scope/national; and https://www.transcend.org/tms/search/?q=gary+kohls+articles
Originally posted at: http://freepress.org/geographic-scope/national
Author: Gary G. Kohls, MD
More than half of adults now on prescription drugs, largely for conditions that can be avoided with simple lifestyle changes
A record number of pharmaceutical drugs were prescribed this past year in England. The United Kingdom’s National Health System (NHS) uncovered an alarming 1.1 million prescriptions for “conditions” that can mostly be avoided with better lifestyle choices.
Prescription drug use has become a new societal norm, with mental health declining for numerous people even in an era of abounding convenience, choice, communication, networking and travel opportunities, etc. All the opportunities of the digital age and an interconnected world cannot appease minds that are so eager to accept a “depression” diagnosis and a steady stream of pills. In the past decade, prescription drug use has skyrocketed at least 50 percent and this doesn’t even include nicotine patches and contraceptive use. Health care systems are taking advantage of people, giving them false assurance through pharmaceuticals, while over-medicating people’s problems and never addressing the real issues.
The NHS health survey found that ten percent of people are now on “anti-depressants.” One in seven people are taking statin drugs. One in seven also take the pills that promise to lower blood pressure. Altogether, more than half of adults are on some kind of prescription drug. Ten percent reported taking 6 or more different prescription drugs in a given week. The survey, which included more than eight-thousand adults, also uncovered a skyrocketing level of alcohol consumption, inactivity, and poor eating habits.
Health care leaders say most of the prescriptions are “unnecessary,” calling the findings a “wake-up call” for people to address unhealthy lifestyles, dietary choices, and high-pressure routines. More frequent exercise routines could immediately address bad cholesterol levels, high blood pressure, and countless cases of depression. Yet a third of those surveyed aren’t getting enough exercise to meet minimum requirements for a healthy body and mind. Thirty-four percent of men and forty-two percent of women failed to reach the NHS recommended exercise guidelines of 150 minutes per week. Additionally, a quarter of the adults admit they watch at least four hours of television on any given weekday. A shocking thirty percent confessed to drinking more than seven pints of alcoholic beverages during any given week.
A healthy, fulfilling life is becoming a rare phenomenon, as statistics for mental health conditions went up from 15 percent in 2012 to 19 percent of people currently. Professor Dame Carrie MacEwen, chair of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges said, “On the face of it, these figures are really concerning. We have no way of knowing if these medicines are all really necessary, but we do know less is often more when it comes to some drugs. Lifestyle changes such as taking up exercise can be just as effective at treating some illnesses such as mild depression.”
However, clinical diagnoses, medical research, and clinical guidelines all seek out the quickest way to turn people into patients. As the increasing stream of prescription drugs fails to address the real issues, patients are burdened with even more compounding health issues and chronic dependence on the false assurance of pharmaceutical intervention.
Whether lazy or ignorant, more people are no longer addressing their physical and mental health in a realistic, holistic way. Following the crowd and the doctor’s orders, more people are getting ripped off and lied to on how to deal with their issues and heal their bodies. (Related: Breaking the psychological attachment to illness.)
Author: Lance D Johnson
Can President Trump overcome Republicans’ deep collusion with Big Pharma, Monsanto and the pesticide industry?
During his first press conference after winning the election, President Donald Trump made some very bold statements that, generally speaking, are uncharacteristic of the Republican Party. Rather than kowtow to pharmaceutical interests as would be expected from an establishment politician on either side of the aisle, Mr. Trump actually called drug companies to task for ripping off Americans, adding that the entire industry is “getting away with murder” as it currently functions.
These piercing words from the president sent shock waves throughout the drug industry, which saw massive drops in stock value almost immediately after they were stated. Clearly frustrated with the corruption between pharmaceutical companies and the federal government that keeps drug prices high, President Trump reiterated what he’s been saying all along the campaign trail about the need for reform — a message that was also heralded by failed Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders.
“Pharma has a lot of lobbies, a lot of lobbyists, a lot of power. And there’s very little bidding on drugs,” President Trump remarked from Trump Tower in New York City. “We’re the largest buyer of drugs in the world, and yet we don’t bid properly. We’re going to start bidding. We’re going to save billions of dollars over a period of time.”
President Trump also criticized the drug industry for manufacturing drugs in other countries where they’re cheaper to produce, only to ship them back to the U.S. to sell to Americans at top dollar. This hallmark of crony globalism, a major target in the president’s platform all throughout his campaign, is something that’s most definitely on the chopping block with the incoming administration.
“Our drug industry has been disastrous,” President Trump explained before the press pool. “They’re leaving left and right. They supply our drugs but they don’t make them here, to a large extent. And the other thing we have to do is create new bidding procedures for the drug industry, because they’re getting away with murder.” (RELATED: Stay informed about Big Pharma’s illegal practices at BigPharmaNews.com)
RINO Republican Paul Ryan wants to maintain Big Pharma monopoly over medicine
Going against an old-guard Republican establishment that has long favored not only Big Pharma but a host of other special interest groups, including biotechnology and chemicals, won’t be an easy task. Top Republican kingpins like House Speaker Paul Ryan, for instance, are already challenging President Trump’s remarks, tacitly implying that the system is working just fine and doesn’t need to be changed.
