I just donated $20 to Justice for Maryanne Godboldo fund.

Justice for Maryanne Godboldo

Read about how Child Protective Services and Detroit Police caused a 12 hour armed standoff because a mom courageously refused to allow her teenage daughter to be force medicated with anti-psychotic drugs.

The psych drugging industry and welfare nanny state have joined forces with police to prey on innocent children, using tax dollars to fund their operation.

Please donate to her legal defense fund. The fight is here.

Feel Better™

There’s a new University of Michigan web site, purportedly to help students get help with mental health issues, called “Campus Mind Works.”

It contains a lot of info about therapy and seems rather benign and even potentially helpful, at first glance. But once you know who’s running the site- U-M Psychiatry, this deceptive little piece of marketing makes a lot more sense.

First Check out the scrolling slideshow

Frame 2 caption:

“The sooner you seek help, the sooner you will feel better.”
- Jenna, U-M student

Frame 6 caption:

“The sooner you seek help, the sooner you will feel better. Why wait?”
- Leena, U-M student

Oh well then, since both Leena and Jenna think I need some pills, let me just march right on over there ask my doctor.  I mean, I do want to Feel Better™, right?

Ladies- the fact that there are 13 women and 4 men in this thinly-veiled commercial should give you a clue that you are being targeted by the drug industry disproportionately.

Is it because you’re more trusting of authority than men?  Are you just more likely to use drugs because you’re more emotional?  Or are they targeting you as part of a larger agenda that is not purely market driven?

I don’t know the answers to these “why” questions, but one thing I do know is there are a lot of women out there hooked on antidepressants and anxiety drugs.  Based on some studies, women are about twice as likely to take antidepressants as men.

You probably won’t realize that the main purpose of this site is slinging happy drugs to students until you actually follow thru and speak with a doctor.  Thats when they sell you hard on the drugs.

There’s no free lunch.  Good luck with the brain zaps.

Choosing healthy foods now called a mental disorder

Tuesday, June 29, 2010
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger

(NaturalNews) In its never-ending attempt to fabricate “mental disorders” out of every human activity, the psychiatric industry is now pushing the most ridiculous disease they’ve invented yet: Healthy eating disorder.

This is no joke: If you focus on eating healthy foods, you’re “mentally diseased” and probably need some sort of chemical treatment involving powerful psychotropic drugs. The Guardian newspaper reports, “Fixation with healthy eating can be sign of serious psychological disorder” and goes on to claim this “disease” is called orthorexia nervosa — which is basically just Latin for “nervous about correct eating.”

But they can’t just called it “nervous healthy eating disorder” because that doesn’t sound like they know what they’re talking about. So they translate it into Latin where it sounds smart (even though it isn’t). That’s where most disease names come from: Doctors just describe the symptoms they see with a name like osteoporosis (which means “bones with holes in them”).

Getting back to this fabricated “orthorexia” disease, the Guardian goes on to report, “Orthorexics commonly have rigid rules around eating. Refusing to touch sugar, salt, caffeine, alcohol, wheat, gluten, yeast, soya, corn and dairy foods is just the start of their diet restrictions. Any foods that have come into contact with pesticides, herbicides or contain artificial additives are also out.”

Wait a second. So attempting to avoid chemicals, dairy, soy and sugar now makes you a mental health patient? Yep. According to these experts. If you actually take special care to avoid pesticides, herbicides and genetically modified ingredients like soy and sugar, there’s something wrong with you.

But did you notice that eating junk food is assumed to be “normal?” If you eat processed junk foods laced with synthetic chemicals, that’s okay with them. The mental patients are the ones who choose organic, natural foods, apparently.

What is “normal” when it comes to foods?

I told you this was coming. Years ago, I warned NaturalNews readers that an attempt might soon be under way to outlaw broccoli because of its anti-cancer phytonutrients. This mental health assault on health-conscious consumers is part of that agenda. It’s an effort to marginalize healthy eaters by declaring them to be mentally unstable and therefore justify carting them off to mental institutions where they will be injected with psychiatric drugs and fed institutional food that’s all processed, dead and full of toxic chemicals.

