Alternative
Health & Healing Newsletter
October, 2002
CONTENTS:
Caution: That Dose May Be Too High
Hugs For Survival
20 and 1 Reasons To Avoid Smallpox Vaccine
Doctor’s Office Drug ATM
Diet Has Effect On Mood Disorders In 88
Percent
ELFs May Be Killing You
It’s Your Choice!
Death
From Ritalin! The Truth Behind
ADHD
Communication Problems
Toothpaste Warnings!
Consent For Administration of Vaccine
(Physician’s Form)
Caution: That Dose May Be Too
High
By ABIGAIL ZUGER
Twenty percent of prescription drugs are marketed with instructions
for use that must later be corrected by the manufacturer, researchers say
— almost always to lower the recommended dose or to warn that the drug
may be hazardous to certain patients. Drugs released in the last five years
are even more likely to have their instructions changed than older ones.
These findings by Georgetown University researchers, along
with similar data from Europe, support longstanding concerns among some
experts that drugs are being studied at excessively high doses to emphasize
their effects, and then marketed at the same high doses to maximize profits.
Some experts say these patterns may contribute to the high
frequency of serious and life-threatening drug side effects.
The Georgetown study examined the recommended doses of 354
prescription drugs released from 1980 to 1999. Of those drugs, the instructions
on the label were corrected for 73, or 21 percent, after the drug came
to market.
Eighty percent of the corrections consisted of a reduction
in the original dose or a new restriction for certain groups of patients,
like those with liver or kidney disease or those taking certain other medications.
Drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration through
its so-called fast-track system adopted a decade ago for lifesaving compounds
seemed no more likely to have corrections than other drugs.
Drugs with label corrections came from all drug classes and
include the potency drug Viagra, which was restricted from certain cardiac
patients after the drug was first approved; the H.I.V. drug AZT, whose
dose was cut in half after its release in 1987; and the antidepressant
Prozac, which should be started in the elderly in smaller doses than usual.
The Georgetown study did not include drugs often used at doses
that are different from the ones recommended by manufacturers (like pain
relievers), or drugs that have been reintroduced in low-dose variants (like
birth control pills), and for this reason its figures represent a low-end
estimate of the number of drugs with dosage corrections after they are
on the market. The study will be published in the medical journal Pharmacoepidemiology
and Drug Safety, and was released on the its Web site in August.
"We've seen a lot of situations where drugs are approved
by the F.D.A. and subsequent important information about their optimal
dose is not determined until afterward," said James Cross, the study's
lead author, who did the research at Georgetown's Center for Drug Development
Science and now works for the food and drug agency.
"I don't think that the results are alarming," Mr.
Cross said, "but they shouldn't be taken with indifference either.
Patients and prescribers need to be aware that a drug label is a dynamic
piece of information; it doesn't just get approved and then sit there on
a shelf never to be heard from again."
Dr. Wayne Ray, a professor of preventive medicine at Vanderbilt
and its director of pharmacoepidemiology, said: "These results don't
surprise me at all. It's sort of an unintended consequence of the way we
approve drugs. They've put their finger on an important policy issue."
When a drug is being studied for possible marketing, the recommended
dose is set very early in the process, based on small studies, so that
manufacturers can efficiently carry out large studies of the drug's safety
and efficacy.
Because manufacturers have a strong incentive for the drug
to show an effect in these studies, they often choose to study a relatively
high dose, which may prove to be too high, Dr. Ray said.
The process has other inherent limitations that help explain
why so many drug doses change, Mr. Cross said. "Manufacturers can't
test drugs in millions of people, so inevitably things are detected after
approval," he said.
For instance, if a new drug interacts badly with a drug for
a different purpose already on the market, the recommended dose of the
older drug may have to change for people taking both, a situation that
could not have been foreseen when the old drug was first marketed. "Still," Mr.
Cross said, "tools are available to the drug companies about better
analyzing the data from premarketing trials." Such tools include laboratory
analyses of drug molecules and sophisticated analysis of clinical data
from the first people to take the drug, so that some dosing corrections
might be made earlier.
Drug makers and regulatory agencies anticipate learning new
details of a drug's effects and interactions after it goes to market. Even
the largest clinical trials cannot always identify patterns that emerge
when drugs are used by millions of people. Drug companies maintain that
the high rate of label corrections indicates the progress of science. "The
central issue is that we're constantly learning about a drug throughout
its life cycle," said Dr. Alan Goldhammer, an associate vice president
at Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a trade group. "We
can't know everything about a drug before it goes to market. That would
mean long regulatory delays and the American public would not want that."