In an interview with Mike Allen of Axios, Ryan emphasized that he wants to “have more conversations” about the issue to presumably redirect President Trump’s agenda. He carefully sidestepped the gaping problems stemming from Big Pharma’s monopolistic control over medicine, instead offering up rhetoric in favor of maintaining the status quo. When asked about the president’s comments that drug companies are “politically protected, but not anymore,” Ryan remarked: “I don’t speak like that, generally speaking. I’m always looking for win-win situations, and I believe there’s a lot more we can do to bring down the price of drugs.”
In other words, Paul Ryan isn’t the type of guy to take a stand against anything or anyone who pays his salary — in this case, big money interests like Monsanto and Merck. It’s the Republican way, perhaps, but not President Trump’s way, which begs the question: will the president be able to effectively overcome this deep-seated gravy train funding Republicans-in-name-only (RINOs) like Paul Ryan? (RELATED: See news about how everything is rigged at Rigged.news)
‘Conservative’ nonprofit exposed for pro-Monsanto, pro-Hillary agenda
Considering the fact that so-called “conservative” groups often work in lockstep with “liberal” groups to advance the same agenda — in this case, pushing the special interest agendas of their mutual donors — accomplishing this feat could be the biggest challenge of Mr. Trump’s life.
One such group, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), was exposed late last year for helping a billionaire donor for the Hillary Clinton campaign secure — wait for it — Republican support for failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Besides the seemingly contradictory nature of such a union, the AEI, as revealed by GMWatch, is closely aligned with biotechnology giant Monsanto.
No matter how you look at all this, President Trump definitely has his work cut out for him. While the drug industry is known to make large financial contributions to candidates from both political parties, historically the industry has been more focused on funding RINO Republicans, with the exception of Democrat Hillary Clinton who received, by far, the most financial support from Big Pharma during the 2016 presidential election season.
“Industry PACs have given at least $4.4 million to Republicans and $2.6 million to Democrats in House Races across the primary and general elections,” news organization STAT reported back in November. “In the most competitive House contests — those rated as toss-ups or only leaning toward either party by the Cook Political Report — pharmaceutical PACs have given more than $435,000 to Republicans, a separate STAT analysis found. By comparison, the committees have given less than $70,000 to Democrats in those races.”
Sources for this article include:
When most people think of virtual reality (VR), their minds go to video games and being able to be in the middle of the action that right now they can only view on a TV or computer screen. But for some, VR therapy might soon become a viable and safe treatment for depression.
VR Helped People be Less Critical of Themselves
Part of the pain of depression is self-deprecation, feelings of failure, and hopelessness about the future. Researchers at University College London (UCL) and University of Barcelona – ICREA say they’ve found VR therapy may help depression sufferers be less critical of themselves, as well as reduce the other often paralyzing symptoms of depression.
The team recruited 10 women and 5 men around the age of 32 for the experiment. Before being selected, the would-be participants went through a screening process. Once selected, they were asked to measure their depression symptoms over the previous 2 weeks. Then the group was asked to envision a scenario in which they returned home to discover they left their keys at work, and to rate their reaction – harsh or critical, or soothing and reassuring. Then they were asked to rate how scared they were of being compassionate to themselves.
In other words, how big of a deal was leaving their keys at work, and were they able to forgive themselves for making a common mistake.
After they answered the questions, researchers had them put on a VR headset and body suit that placed them inside a virtual room not entirely unlike the one in which the study took place. This allowed the individuals to move about the room and virtually interact with objects, as well as “view” themselves – to step outside of their bodies, in a sense.
Each person was asked to mentally identify with an adult avatar, which precisely mimicked the participant’s body movements in a process called embodiment.
A separate avatar of a small crying child appeared in the virtual room. Participants were asked to say generic compassionate phrases to the child, to try to comfort and console it. The adults were told to ask the child avatar to think of a time when it was happy, and to picture someone loving it.
Then the roles were reversed. The adult participants were embodied in the virtual child and watched the adult avatar say compassionate, comforting things to them.
The researchers repeated this 8-minute scenario with the patients 3 times at weekly intervals, and followed up with the patients a month later.
At the end of the experiment, the scientists found the patients had learned to be less critical of themselves, and their depression symptoms had improved.
Study author Professor Chris Brewin said:
“People who struggle with anxiety and depression can be excessively self-critical when things go wrong in their lives In this study, by comforting the child and then hearing their own words back, patients are indirectly giving themselves compassion.”
According to Professor Brewin, the aim was to teach patients to be more compassionate toward themselves and less self-critical, and his team saw promising results.
“A month after the study, several patients described how their experience had changed their response to real-life situations in which they would previously have been self-critical.”
The researchers say more studies are needed before virtual therapy can be used in real-world scenarios, and they hope their findings will lead to a larger, controlled study. If they can replicate their findings on a larger scale, VR could be a relatively inexpensive, widely available treatment for depression – a condition that affects some 350 million people worldwide.
“If a substantial benefit is seen, then this therapy could have huge potential. The recent marketing of low-cost home virtual reality systems means that methods such as this could potentially be part of every home and be used on a widespread basis,” said co-author Mel Slater.