The Guardian even goes to the ridiculous extreme of saying, “The obsession about which foods are “good” and which are “bad” means orthorexics can end up malnourished.”

Follow the non-logic on this, if you can: Eating “good” foods will cause malnutrition! Eating bad foods, I suppose, is assumed to provide all the nutrients you need. That’s about as crazy a statement on nutrition as I’ve ever read. No wonder people are so diseased today: The mainstream media is telling them that eating health food is a mental disorder that will cause malnutrition!

Shut up and swallow your Soylent Green

It’s just like I reported years ago: You’re not supposed to question your food, folks. Sit down, shut up, dig in and chow down. Stop thinking about what you’re eating and just do what you’re told by the mainstream media and its processed food advertisers. Questioning the health properties of your junk food is a mental disorder, didn’t you know? And if you “obsess” over foods (by doing such things as reading the ingredients labels, for example), then you’re weird. Maybe even sick.

That’s the message they’re broadcasting now. Junk food eaters are “normal” and “sane” and “nourished.” But health food eaters are diseased, abnormal and malnourished.

But why, you ask, would they attack healthy eaters? People like Dr. Gabriel Cousens can tell you why: Because increased mental and spiritual awareness is only possible while on a diet of living, natural foods.

Eating junk foods keeps you dumbed down and easy to control, you see. It literally messes with your mind, numbing your senses with MSG, aspartame and yeast extract. People who subsist on junk foods are docile and quickly lose the ability to think for themselves. They go along with whatever they’re told by the TV or those in apparent positions of authority, never questioning their actions or what’s really happening in the world around them.

In contrast to that, people who eat health-enhancing natural foods — with all the medicinal nutrients still intact — begin to awaken their minds and spirits. Over time, they begin to question the reality around them and they pursue more enlightened explorations of topics like community, nature, ethics, philosophy and the big picture of things that are happening in the world. They become “aware” and can start to see the very fabric of the Matrix, so to speak.

This, of course, is a huge danger to those who run our consumption-based society because consumption depends on ignorance combined with suggestibility. For people to keep blindly buying foods, medicines, health insurance and consumer goods, they need to have their higher brain functions switched off. Processed junk foods laced with toxic chemicals just happens to achieve that rather nicely. Why do you think dead, processed foods remain the default meals in public schools, hospitals and prisons? It’s because dead foods turn off higher levels of awareness and keep people focused on whatever distractions you can feed their brains: Television, violence, fear, sports, sex and so on.

But living as a zombie is, in one way quite “normal” in society today because so many people are doing it. But that doesn’t make it normal in my book: The real “normal” is an empowered, healthy, awakened person nourished with living foods and operating as a sovereign citizen in a free world. Eating living foods is like taking the red pill because over time it opens up a whole new perspective on the fabric of reality. It sets you free to think for yourself.

But eating processed junk foods is like taking the blue pill because it keeps you trapped in a fabricated reality where your life experiences are fabricated by consumer product companies who hijack your senses with designer chemicals (like MSG) that fool your brain into thinking you’re eating real food.

If you want to be alive, aware and in control of your own life, eat more healthy living foods. But don’t expect to be popular with mainstream mental health “experts” or dieticians — they’re all being programmed to consider you to be “crazy” because you don’t follow their mainstream diets of dead foods laced with synthetic chemicals.

But you and I know the truth here: We are the normal ones. The junk food eaters are the real mental patients, and the only way to wake them up to the real world is to start feeding them living foods.

Some people are ready to take the red pill, and others aren’t. All you can do is show them the door. They must open it themselves.

In the mean time, try to avoid the mental health agents who are trying to label you as having a mental disorder just because you pay attention to what you put in your body. There’s nothing wrong with avoiding sugar, soy, MSG, aspartame, HFCS and other toxic chemicals in the food supply. In fact, your very life depends on it.