Manufacturers always continue to assess a drug's safety after
marketing, Dr. Goldhammer said.
The Georgetown team found that when its data were adjusted
for the length of time a drug was on the market, those released from 1995
to 1999 had a chance of label correction that was roughly threefold greater
than the rate for those released from 1980 to 1984. The corrections occurred
after an average of 16 years on the market for the older drugs, but after
only 3 for newer ones.
Under the F.D.A.'s fast-track policy, some watchdog groups
have said drugs are being rushed to market without adequate testing. But
Mr. Cross said that most accelerated drug approvals were in cancer and
H.I.V. drugs and that these were no more likely to have labeling corrections
than others.
Rather, he said, the recent spate of label corrections may
reflect more vigilance from manufacturers and the F.D.A. to find dosage
problems early and correct them. Further evidence that the recent acceleration
in dose corrections is not directly related to federal regulatory policy
comes from a new European study with very similar findings for drugs marketed
there. Published with the American study, the European research used marketplace
data compiled by the World Health Organization to show that from 1982 to
2000, 115 drugs used in Europe had their standard doses corrected. Most
were reductions, and they became more frequent in the middle to late 1990's.
Drugs that were first marketed in the United States were no more likely
to have dose corrections than were drugs first sold in Europe.
"We can't say if it's the mistakes that are happening
at a rising rate or if it's the mechanisms for finding them that are getting
better," said Dr. John Urquhart, a professor of pharmacoepidemiology
at Maastricht University in the Netherlands and an author of the European
study.
Economic factors also come into the equation. Although some
drugs have similar prices set for a range of doses, most "are priced
on a per-milligram basis," Dr. Urquhart said. This explains manufacturers'
desire to sell as many milligrams as possible, he said, while giving groups
that pay for prescription drugs an incentive to finance studies supporting
lower doses. For some experts, these results only confirm long-held views
that drug-dosing and marketing policies are fundamentally flawed.
"It's long been known that for individual subjects the
dosage listed on a drug label is not necessarily the right one," said
Dr. Carl C. Peck, the director of Georgetown's drug development center
and an author of the its study. "We're aware of the pressures drug
developers feel to select a dose and invest in that dose. But one in five
is a high error rate. Both doctors and patients should be concerned."
Dr. Peck said that, except in medical emergencies, for many
patients a policy of "start low and go slow" is the best way
to begin a prescription medicine, with frequent visits to a doctor who
is committed to readjusting doses based on the patient's response. In the
future, he said, genetic-based analysis of a patient's metabolic idiosyncrasies
may help streamline this process.
Dr. Jay S. Cohen, an associate professor of family and preventive
medicine at the University of California at San Diego, said the Georgetown
data illuminated only part of the problem. "The findings don't include
a lot of drugs whose doses should be reduced but aren't," he said.
In his book "Overdose" published last year, he argued that for
many people the recommended drug doses were much too high. Dosage recommendations
are based on small studies done on young, healthy people, usually men,
Dr. Cohen said. But people have such variability in size, shape, age and
patterns of metabolizing drugs, not to mention concurrent illnesses and
necessary medicines, that the notion of a single optimal treatment makes
no sense, he said. About 75 percent of the serious side effects occur at
recommended doses, he added.
"If a dose is reduced 7 or 10 years after the drug was
first marketed," Dr. Cohen said, "you wonder how many side effects,
what great costs to patients and to the medical system could have been
avoided."
HUGS FOR SURVIVAL
We all need 4 hugs a day for survival. We need 8 hugs a day for maintenance.
We need 12 hugs a day for growth. Hugging is healthy. It helps the body's
immune system. It cures depression. It reduces stress. It induces sleep.
It is invigorating. It is rejuvenating. It has not unpleasant side effects,
and hugging is nothing less than a miracle drug.
Hugging is all natural. It is organic, naturally sweet, no pesticides, no
preservatives, no artificial ingredients, and it is 100 percent wholesome.
Hugging is practically perfect. There are no breakable parts, no batteries
required, no periodic maintenance checkups. It is low on energy consumption,
high on energy yield, inflation proof, recession proof, nonfattening, and
it requires no monthly payments. Hugging has no insurance requirements. It
is theft-proof, nontaxable, nonpolluting, and of course, it is
fully returnable.