The digital age is leading to the end of centuries-old constitutional privacy guarantees, as evidenced by the growth of Internet cloud-based data storage and electronic records, both of which are too easily accessible to prying eyes enabled by power-hungry politicians.
For instance, most Americans are unaware that state and federal governments are tracking – and accessing – your prescription medication records. Dozens of states allow federal and state law enforcement agencies free, warrantless access to databases that contain your drug history. What’s more, the federal Drug Enforcement Agency is scrambling for authority to search databases in states where there are pharmaceutical privacy protections, reports Scripps News.
At present, 31 states grant authorities this kind of carte blanche access; only one state – Missouri – and the District of Columbia do not have prescription drug marketing programs. But these protections are likely to fall as well; Missouri’s program is currently on target for state approval, while D.C. officials say theirs will be up and running by year’s end.
Scripps News noted further that very often disclosures to police agencies of a person’s prescription drug history are done without actually notifying that person, thereby denying them any opportunity to object to the warrantless search or consult a lawyer. No court ever approves the records release that divulges medical histories that most people rightfully want to keep private.
State programs are in place to help track and analyze information that assists healthcare providers and pharmacists limit abuse of addictive medications like opioid painkillers. But patchy state statutes have left many privacy loopholes, giving police ready access to your records.
During a five-month investigation, Scripps News discovered that law enforcement officials gained access to at least 344,921 prescription histories of American citizens between 2014 and 2015 in states that do not require a court-ordered warrant, as per the Fourth Amendment. That’s more than six times the number of searches conducted by police in states that have enacted better privacy measures. But the access without court oversight – or any other oversight, really – is what concerns privacy advocates because it paves the way for abuse.
Why are police and elected officials okay with this?
Marlon Jones, an assistant fire chief with the Unified Fire Authority of Salt Lake County, Utah, told Scripps News that he could have lost his career and his family after he was falsely charged with felony crimes associated with doctor shopping, all because of a warrantless search by local police.
Police were investigating the theft of prescription drugs from regional ambulance services. Though they had no suspects, probable cause or warrant, an officer working the case logged onto the state’s controlled substances database and searched through prescription records for all 480 fire department workers.
“I had no idea that a police officer, just on a whim, could go into my medical records and then determine what’s appropriate, in his opinion,” Ryan Pyle, a firefighter paramedic whose prescription records were also accessed in the same warrantless search, toldScripps News.
Officers did not make any arrests in the theft of drugs, but rather focused on prescription histories of both Jones and Pyle, charging them with purchasing controlled substances under false pretenses – charges that had nothing at all to do with their investigation.
“It impacted every bit of our lives,” Jones noted, adding that he was put on suspension just a few months after having been promoted. “What (the investigator) did threatened to take everything I held dear.”
Pyle’s arrest came right as he and his wife were in the middle of adopting two boys. He said that when he was charged his immediate thought was that he was going to lose those two kids.
What’s really scary – and offensive – is that local officials had no problem with searching the prescription drug database without a warrant. So much for standing up for the Constitution.
“We would not do anything that would go beyond the bounds of what the law allows,” said Cottonwood Heights mayor Kelvyn Cullimore, Jr., hiding behind the state law that permitted the search. While he admitted that the search could have been more narrow, he claimed that if state law allows it, then it’s fine.
Except that it’s not alright. And there is – rightfully – a legal battle now brewing over the treatment of Jones, Pyle and many other Americans whose Fourth Amendment rights are being trampled on a daily basis.
Scott Michelman, an attorney for Public Citizen, a Washington, D.C.-based legal watchdog representing Pyle and Jones, said that allowing police to go on warrantless “fishing expeditions” through personal information, then making untrained medical judgments, has the potential to destroy people’s lives, and it ought to be stopped.
He’s right, of course.
Author: J. D. Heyes
Originally Posted: http://www.naturalnews.com/055265_prescription_drugs_warrantless_searches_government_tracking.html
Playing a crucial part in the body’s overall digestive system, water helps to flush out your kidneys and liver, and to rid your body of any previously ingested toxins.
If water is such an essential tool in the removal of harmful substances, why would we ever want to contaminate it?
Unknown to many, most tap water has been found to contain traces of a myriad of potentially harmful toxins, including antibiotics and heavy metals. According to the Global Healing Center, “There are more than 80 ‘regulated’ contaminants and more unregulated toxins, like the rocket fuel component perchlorate which are present in most tap water.”
Harmful toxins in tap water
While some toxins are more harmful than others, arsenic, fluoride and chlorine present the greatest risk of harm for humans.
An extremely toxic heavy metal, arsenic in tap water poses grave potential health concerns. Classified as a Category I carcinogen, arsenic is almost certainly a cancer causing agent. While the EPA has set standards for arsenic levels in tap water at 10 parts per billion, several U.S. states have been known to exceed those standards from time to time.
Additionally, fluoride’s presence in most, if not all tap water, presents further negative potential health effects. One of the most toxic substances known to man, fluoride is deliberately added to tap water in the United States to help prevent tooth decay.