Oh, and by the way, if you want to join the health experts who keep inventing new fictitious diseases and disorders, check out my popular Disease Mongering Engine web page where you can invent your own new diseases at the click of a button! You’ll find it at: http://www.naturalnews.com/disease-…

Sources for this story include:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2…

Israeli team says it has developed software to spot depressed bloggers

Inventors say program could enable mental health workers to identify individuals in need of treatment and recommend they seek help.

(HAARETZ)   Israeli researchers have developed software that claims to identify depressed bloggers by analyzing their writing.

The program scours blogs for words and phrases, descriptions and metaphors that can indicate the writer’s psychological state.

The software’s initial test run, which was part of a research study headed by Professor Yair Neuman of Ben-Gurion University’s department of education, combed more than 1,000 blog posts written by American bloggers that were online in 2004.

As part of the research, the software was asked to determine what it perceived as the 100 “most depressed” bloggers and the 100 “least depressed.”

Neuman told Haaretz that the software diagnoses largely matched those of four clinical psychologists who made their own diagnoses based on the blog posts.

“We found an 80 percent match between the automatic identification mechanism of the software and the human diagnosis given by the psychologists,” Neuman said.

“A psychologist knows how to spot various emotional states through intuition,” he said. “Here we have a program that does this methodologically through the innovative use of ‘web intelligence.’”

Neuman said the software could enable mental health workers to identify individuals in need of treatment and to recommend that they seek help.

“What does all of this mean from a practical standpoint?” he asked. “First of all, it shows that the technology is here and available and that it could be put to use.”

“In the United States there is a wide-ranging problem with depression,” said Neuman. “Through this software it will be possible to contact a blogger and request a general examination of the contents of his blog. If the blogger agrees, he will know whether he needs to seek professional counseling for any possible distress.”

Neuman said the researchers had received permission to analyze the blog posts.

The research and development for the software was funded by the Defense Ministry, yet Ben-Gurion University officials said yesterday the project would not be used for military purposes.

The program is capable of spotting words that express various emotions, like the names of colors that the writer employs to metaphorically describe certain situations. Hence words like “black,” if combined with other terms that describe such symptoms of depression as sleep deprivation and loneliness will be recognized by the software as “depressive” texts.

The software can also spot love and vengefulness (or at least thinks it can ).

Men who write prose laden with imagery from nature as well as words like “fire” or “lightning” could be determined by the program to be in love, as could women citing poetry or words related to music.

“The software does not rely on a single context-dependent word, but on a series of words strung together, terms and images chosen by the writer,” said Neuman.

…

Neuman cautioned against utilizing the technology for corporate purposes.

“I will not be pleased if this is put to negative use, like advertising for a certain product,” he said. “But I am all for using it as a means to spot cases of emotional distress.”

Antidepressant use during pregnancy associated with increased risk of spontaneous abortion

A study published in the Journal of the Canadian Medical Association (CMAJ) has found an association between antidepressant use during pregnancy and increased risk of spontaneous abortion.  The authors were cautious not to suggest a causal relationship, however they did attempt to control for confounding variables and still found the risk is more than doubled (5.5% vs 2.7%).

I found this choice of words from the abstract to be unfortunate, however in all fairness, when up against an industry like the phychiatric drug mafia, I can understand why they’d soften the blow in order to cover their own asses.

The risk of relapse of depression or the diagnosis of some other psychiatric disorders during pregnancy necessitates the use of antidepressants despite possible adverse effects.

But really, Necessitates?  What did female humans do with their emotions during pregnancy for  the 50,000 years prior to the invention of these wonder-drugs?  Here’s the problem:  We’re a society of useless, weak morons who would rather give our babies birth defects than take control over our own emotions.

… Whether such use increases the risk of spontaneous abortion is still being debated.

An odd place for this statement, considering the conclusions clearly state the risk is more than doubled.  Of course, anyone can debate anything they want.