Worry a little bit every day and in a lifetime
you will lose a couple of years. If something is wrong, fix it if you
can. But train yourself not to worry. Worry never fixes anything. --
Mary Hemingway
20 and 1 Reasons To Avoid Smallpox Vaccine
20 Reasons Not To Take the New Smallpox
Vaccine
by Amy Worthington
1. George W. Bush has said of smallpox vaccination: "One
of my concerns if we were to have universal vaccination, some might lose
their life."
~The Times (in London), November 09, 2001
2. For each million people vaccinated with the smallpox
vaccine, as many as 250 could die, according to the American Medical Association.
Multiply 250 times 285 (millions of Americans) and the possible deaths
from universal smallpox vaccination could equal 71,250.
~ Journal of the American Medical Association, June 9, 1999, Vol. 281, No.
22, p. 2132
3. "The American Medical Association said on Tuesday
it was not in favor of an immediate mass U.S. smallpox vaccination program,
saying the potential threat of a bioterror attack did not warrant inoculating
every American against the disease."
~Reuters, December 12, 2001
4. "Right now the risk of getting the vaccine is
higher than the benefit. You could get a secondary infection, a full-blown
systemic infection."
~Marie Rau, Panhandle Health District nurse, quoted by The Spokesman-Review,
November 20, 2001
5. CDC director Jeffrey Koplan has admitted that universal
smallpox vaccination could unleash a significant number of side effects.
He said that because many parts of our population do not have a "robust
immune system," a fair number of people could have serious reactions.
~Koplan speaking on the PBS special "Bioterror Propaganda" aired
by WETA, November 14, 2001
6. If the entire nation were to receive a smallpox vaccine,
several thousand people would likely develop encephalitis, an inflammation
of the brain.
~Washington Post, Dec. 26, 2001
7. Roger J. Pomerantz, chief of the infectious disease
department at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, said that doctors
have no idea what the smallpox vaccine might do to people at the extremes
of life--less than 2 and older than 65. He said that an even greater concern
would be its effect on people with weakened immune systems from HIV infection,
chemotherapy or transplants.
~Washington Post, Dec. 26, 2001
8. "Researchers have been reluctant to recommend
a new vaccination program which would use the smallpox vaccine for the
local population because the vaccine can cause disease and death in persons
with inadequate immune systems."
~ Science, Vol. 277, July 18, 1997, pp. 312-13.
9. Routine smallpox vaccination in the United States ended
in 1972. Officials are hesitant to resume the immunizations because the
vaccine is the most reactive of all and has been linked to serious side
effects, including death.
~ Reuters, November 29, 2001.
10. Eight printed pages of medical studies documenting
the many serious side effects of smallpox vaccination can be obtained at:
www.whale.to/vaccines/smallpox.html See "smallpox vaccine adverse
reactions 66-76." [Note: go to the home page above and put smallpox
vaccine adverse reaction in the search engine.] Repercussions include serious
brain and heart diseases, autism, abnormal chromosomal changes, diabetes,
various cancers and leukemias, plus demyelination of nerve tissue years
after vaccination.
11. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that vaccination must
not be forced on persons whose physical condition would make such vaccination "cruel
and inhuman." In other words, the state has no right to command that
an individual sacrifice his life in the name of public health.
~Jacobsen V. Massachusettes, 197 U.S. 11 (1905).
12. By the 1920s, several British medical researchers documented
that smallpox was not only more common among the VACCINATED, but that the
DEATH RATE from smallpox was actually higher among those who had been vaccinated.
This indicates that the vaccine was ineffective and predisposed vaccinated
persons to more lethal disease.
~Vaccination, Dr. Viera Scheibner, Australia, 1993, pp. 205-220.
13. Getting a vaccination does not guarantee immunity.
~CDC, January 28, 1994.
14. By 1987, scientific evidence indicated that the World
Health Organization's 13-year global smallpox vaccination campaign may
have awakened dormant HIV infection in many vaccinees.
~Times (in London) May 11, 1987.
15. Vaccines made from animal substrate contain animal
viruses that are impossible to filter out. By 1961, scientists discovered
that animal viruses in vaccines, including smallpox, could act as a carcinogen
when given to mice in combination with cancer-causing chemicals, even in
amounts too small to induce tumors alone. They concluded that vaccine viruses
function as a catalyst for tumor production.
~Science, December 15, 1961.
16. Some of the new smallpox vaccine doses will be created
with animal substrate. Because the vaccine will incorporate vaccinia, the
cowpox virus, many wonder about possible mad-cow contamination. Fifty-five
million doses of the new vaccine will be created using a cell line dating
back to 1966 and cultured from the lung tissues of an aborted human fetus.