While no significant scientific data exists to support this claim, fluoride is still widely accepted as one of the most effective ways to inhibit the growth of cavities. Proven to be more toxic than lead, some countries around the world have caught on and banned the fluoridation process of tap water.
Chlorine in tap water poses increased risk for development of tumors
Chlorine, another toxic chemical added to most tap water, poses additional potentially severe adverse health concerns. Injected into tap water to kill bacteria, chlorine triggers the creation of free radicals in the body by bonding with other compounds to form Trihalomethanes (THMs), causing serious cell damage.
According to Global Healing Center, a research study conducted on the potentially harmful effects of ingesting chlorine found that rats drinking out of chlorinated water supplies developed tumors in their livers, kidneys and intestines.
Despite incontrovertible evidence detailing the negative health risks associated with consuming harmful toxins like arsenic, fluoride and chlorine, the government continues to allow their presence in most tap water.
If you’d like to make sure that the water you’re drinking is as toxin-free as possible, check out Natural News’s blog entry discussing the benefits associated with alkalizing your water naturally, using lemons, cucumbers, ginger root and mint.
Author: Wes Maxwell
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/054732_tap_water_fluoride_arsenic.html#ixzz4F2zuruUu
Nearly half of people taking depressants are not suffering from depression at all, according to a study conducted by researchers from McGill University in Montreal, and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).
These people have been prescribed the drugs for “off label” uses not approved by drug regulatory agencies. These uses have never been proven safe or effective.
“It’s an interesting phenomenon,” author Jenna Wong said. “We had heard that in the scientific community there has been a suspicion among doctors that physicians are commonly prescribing antidepressants for uses other than depression. We also found that for the major classes of antidepressants, there was an increasing prescribing trend over time.”
Treatments not backed by evidence
The researchers reviewed 10 years of antidepressant prescription records, containing data on more than 100,000 prescriptions written by approximately 160 doctors for nearly 20,000 patients. They analyzed trends of prescribing for every antidepressant class except monoamine oxidase inhibitors, which are almost never prescribed as antidepressants anymore and therefore rarely occurred in the records.
They found that only 55 percent of the prescriptions were written for depression. The other 45 percent were written for anxiety (18.5 percent), insomnia (10 percent), pain (6 percent), panic disorders (4 percent), and for a slew of conditions that are off-label for every antidepressant, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), digestive disorders, eating disorders, migraine and vasomotor menopause symptoms.
Twenty-nine percent of antidepressant prescriptions were written for a use that was off-label for that particular drug. Fully 66 percent of prescriptions written for conditions other than depression were off label.
If nothing else, the study shows that rates of antidepressant prescriptions are a not a good indicator of the rate at which depression is being diagnosed, or treated, the authors noted. It also raises concerns that the drugs are being so widely used for conditions not backed by scientific research.
“The findings indicate that the mere presence of an antidepressant prescription is a poor proxy for depression treatment, and they highlight the need to evaluate the evidence supporting off-label antidepressant use,” the authors wrote.
Wong noted that off-label uses have never been proven effective, and may also carry a risk of unknown side effects.
“I can’t make a statement to say that for sure they don’t work or that they are exposing patients to health risks but there’s the possibility that they could be causing adverse health effects or that they may not be effective for the conditions,” Wong said. “Without any scientific evidence, it’s hard to be able to say.”
“It raises the question of why they are prescribing them,” she said.
The authors speculated that many doctors are relying on tradition or informal channels of information, rather than scientific research.
“Physicians may be talking to their colleagues and saying, ‘Hey, I’ve used this drug in my patient population and it works,'” Wong said. “So it’s more word of mouth.”
Other potential reasons for off-label prescribing may be marketing by pharmaceutical companies or simply the use of antidepressants as a last resort when other treatments have failed.
“Some of these conditions are things where there is no exact treatment,” Wong said. “The patients may be desperate for something to treat their ailments.”
The findings are particularly troubling given how many studies have shown that antidepressants have little, if any, benefit over a placebo – but with a much higher rate of potentially dangerous side effects, including suicide.
In an article published last year in the British Medical Journal, esteemed evidence-based medicine researcher Peter Gotzsche argued that nearly all psychiatric drugs, including antidepressants, could be discontinued without harming public health. In fact, he said, there would probably be a benefit; currently, these drugs kill 500,000 people per year – and that’s just for people over the age of 65 living in Western countries.
Sources for this article include:
Author: : David Gutierrez
If your doctor receives money or gifts from a drug company, be it payment for a lecture or a free meal, does it influence the medications he or she in turn prescribes? This represents the burning question in an industry saturated with pharmaceutical company involvement.
A ProPublica analysis revealed nearly nine in 10 cardiologists, and seven in 10 internists and family practitioners, included in their study received payments from drug or device companies in 2014. But the analysis didn’t stop there.
It also looked into whether or not such payments were associated with prescribing practices, and here’s where things got interesting.
Doctors Who Received Drug-Company Money Prescribed More Brand-Name Drugs
ProPublica analyzed the prescribing habits of doctors who wrote at least 1,000 prescriptions in the Medicare Part D drug program. The doctors belonged to five common specialties: psychiatry, cardiovascular disease, family medicine, internal medicine and ophthalmology.