After adjustment for potential confounders, we found that the use of antidepressants during pregnancy was associated with an increased risk of spontaneous abortion.

If they’ve made “adjustment for potential confounders” and still found more than double the risk of spontaneous abortion, I believe this does imply a causal relationship and not merely an association.

The use of antidepressants, especially paroxetine [Paxil], venlafaxine [Effexor] or the combined use of different classes of antidepressants, during pregnancy was associated with an increased risk of spontaneous abortion.

In my experience, women are trusting of authority and establishment medicine, which makes them perfect targets revenue streams patients for the psychiatric industry. Instead of teaching girls how to manage their emotions in a rational and constructive manner- by working things out verbally, doing exercise, and maintaining a proper diet, we tell them they need mood-altering, addictive drugs to treat their “disease.”

There is no doubt that reproductive hormones can alter mood and behavior in both women and men, but is it acceptable to pawn that burden off on our unborn children in the form of birth defects?  Are we so weak we can’t deal with the physiological issues that all our ancestors dealt with to bring us into this world?  If they hadn’t met the challenge– if they’d decided to drink alcohol excessively, or take Laudanum, cocaine, or other mood altering drugs that were available (without prescriptions), they might not have carried those babies to term.

When my (now x) wife was pregnant with our child, they tried to push antidepressants on her.  It was a struggle to convince her to look at new research that showed increased risk of birth defects and miscarriage. This isn’t the only study showing increased risk of complications and birth defects associated with antidepressants.

Psychiatrists and doctors said the drugs posed no risk to the baby, weren’t habit forming, etc.  It was 100% pure profit-motivated bs and thank god I was able to help her make the right decision.

Moral of the story: Don’t take mood-altering drugs during pregnancy (duh).

Psychiatry’s “Bible” Could List New Set of Disorders

Latest version of DSM may trigger ‘epidemics’ of mental illnesses

By Sharon Kirkey
Canwest News Service
April 26, 2010

Nearly 700,000 prescriptions for atypical antipsychotics were dispensed for kids under 13 last year. The changes being proposed for the manual of mental illness — whose sales since 2000 have topped $40 million — would create even more patients for whom psychoactive drugs can be prescribed.

Photograph by: Joe Raedle, Getty Images

An American Phenomenon: The Widespread Psychiatric Drugging of Infants and Toddlers

The use of powerful antipsychotics with privately insured children, aged 2 through 5 in the US, doubled between 1999 and 2007, according to a study of data on more than one million children with private health insurance in the January, 2010, “Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry.”

The number of children in this age group diagnosed with bipolar disorder also doubled over the last decade, Reuters reported.

Of antipsychotic-treated children in the 2007 study sample, the most common diagnoses were pervasive developmental disorder or mental retardation (28.2%), ADHD (23.7%), and disruptive behavior disorder (12.9%).

The study reported that fewer than half of drug treated children received a mental health assessment (40.8%), a psychotherapy visit (41.4%), or a visit with a psychiatrist (42.6%) during the year of antipsychotic use.

“Antipsychotics, which are being widely and irresponsibly prescribed for American children–mostly as chemical restraints–are shown to be causing irreparable harm,” warned Vera Hassner Sharav, president of the Alliance for Human Research Protection, in a February 26, 2010 InfoMail.

“These drugs have measurable severe hazardous effects on vital biological systems, including: cardiovascular adverse effects that result in shortening lives; metabolic adverse effects that induce diabetes and the metabolic syndrome,” she wrote. “Long-term use of antipsychotics has been shown to result in metabolic syndrome in 40% to 50% of patients.”

The lead researcher on the study above, Columbia University psychiatry professor Mark Olfson, told Reuters that about 1.5% of all privately insured children between the ages of 2 and 5, or one in 70, received some type of psychiatric drug in 2007, be it an antipsychotic, a mood stabilizer, a stimulant or an antidepressant.