~World Net Daily, December 4, 2001.
17. The new smallpox vaccine will be genetically engineered.
Many scientists believe that genetically engineered vaccines may be responsible
for the global epidemic of auto-immune disease and neurological dysfunction.
~American College of Rheumatology, annual meeting, Nov. 8-12, 1998. Merck's
genetically engineered hepatitis B vaccine, Recombivax HB, is a classic example.
According to Dr. Bonnie Dunbar of Baylor College of Medicine, many thousands
of reported adverse reactions to the hepatitis B vaccine include: chronic
fatigue, neurological disorders, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus and MS-like
disease.
~Testimony of Dr. Dunbar to Texas Dept. of Health, March 12, 1999. Over 15,000
French citizens sued the French government to stop mandatory hep B injections
for school children because of resulting auto-immune diseases.
~Science, July 31, 1998. Dr. John Classen has published voluminous data showing
that the hepatitis B and other vaccines are closely linked to the development
of insulin dependent diabetes.
~Infectious Diseases in Clinical Practice, October 22, 1997
18. The British vaccine manufacturer Medeva has a horrendous
record of contamination and blunders. In 2000, the FDA found that Medeva
was making vaccines in conditions of filth, resulting in contaminated products.
Medeva had been illegally using bovine medium to culture its polio vaccines,
then lied about it. Medeva also used the blood of a Creutzfeldt-Jakob victim
(mad cow) to manufacture 83,000 doses of polio vaccine used for (against?)
Irish children. Nevertheless, the FDA allowed the USA to accept Medeva's
flu vaccine (Fluvirin) for the year 2000.
~London Observer series: October 20-26, 2000
19. In 2001, the British socialized health care system
was reported to be in a state of collapse, with many hospitals and labs
operating in abysmal filth. Five thousand people die each year from infections
contracted in British hospitals; 10,000 become deathly ill from such infections.
Sterilization procedures are barely adequate and said to be risking the
spread of mad cow disease. Government ministers are reportedly trying to
hush up the scandal.
~www.itn.co.uk/ Jan 06, 2001; The Sunday Times of London, November 12, 2001.
20. The U.S. government apparently intends to conduct NO
double blind studies on the safety and efficacy of the new smallpox vaccine.
It has ordered 286 million doses, one for every man, woman and child in
America at a cost of $428 million. At least half of this vaccine will be
delivered by Acambis PLC of Great Britain.
Tip of the Week: Keep all
vaccine needles away from your body!
********************************************
Reason 21. [An edited version of Gary Krasner's
additional comments]
21. Three fundamental flaws exist:
A. The smallpox vaccine, just as childhood
vaccines are now, will be underwritten by the taxpayers, because since
the late 1970’s, all private insurance companies in the U.S. have refused
to insure vaccine products. But the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
is under-funded and is highly adversarial. Each injury claim is now opposed
by taxpayer funded government lawyers and hired medical experts. The procedure
for hearing claims is complicated, drawn-out, and hostile to petitioners,
resulting in most claims being denied. Funds that have been awarded have
been meager, usually falling far below the total costs incurred by families
over the long term. Compensation is also awarded too late long after medical
and related expenses bankrupt the family. Bottom line: Since 1986, the
year the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was introduced, the pharmaceutical
industry was released of all liability from death or disability caused
by their vaccine products. In fact, even with the introduction of the Vaccine
Adverse Event Reporting System in 1991, when the same vaccine lot number
was reported as being associated with a significant number of deaths and
permanent disabilities, the manufacturer was left with the responsibility
of pulling the vaccine off the market. To date, the pharmaceutical industry
has NEVER voluntarily pulled a vaccine product from the market due to numerous
adverse reactions. In other words, "hot" lots continue to damage
more and more children since there is no legal means for removing them
from the marketplace. With a system like this in place, it is no wonder
that vaccine manufacturers have no incentive to make vaccines safer (as
if this were even possible.)
B. While vaccines remain unsafe, they have
been made legally compulsory. As a result, NVIC’s Barbara Loe Fisher writes, "the
public has been unable to apply pressure on the system to improve the product
or to remove dangerous vaccines from the market. In other words, vaccines
are treated uniquely in the free enterprise system. As consumers, we can
bring very little economic pressure on the system to have that product
improved or removed, because all of us are required by law to use it." Actually,
if it weren't for the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, all would be
well with the free enterprise system since vaccine manufacturers would
be liable for injuries that result from their products.