Not only was the receipt of drug-company money associated with a higher percentage of brand-name drug prescriptions, but the prescriptions rose with the amount of money received.
The analysis included promotional speaking, consulting, business travel, meals, royalties and gifts as forms of drug company payments. Those who received more than $5,000 from industry in 2014 prescribed the most brand-name drugs. According to the analysis:
“In all cases, the group receiving larger payments had a higher brand-name prescribing rate on average.
Additionally, the type of payment made a difference: those who received meals alone from companies had a higher rate of brand-name prescribing than physicians who received no payments, and those who received speaking payments had a higher rate than those who received other types of payments.”
Are Drug-Company Payments ‘Thinly Veiled Kickbacks?’
Dr. Aaron Kesselheim, an associate professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School, told The Atlantic regarding the featured study:
“It again confirms the prevailing wisdom … that there is a relationship between payments and brand-name prescribing … This feeds into the ongoing conversation about the propriety of these sorts of relationships.
Hopefully we’re getting past the point where people will say, ‘Oh, there’s no evidence that these relationships change physicians’ prescribing practices.”
Indeed, this is far from the first time that such payments have been linked to prescribing practices.
A 2010 study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine also found that nearly 84 percent of physicians surveyed reported some type of relationship with industry during the previous year, and those with such a relationship were more likely to prescribe a brand-name drug even when a generic alternative was available.
The finding isn’t only relevant for patients, who may be paying more unnecessarily for brand-name drugs, but also for taxpayers who spend billions each year subsidizing Medicare Part D. At least 1 in 4 U.S. prescriptions are paid for by Medicare.
Meanwhile, it’s worth repeating that the reason drug companies pay doctors and aggressively promote certain medications is not to benefit patients; it’s to benefit their bottom line. And there’s often a fine line between legitimate payments and illegal kickbacks. ProPublica noted:
” … [F]ederal whistle-blower lawsuits against several pharmaceutical companies have alleged that payments are little more than thinly veiled kickbacks, which are illegal. Companies have paid billions of dollars to settle the cases.”
Drug Companies Heavily Promote ‘Me-Too Drugs’ to Doctors
Past research by ProPublica revealed the drugs most aggressively promoted to physicians, and they’re not medical breakthroughs or even, generally, top sellers.
Instead, they tend to be drugs that are newer to the market, sometimes underperforming and often face competition from other older, readily available drugs.
Dubbed “me-too” drugs, their makers may claim they carry fewer side effects, work faster or have other advantages over existing drugs on the market.
Another ProPublica study revealed that top prescribers of some of the most heavily marketed drugs tended to receive promotional speaking payments from the drugs’ makers.
Would You Still Trust Your Doctor If He or She Accepts Drug Company Payments?
In 2012, research showed that accepting gifts from the pharmaceutical industry does have implications for the doctor-patient relationship, and “doing so can undermine trust and affect patients’ intent to adhere to medical recommendations.”
Not surprisingly, most people surveyed in one study said they would have less trust in their physician if they learned he or she accepted gifts worth more than $100 from the pharmaceutical industry, or went on industry-sponsored trips or sporting events.
One-quarter even said they would be less likely to take a prescribed medication “if their physician had recently accepted a gift in return for listening to a pharmaceutical representative’s presentation about that drug.”
It’s no wonder that most physicians would rather their patients not know about any kickbacks they’ve received from the drug industry. But now that this has become public information, it may very well prompt some physicians to cut their ties to the industry.
Unfortunately, quite often — definitely too frequently for comfort — treatment recommendations are biased in favor of a specific drug simply because people making the decisions stand to profit from it.
If you find your doctor is receiving large amounts of money from industry, you may want to find another doctor or get a second opinion. At the very least, if you have concerns you might open a conversation about whether the drugs you’ve been prescribed are the best choices for you.
Whatever your health problem might be, I strongly recommend digging below the surface using all the resources available to you; including your own commonsense and reason, true independent experts’ advice and others’ experiences to determine what medical treatment or advice will be best for you.
You Can Find Out If Your Doctor Accepts Drug-Company Money (and How Much)
According to ProPublica’s “Dollar for Docs” website, which you can use to find out if your doctor accepts money from the drug industry, more than 1,500 companies have made payments to nearly 686,000 doctors, totaling close to $3.5 billion.
You can also find out if your doctor receives payments from Big Pharma by visiting OpenPaymentsData.CMS.gov. This site has tallied nearly $6.5 billion in payments since 2013. It hasn’t always been possible to find out what giftsyour own doctor might be accepting.
The Physician Payments Sunshine Act, which is part of the Affordable Care Act, went into effect in 2013. For the first time, the Act requires drug and medical device makers to collect and disclose any payments of more than $10 made to physicians and teaching hospitals.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is in charge of implementing the Sunshine Act, which it has done via its Open Payments Program. You can easily search the site to find out what (if any) payments your doctor has received, along with the nature of the payments.
  The Atlantic March 21, 2016
  ProPublica June 25, 2013
About the author:
Born and raised in the inner city of Chicago, IL, Dr. Joseph Mercola is an osteopathic physician trained in both traditional and natural medicine. Board-certified in family medicine, Dr. Mercola served as the chairman of the family medicine department at St. Alexius Medical Center for five years, and in 2012 was granted fellowship status by the American College of Nutrition (ACN).