Psychiatric drugs bathe the brains of growing children with agents that threaten the normal development of the brain, according to Dr Peter Breggin, founder of the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology (ICSPP), and author of about 20 books, including “Medication Madness.”

The drugs themselves are causing severe disorders in millions of children in the US, he warns. “Substances like antidepressants, stimulants, mood stabilizers, and antipsychotic drugs  cause severe, and potentially permanent, biochemical imbalances.”

American Phenomenon

A number of presentations at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association in May 2009, addressed the diagnosis of bipolar disorder, including one titled, “Pediatric Bipolar Disorder: A Critical Look at an American Phenomenon,” at which Dr Peter Parry, a consultant child & adolescent psychiatrist, and senior lecturer at Flinders University in Australia, presented a survey on, “Australian and New Zealand’s Child and Adolescent Psychiatrists’ Views on Bipolar Disorder Prevalence and on Rates of Pediatric Bipolar Disorder in the USA.”

Dr Parry and his colleagues conducted a survey of child and adolescent psychiatrists in Australia and New Zealand. Of the 199 psychiatrists who responded to the survey, 90.5% thought pediatric bipolar disorder was overdiagnosed in the US.

In an October 1, 2009 article titled, “Medicating Our Children,” Dr Parry reports that since “the mid-1990s in the USA, some researchers have claimed that Paediatric Bipolar Disorder (PBD) frequently starts prior to puberty.”

One of PBD’s main proponents, Harvard University’s Professor Joseph Biederman, stating onset “is squarely in the preschooler age group,” he notes.

Parry explains that “PBD has been created by moving the diagnostic goalposts away from traditional concepts of bipolar disorder.”

“In children,” he says, “episodes were redefined to last hours instead of days or weeks and, instead of manic elation, severe anger in children sufficed as mania.”

“Unlike diagnoses like ADHD or depression, or simply accepting a child has serious emotional and behavioural problems in reaction to various stressors, PBD implies a lifelong severe mental illness requiring of strong psychiatric medication,” Parry warns.

“In the USA,” he says, “the public is furthermore exposed to direct pharmaceutical advertising that can feed the natural desire parents of distressed and aggressive children have for a quick solution by suggesting a simple medication fix.”

“The medicating of America’s children has become intensely controversial, highlighted by the tragic case of Rebecca Riley, a four-year-old Boston girl diagnosed at 28 months old with ADHD and PBD,” he points out.

Antidepressant Use Increases Risk of Stroke

Taking antidepressants may significantly increase the risk of stroke in post-menopausal women, according to a study conducted by researchers from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine and published in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

Bridget O’Connell of Mind, who was not involved in the study, noted that antidepressants are already known to carry a wide range of side effects that vary highly from individual to individual.

The study relied on data from the Women’s Health Initiative study, which was responsible for proving that hormone replacement therapy significantly increased the risk of heart attack, stroke, cancer and death in postmenopausal women.

The researchers studied 136,293 women between the ages of 50 and 79 for an average of six years each. They found that those taking antidepressants were 45 percent more likely to suffer from a stroke in that time than women not taking the drugs, and 32 percent more likely to die from any cause.

Depression is already a known risk factor for cardiovascular disease and stroke, but the researchers attempted to control for this risk in their data analysis.

The risk of stroke for a postmenopausal woman taking an antidepressant was roughly one in 200 in each given year. On a population scale, the researchers noted, this risk becomes a serious health concern.

The increased stroke risk from antidepressants remained the same regardless of which drug class women were taking — selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) or tricyclics. SSRIs appeared to pose a higher risk of one specific type of stroke, however – a hemorrhagic stroke caused by brain bleeding.

“We are already aware of links between depression and the risk of stroke and we are currently funding further studies to look into this,” said Joanne Murphy of The Stroke Association. “Everyone can help reduce their risk of stroke by making lifestyle changes, such as reducing their blood pressure, giving up smoking, reducing alcohol intake, improving their diet and getting plenty of exercise.”