C. Federal health agencies that are responsible
for the safety and success of vaccination programs, also rule on the types
of injuries that qualify as vaccine related, individual compensation claims,
and the amount of compensation to be awarded. The National Vaccine Information
Center (NVIC) has published various accounts of cover-ups and deceptions,
through the Freedom of Information Act. --But on October 12, Attorney General
John Ashcroft urged federal agencies to resist most Freedom of Information
Act requests made by American citizens. Thank God NVIC was able to get
this dirt before it was too late!
Dr. J. Mercola - "Supplements
that contain concentrated phytoestrogens -- plant-based estrogens found
in soy -- do not appear to improve mood, memory or menopause symptoms
in women over age 45." Contrary to popular belief that soy is a
health food, evidence reveals that soy consumption has been linked to
numerous disorders, including infertility, increased cancer and infantile
leukemia, Type1 diabetes, and precocious puberty in children have
been fed soy formula. (early maturation, such as breast development and
menstruation as early as 6 years of age). Scientists have known for years
that the isoflavones in soy products can depress thyroid function and
cause goiters in otherwise healthy children and adults. A combined research
team of Cornell University Medical College and Long Island Community
Hospital medical experts have found that children who develop Type1 diabetes
are twice as likely to have been fed soy formulas as those fed all other
foods. This confirms concerns based on animal studies raised in the 1980's
and 1990s by Health Canada researcher Dr Fraser Scott and led to the
American Academy of Pediatrics issuing their warning to pediatricians
against any use of soy based formulas.” Newest Research
On Why You Should Avoid Soy
Doctor's Office Drug ATM
There is a new technology
on the market -- automated prescription filling machines. Two new systems, FirstFill and InstyMeds are offering doctor’s offices around
the country the chance to fill prescriptions right in the waiting room.
Among the benefits touted
for these systems are the facts that you eliminate the need for a trip
to the pharmacy, and decrease the risk of dangerous errors. The system
allows the doctor to type in the prescription and the weight of the patient,
and the system automatically calculates the right dosage, eliminating that
avenue of error.
The machines resemble large
ATM machines; you insert your prescription, swipe your credit card and
off you go with your bag of drugs. The likely applications of this machine
are convenient vending machines for the insured middle-class health patient,
or to decrease the work for pharmacists -- no more counting pills.
Some critics of the system
say that the machines may discriminate against the poor who have no credit
cards.
COMMENT: Looks like
the pharmaceutical companies are getting a little desperate. After
all, their track record in the drug-effectiveness area continues to get
worse. Could the reason for having the vending machines be so the doctor
can monitor and make sure the patient gets his/her prescription
filled? (It's more than likely there will be a counter of how many
prescriptions are filled "on the spot" providing the doctor
with incentives when certain numbers are reached…Bahamas, anyone?) We
certainly can't have the patient deciding "on their own" whether
or not to get the prescription filled, now, can we? LL
Diet has effect on mood disorders
in 88 percent
Mood food - research
finds a strong link between certain foods and mental health
20/09/02 - Eating certain foods can improve mental health, suggests a survey
of 200 people carried out in Britain.
Researchers
said that 88 per cent of those studied reported that
changing their diet improved their mental health
significantly. Twenty six per cent said they had
seen large improvements in mood swings, 26 per cent
in panic attacks and anxiety and 24 per cent in depression,
according to a report on the study by BBC Health.
The survey by the Food and Mood Project was backed
by the mental health charity Mind, which has previously found a link between
food and mood. Findings were presented to a conference in London this week.
The participants said that cutting down on food
‘stressors’ and increasing the amount of 'supporters' they eat helped to
improve their mood. Stressors were foods such as sugar (80 per cent), caffeine
(79 per cent), alcohol (55 per cent) and chocolate (53 per cent). Supporters
included water (80 per cent), vegetables (78 per cent), fruit (72 per cent)
and oil-rich fish (52 per cent).
Eating regularly and not skipping breakfast were
also highlighted as ways to boost mental health, noted the report. Around
a third of people studied said they were 'very certain' that the improvements
they had seen to their mental health were directly linked to the changes
they had made to their diet.
One participant reported: "There is a
definite link with food and mood, but I do lapse and then I do I feel noticeably different. Once you find out your triggers
you can feel so much better."
Amanda Geary, who wrote
a report based on the survey's findings, told BBC News Online: "This
survey shows that for these people, there were quite strong findings in
terms of the association between the dietary changes they made and the
benefits they were reporting. A lot of these changes are very simple things
that people can do and are fairly safe, and concur with healthy eating
advice."