While in practice in the late 80s, Dr. Mercola realized the drugs he was prescribing to chronically ill patients were not working. By the early 90s, he began exploring the world of natural medicine, and soon changed the way he practiced medicine.
In 1997 Dr. Mercola founded www.Mercola.com, which is now routinely among the top 10 health sites on the internet. His passion is to transform the traditional medical paradigm in the United States. “The existing medical establishment is responsible for killing and permanently injuring millions of Americans… You want practical health solutions without the hype, and that’s what I offer.”
Visit www.Mercola.com for more information, or read Dr. Mercola’s full bio and résumé here.
Originally Published: http://wakeup-world.com/2016/05/12/how-money-from-pharmaceutical-companies-sways-doctors-prescriptions/
Common medicines including cold and flu tablets, heartburn drugs and sleeping pills ‘SHRINK the brain and slow down thinking’
- Ingredients promethazine and diphenhydramine ‘slowed brain function’
- Block chemical acetylcholine involved in transmitting electrical impulses
- Researchers said the drugs had an effect for a month after treatment
- A full list of implicated medications can be viewed at Ageing Brain Care
- Or scroll down for a full list of the medications listed in the study
Common over-the-counter medicines should be avoided by older people as they have been linked to memory loss and problems in thinking, scientists have discovered.
Treatments for colds and flu, hay fever, allergy and heartburn tablets containing anti-cholinergic drugs had the effect for one month after treatment, a study found.
Effects associated with taking the drugs included having slower brain processing times and smaller brains overall.
Well known treatments including the heartburn medicine Zantac, Night Nurse Liquid containing Promethazine and the sleeping tablet Nytol, containing diphenhydramine, are included among drugs that may result in the effects, the research said.
Over the counter treatments for cold, flu, heartburn and sleeping tablets were found to block the chemical acetylcholine, which is involved in the transmission of electrical impulses between nerve cells
The drugs block the chemical acetylcholine, which is involved in the transmission of electrical impulses between nerve cells.
The treatments are prescribed for a wide range of conditions, including Parkinson’s disease, overactive bladder, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, nausea and vomiting, sleeping problems, high blood pressure, depression and psychosis.
But the authors warn: ‘Use of AC [anti-cholinergic] medication among older adults should likely be discouraged if alternative therapies are available.’
Previous studies have linked the drugs with cognitive impairment, increased risk of dementia and falls.
However, the new study by Indiana University School of Medicine, is the first to explore their impact on brain metabolism and atrophy through brain scans.
Dr Shannon Risacher, the university’s assistant professor of radiology and imaging sciences, said: ‘These findings provide us with a much better understanding of how this class of drugs may act upon the brain in ways that might raise the risk of cognitive impairment and dementia,’
‘Given all the research evidence, physicians might want to consider alternatives to anticholinergic medications if available when working with their older patients.
‘The impact of these drugs have been know about for over a decade, with a 2013 study finding drugs with a strong anticholinergic effect cause cognitive problems when taken continuously for as few as 60 days. Drugs with a weaker effect could cause impairment within 90 days.’
Many over the counter medicines have been linked to slower brain processing times and smaller brains
The new study involved 451 participants, 60 of whom were taking at least one medication with medium or high anticholinergic activity.
The participants were drawn from a national Alzheimer’s research project – the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative – and the Indiana Memory and Ageing Study.
To identify possible physical and physiological changes that could be associated with the reported effects, researchers assessed the results of memory and other cognitive tests, positron emission tests (PET) measuring brain metabolism, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans for brain structure.
Patients taking anticholinergic drugs performed worse than older adults not taking the drugs on short-term memory and some tests of executive function, which cover a range of activities such as verbal reasoning, planning, and problem solving.
Anticholinergic drug users also showed lower levels of glucose metabolism – a biomarker for brain activity – in both the overall brain and in the hippocampus, a region of the brain associated with memory and which has been identified as affected early by Alzheimer’s disease.
The researchers also found significant links between brain structure revealed by the MRI scans and anticholinergic drug use, with the participants using anticholinergic drugs having reduced brain volume and larger ventricles, the cavities inside the brain.
Professor Risacher added: ‘These findings might give us clues to the biological basis for the cognitive problems associated with anticholinergic drugs, but additional studies are needed if we are to truly understand the mechanisms involved.’
The study was published in the journal JAMA Neurology.
John Smith, Chief Executive of the Proprietary Association of Great Britain, which represents makers of over the counter medicines, said the medicines linked to the study were not intended to be used on a daily basis.
Anticholinergic medicines include some over-the-counter allergy and cold and flu products. However they are intended for short term relief of symptoms only
He said: ‘It is important to note that the JAMA study only involved people with a mean age of 73 in what the researchers conceded was a small sample.
The study followed people who took medicines that were low, medium or high in anticholinergic activity, and concluded that the use of medication with medium or high anticholinergic activity should be discouraged in older adults if alternative therapies are available.
‘However, due to the study limitations, the researchers propose that further and more advanced studies are needed.
‘Anticholinergic medicines include some over-the-counter allergy and cold and flu products but these are intended for short term relief of symptoms and not for continuous use as in the research.