While admitting that the survey was entirely subjective, Geary said: "I
hope that these findings will add strength to a growing body of evidence
to encourage health care providers and individuals to learn from the
powerful testimonies in this report that the health of the body can directly
influence the health of the mind."
Richard Brook, chief executive of Mind, told the
BBC: "At a simple level we all know certain foods are good for
us or can affect our mood. However, linking real information and evidence
with effective ways of using it can be a really efficient tool in managing
your mental health. In the last 12 months I have personally heard many
accounts of how people are managing their own recovery partly by using
some of the concepts behind the food and mood approach."
ELFs May Be Killing You
By: John E. West, PhD
No not the garden variety,
but the electrical ones. Many scientists around the world now believe that
ELFS, short for Extra Low Frequencies, also described as Electronic Smog,
may be far more deadly than all other types of pollution together. What
exactly is Electronic Smog, and how might it affect the human body?
Simply put, it's the collective,
radiated energy, which emanates from virtually every-thing, which plugs
into the power socket. This includes, of course, such mundane equipment
as TV's, fridges, microwaves, washing machines, electric blankets, toasters,
shavers, etc. The list is just about endless. ELFs also radiate from power
lines, even domestic house wiring.
It's interesting to note
that in Russia houses are not allowed to be built near high-voltage power
lines.
The Electronic Smog
Connection
Electronic Smog
has been gradually building up since the early days of the Industrial Revolution.
Little notice was taken until a few years ago, when some American scientists
decided to research possible effects of ELFs upon the living possible effects
of ELFs upon the living systems of man, plants and animals. The results,
to coin a phrase, were shocking!
It was found for example
that the incidence of cancer rose when families lived for many years under
or close to high-voltage overhead power lines. It was further found that
nervous system problems became manifest when people worked and lived under
fluro lights. All office equipment, including computers, of course, radiates
electromagnetic waves.
Effects of ELF damage vary
widely, and not everyone is affected by them, but the current opinion of
scientists who have researched the - problem is that ELFs can be very damaging,
depending upon the levels encountered and for how long.
Humans, animals and plants
are attuned to the natural resonant frequency of the planet, which is approximately
8 Hertz, but with the increasing Electronic Smog pollution, the living
systems become confused. In tire long term this can lead to syndromes,
symptoms and sickness. Cells start to malfunction. The electrochemical
connection becomes disorganized, and when this happens disease, stress,
tensions, anxiety states and many different neurological symptoms become
manifest.
Countless examples of ELF
damaged people, animals and plants have now been fully documented around
the world. It is now a major problem. But corporate bodies refuse to recognize
that the problem even exists. Electrical authorities and others concerned
with generating electrical power refuse to comment on possible problems,
which may be connected with ELF damage.
I have questioned authorities,
such as Telecom for example, regarding possible health problems and microwave
towers, but received such replies as, "We don't believe they could
be hazardous or, "We don't have sufficient information to comment'.
Could it be that the possible health problems, which exist, are known but
are being covered up?
Certain groups of people
may be at greater risk than others. Film actors, radio personalities, technicians,
etc, seem to keel over in alarming numbers from such diseases as cancer,
cardiovascular disease, and a whole range of neurological problems. When
one considers all the other health risks they are exposed to, such as drugs,
booze, cigarettes, stresses, one must now take into account the added hazards
of ELFs which such groups are particularly exposed to in their daily working
lives. Think about it.
It is more than interesting
to note that under laboratory conditions (including a seven-year study
by the U.S. Navy) ELF pollution adversely affected lab animals' reproductive
capabilities, was found to be a biological stressor, slowed down or disturbed
cell duplication processes, stimulated the growth of cancer cells, altered
enzymes, suppressed Immune system responses, altered brain chemistry and
time perception, changed human brain waves, had a six times higher fetus
mortality rate in lab animals, etc.
One of the first signs
of ELF pollution upon the human system is increasing adrenal stress causing
greater and greater energy loss. Eyestrain, anxiety build up, nervous debility,
short-term memory loss, etc., are more early warning signs.
Printed with permission
© Copyright 1990 J. West John E. West, Ph.D.
G.P.O. Box 1653 Bundaberg, Queensland, 4670 Australia
Tel: 01 1-61-717-63223
Fax: 071-531-823
IT’S YOUR CHOICE!