‘If anyone has any concerns about their medicine, we would advise them to talk to their pharmacist.
‘There is a range of different allergy, cold and flu products on the market which contain different ingredients, many of which were not considered in this study, and a pharmacist will be able to recommend a suitable product.
‘All over-the-counter medicines in the UK have been approved by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and are rigorously assessed for safety and efficacy.
‘Once on the market, their safety is continually monitored in light of any emerging evidence.’
FULL LIST OF IMPLICATED MEDICATIONS
Drug Prescribed for/Type of drug US brand name
UK brand name Other brand names
Alimemazine Sedative, antihistamine Zentiva Theralen
Alverine Gastrointestinal disorders Spasmonal
Alprazolam Sedative, anxiety Xanax Xanax Niravam
Aripiprazole Antipsychotic Abilify Abilify Abilify Discmelt, Aristada
Asenapine Schizophrenia Saphris Sycrest
Atenolol Beta blocker, high blood pressure Tenormin Tenormin
Amantadine Antiviral, flu Symmetrel Symmetrel
Amitriptyline Antidepressant Elavil Elavil Vanatrip, Endep
Amoxapine Antidepressant Asendin Asendin
Atropine Treats heart rhythms, stomach and bowel problems Sal-Tropine, Atreza
Bupropion Antidepressant, smoking cessation Wellbutrin Zyban
Belladonna Leg, nerve pain and psychiatric disorders Plant also known as deadly nightshade
Benztropine Parkinson’s disease Cogentin
Brompheniramine Antihistamine Dimetapp
Captopril High blood pressure, heart failure Capoten Capoten
Cetirizine Antihistamine Zyrtec Zyrtec
Chlorthalidone Diuretic Diuril Hygroton
Cimetidine Stomach ulcer, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) Tagamet Tagamet
Clidinium Peptic ulcers Librax Quarzan
Clorazepate Anxiety, partial seizures, alcohol abuse disorder Tranxene
Codeine Opioid painkiller Contin Nurofen Plus, Solpadeine Max, Panadol Ultra
Colchicine Gout Colcrys Colchicine
Carbamazepine Anticonvulsant, seizures Tegretol Tegretol
Cyclobenzaprine Musculoskeletal pain, injury Flexeril Amrix, Fexmid
Cyproheptadine Antihistamine Periactin Periactin
Carbinoxamine Antihistamine Histex Carbihist
Chlorpheniramine Antihistamine Chlor-Trimeton Piriton
Chlorpromazine Anti-psychotic Thorazine Thorazine
Clemastine Antihistamine Tavist Tavegil
Clomipramine Antidepressant Anafranil Anafranil
Clozapine Antipsychotic Clozaril Clozaril
Desloratadine Antihistamine Clarinex Clarinex
Diazepam Anxiety, alcohol abuse disorder, muscle spasm Valium Valium
Digoxin Heart failure Lanoxin Lanoxin
Dipyridamole Prevents blood clots Persantine Persantine
Disopyramide Irregular heartbeat Norpace Norpace
Darifenacin Overactive bladder Enablex Enablex
Desipramine Antidepressant Norpramin Norpramin
Dicyclomine Irritable bowel syndrome Bentyl Merbentyl
Dimenhydrinate Anti-nausea Dramamine Arlevert
Diphenhydramine Antihistamine Benadryl Benadryl
Doxepin Depression, anxiety Sinequan Sinequan Deptran
Doxylamine Antihistamine Unisom Unisom
Fentanyl Opioid painkiller Duragesic Duragesic Actiq
Furosemide Heart failure, liver disease Lasix Lasix Frusol
Fluvoxamine Antidepressant, obsessive compulsive disorder Luvox Faverin
Fesoterodine Overactive bladder Toviaz Toviaz
Flavoxate Bladder pain, incontinence Urispas Urispas
Haloperidol Scizophrenia Haldol Haldol
Hydroxyzine Antihistamine Atarax Atarax Vistaril
Hyoscyamine Muscle spasms, stomach and intestinal disorders Anaspaz Anaspaz Levsin
Hydralazine High blood pressure Apresoline Apresoline
Hydrocortisone Steroid, treats eczema, psoriasis Cortef Cortaid
Iloperidone Schizophrenia Fanapt Fanapt
Isosorbide Angina Isordil Isordil Ismo
Imipramine Antidepressant Tofranil Tofranil
Levocetirizine Antihistamine Xyzal Xyzal
Loperamide Diarrhea Immodium Immodium
Loratadine Antihistamine Claritin Claritin
Loxapine Schizophrenia Loxitane Xylac
Metoprolol Angina, high blood pressure Lopressor Lopressor Toprol
Morphine Opioid painkiller MS Contin MS Contin Avinza
Meperidine Opioid painkiller Demerol Demerol
Methotrimeprazine Anti-psychotic Levoprome Levoprome
Molindone Anti-psychotic Moban Moban
Meclizine Nausea, vomiting, dizziness Antivert Antivert
Methocarbamol Muscle relaxant Robaxin Robaxin
Nifedipine High blood pressure, angina Procardia Adalat
Nefopam Painkiller Nefogesic Acupan
Nortriptyline Antidepressant Pamelor Pamelor
Oxcarbazepine Epilepsy, anti-convulsant Trileptal Trileptal
Paliperidone Anti-psychotic Invega Invega
Prednisone Anti-inflammatory Deltasone Deltasone Sterapred
Pimozide Anti-psychotic Orap Orap
Olanzapine Anti-psychotic Zyprexa Zyprexa
Orphenadrine Muscle relaxant Norflex Norflex
Oxybutynin Overactive bladder Ditropan Ditropan
Paroxetine Antidepressant Paxil Seroxat
Perphenazine Anti-psychotic Trilafon Fentazin
Promethazine Antihistamine Phenergan Phenergan
Propantheline Reduces stomach acid in patients with stomach ulcers Pro-Banthine Pro-Banthine
Propiverine Incontinence Detrunorm Detrunorm
Quinidine Heart rhythm disorders Quinaglute Quinaglute
Quetiapine Anti-psychotic Seroquel Seroquel
Ranitidine Stomach ulcers Zantac Zantac
Risperidone Anti-psychotic Risperdal Risperdal
Scopolamine Nausea, vomiting, motion sickness Transderm Scop Transderm Scop
Solifenacin Overactive bladder Vesicare Vesicare
Theophylline Asthma, bronchitis, emphysema Theo-Dur Uniphyllin
Trazodone Antidepressant Desyrel Desyrel
Triamterene Diuretic Dyrenium Dyrenium
Thioridazine Anti-psychotic Mellaril Mellaril
Tolterodine Urinary incontinence Detrol Detrol
Trifluoperazine Anti-psychotic Stelazine Stelazine
Trihexyphenidyl Parkinson’s disease Artane Trihexyphenidyl Genus
Trimipramine Depression Surmontil Surmontil
Trospium Overactive bladder Sanctura Sanctura
Venlafaxine Antidepressant Effexor Effexor
Warfarin Prevents formation of blood clots Coumadin Warfarin
Source: Aging Brain Care
No drugs should EVER be mandatory: New Mexico rejects legislation that would force children to ingest psychiatric medication
As reported by The New American (TNA), a new law in New Mexico to protect kids from coercive psychiatric screening and medication was approved last year in the state, and now advocates for the law hope it will spread to other states and provide similar protection for children, families and parental rights.
As TNA reported further, Big Pharma and the Obama Administration have been pushing hard to unconstitutionally spread mandatory “mental health” screening, treatment and tracking of children nationwide. But health freedom advocates say laws like the one on the books in New Mexico “could offer much-needed protection in the years ahead. And progress is already being made,” TNA noted.
The legislation in New Mexico, which was supported by members of both major political parties and passed nearly unanimously in both chambers of the state legislature, is being celebrated by its advocates as the toughest forced medication protection law in the country. Formally titled the “Child Medication Safety Act,” the measure sought to address what is viewed by many as an alarming trend in the U.S. – threats and coercion against families and their children when it comes to forcing psychiatric evaluation and subsequent mandatory medication with dangerous mind-altering drugs.
Refusing consent no longer gives state permission to remove a child from his or her home
“For too long parents’ rights have been subjugated by the mental health industry, and children wrongly labeled with mental disorders and drugged with dangerous mind-altering psychotropic drugs,” said the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), a nonprofit mental-health watchdog that backed the law and hopes similar measures will spread nationwide. “It’s encouraging that New Mexico is taking its place among a growing list of states taking protective actions on behalf of children and parental rights.”
The group noted that it was time for other states to take similar action, TNA reported.
The news site noted further:
The New Mexico law, HB 53, prohibits school personnel from forcing children to use psychotropic medications — a common occurrence in government schools across America, where close to 10 million children are on such drugs. Among other elements, the measure allows school officials to offer parents assistance for their children, but never using threats or coercion.
“An employee or agent of a school district or governing body shall not compel or attempt to compel any specific actions by the parent or guardian or require that a student take a psychotropic medication,” says the law.
In addition, the statute makes it illegal to use a parent’s refusal to medicate their child with psychotropic or other mind-altering drugs as a reason to remove the child from their home and place them in the care of the state’s child “protective” apparatus.
“A child shall not be taken into protective custody solely on the grounds that the child’s parent, guardian or custodian refuses to consent to the administration of a psychotropic medication to the child,” the law says.
Now, schools must get parental consent for child psych “screening”
That passage is notably important, given recent cases around the United States in which state bureaucrats have literally stolen children and forced them to take medications that are often dangerous or experimental, in violation of internationally agreed upon human rights (see here, here and here for just a few examples of Natural News coverage).
Another huge victory for advocates of traditional medical ethics in New Mexico is a section of the statute that bans mandatory “mental health” screening, as this has often been used as a phony pretext for trumped-up charges against parents.
Under the law, schools have to not only request but receive parental consent before “screening” a child for any presumed mental issues.
“School personnel shall not require a student to undergo psychological screening unless the parent or guardian of that student gives prior written consent before each instance of psychological screening,” the law says.
Author: J. D. Heyes
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/053554_New_Mexico_psychiatric_drugs_forced_medication.html#ixzz44z4hO7cB