© Rhoberta Shaler, PhD
Do you really realize just
how much choice you have in your life? Every moment you are choosing. The
trick is to make those choices conscious, to be aware that you are actually
making a choice at each moment.
I was talking to one of my book editors the other day and he asked me why
I wrote that you choose your perceptions in life. He wanted to know how I
thought that was true. Well, more accurately, he did not want to believe
it was true and was hoping to convince me otherwise!!
It takes maturity to take responsibility for your choices in life—all of
them. It’s much easier to find someone to blame for what you do, what
you think and how you feel. It’s quicker, too.
The dictionary says that perception is ‘physical sensation interpreted in
the light of experience’. Wow! Your past experience actually
plays a part in how you see your world. What a surprise! So, anything
you hear, see, taste, touch or smell can trigger a past memory or a past
response. Whether
or not you allow it, though, is your choice. You can change the way
you see life at any minute.
You do choose what you pay attention to at every moment. Do not let
your pre-programming from past experiences determine how you see your life
now. That’s where the real choice in life is!
Have you ever been in a new relationship that has great potential for becoming
a significant relationship? As you get to know one another more deeply
and the ‘first date’, ‘honeymoon’ phase dissipates, it sometimes happens
that that special person seems to react to some small thing in a way that
completely surprises you. For example, he or she might display signs of jealousy
when you have done nothing to warrant it. There is an example of a
‘physical sensation interpreted in the light of experience’. Your new partner
may very well be reacting to a way you looked at someone or moved your body
that they knew to mean flirting in their past relationship. Now, they
want to interpret it in the same way in your new relationship. No! That’s
not fair!
We need to approach each new relationship with an open mind and a willingness
to see and learn about this new partner, boss, co-worker or friend with new
eyes. Sure, you have learned valuable lessons in the past that will
help you make good decisions, however, it is unfair to generalize the behaviors
of one person when meeting someone new.
Sometimes a person in your life makes some changes for the positive. She
is working hard to be different, to respond differently, to improve an area
of her life. Open yourself to the possibility of seeing her differently. Give
her the space to change. Notice the changes. Both of you will benefit.
Everything has the meaning that you give it. A driver cuts in front
of you on the freeway. One day, you can be angry and curse the driver
for being such a complete idiot. Another day, you can simply say, ‘Oh,
maybe, she’s late for a very important appointment’ and let it go. That’s
choosing how you see things, your perception. The second approach saves
wear and tear on your energy, your nerves and your sense of well-being.
One day a colleague at work is quiet, uncommunicative and sullen. You can
decide that that person is childish, angry, pouting or difficult. You
may then ignore him or treat him coldly. Or, you might decide that
something very difficult has happened to them and ask if you can help in
some way. You may simply be compassionate towards them and give them
the space and peace to recover. It’s a choice.
Life goes along much better when you take responsibility for your choices. You
will not be looking for someone to blame for your mood, your responses or
your actions. You choose the meaning things have and, in that light,
you choose your responses. You are powerful. Every moment of
every day you are deciding how to view your world. Exercise your power
to choose. See things positively. It’s your choice.
“When
I say, 'I can't,' it means 'I won't.'” – Oswald Chambers
"To
have failed once is not so much a pity as is not to try again." -
John Wanamaker
"When
God is about to do something great, He starts with a difficulty. When
He is about to do something truly magnificent, He starts with an impossibility." -
Armin Gesswein
"Right is right, even
if everyone is against it; and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is
for it."
- William Penn
Death From Ritalin
The Truth Behind ADHD
This story was published at http://www.RitalinDeath.com
Hello, my name is Lawrence Smith; I
am here to let you know about the death of our fourteen-Year-old Son Matthew.
He died on March 21, 2000. The cause was determined to be from the long-
term (age 7-14) use of Methylphenidate a medication commonly known as Ritalin.
The Certificate of Death under due to, (or because of) reads. Death caused
from Long Term Use of Methylphenidate, (Ritalin). According to Dr. Ljuba
Dragovic, The chief pathologist in Oakland County Michigan, upon autopsy,
Matthew's heart showed clear signs of small vessel damage, the type caused
by stimulant drugs like amphetamines.
The medical examiners told me that a full-grown man's heart weighs about
350 grams and that Matthew's heart weight was about 402 grams.
Matthew did not have a preexisting heart disease or defect that we knew of.
We, his parents never ignored his medical needs. The medical examiner said
this type of heart damage is not easy to detect with the standard test necessary
for prescription refills.
While visiting the doctor with the schools diagnosis and the recommendation
for Ritalin, he seemed very frustrated and asked us to let the school know,
I am not a pharmacy. This leads me to believe that we were not the first
parents sent to this doctor, with the schools diagnosis and recommendation
for Ritalin.
No one ever informed us of other crucial tests (echocardiogram) that we could
have had done that would have discovered the enlargement of the heart muscle,
caused from scare tissue which these types of drugs cause. The standard test
performed consists of blood work, listening to the heart,
questions about school behaviors, sleeping and eating habits.
It all started for Matthew in the first grade the school social worker in
Berkley, Michigan kept calling us in for meetings. One particular morning
before an IEP meeting, the school social worker Monica Fuchs and my wife
and I were waiting on the others to arrive.
Monica made us feel very threatened when she said that if we wouldn't consider
getting Matt on Ritalin for their diagnosis of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity
Disorder, that social services (child protective services) could charge us
for neglecting his educational and emotional needs. My wife
and I were scared of the possibility of losing our children, if we did not
comply.
I believe that some school employees like having children medicated because,
it makes frustrated students that are having a difficult time learning and
understanding, easier to manage, regardless of the physical and psychological
risks this practice poses to children.
Not all families can afford hundreds of dollars for a drug free, private
evaluation, so they will not be cornered into medicating their child.
I am hoping that Republicans and Democrats will work together and fight this
horrific war against the future of America, our children.
Medical diagnosis should remain outside the realm of education and stay there.
Pressure to seek specific medical treatment is not the job of the school
system.
We did not want Matthew on any medications, even though the school social
worker or the doctor never informed us about the dangers of Ritalin and other
stimulant medications used for ADD and ADHD. We just didn't feel good about
putting our son on drugs and we made it very clear to school officials.
Informed Consent", which states in part A person's agreement to allow
something to happen (such as surgery) that is based on a full disclosure
of the facts needed to make the decision intelligently; i.e. knowledge of
risks involved, alternatives etc" and "the probable risks against
the probable benefits"
The violation of parent's rights is when they are not told of the unscientific
nature of so-called disorders such as ADHD or the risks of the treatments
involving (drugs) and they certainly are not told of alternatives to their
child's behavior such as undiagnosed allergies or food sensitivities, which
could manifest with the symptoms of what psychiatry calls ADHD.
If we weren't pressure by the school system, Matt would still be alive today.
I cannot go back and change things for us at this point. However, I hope
to God my story and information will reach the hearts and minds, of many
families, so they can make an educated decision with more than a
little selective information, if any, paid for by psychology and drug companies.
I have created this website in hopes that parents will learn the health risks
involved in using psychotropic medications on growing children. I hope you
will be spared all the suffering and heartbreak this whole ADHD issue has
caused our family and many others.
Please do not be intimidated by family, school staff, doctors, or anyone
into medicating your child for ADHD or ADD. These mental illnesses are scientifically
unfounded with no scientific validity what so ever. The dopamine theory is
nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of psychiatry and the pharmaceutical
industry.
I truly believe this must have been my son's purpose, to save the health
and lives of many others.
How old will people live after taking these types of drugs as a child? Every
time I hear about a child or young adult that has died from heart failure,
I always wonder if they were ever on a psychotropic medication used for ADHD
or depression.
If I would of known about all the children that have died from these psychiatric
medications, I would have never given Matt the first pill.
Did you know that children that are diagnosed as having ADHD or ADD and take
medication, the school labels them as learning disabled, and the schools
receives additional state and federal funding per-child, per-semester.
I wonder if that is one of the reasons why school administrators are so adamant
about medication, and the other would be to control their behavior, in their
drug free school zone.
One of the hardest things for me to deal with is the fact that, Matthew never
wanted his medication.
How many more 11-year-old Stephanie Hall's and 14-year-old Matthew Smith's
will have to die before someone puts a stop to the biggest health care fraud
ever? How many times will school psychology and drug companies get away with
this?
In 1998 at the National Institutes of Health Consensus Conference on ADHD
The NIH issued the following statement regarding ADHD:
"We do not have an independent, valid test for ADHD, and there is no data
to indicate that ADHD is due to a brain malfunction"
Children, do not need to be made into little robots with medication. I feel
that good parenting, structure, diets, and teaching methods can make all
the difference in the world. Different children develop in different ways;
you cannot put children all into one box.
Did you know that the ADHD diagnosis checklist of behaviors is almost the
same as the list of behaviors for gifted children? www.nfgcc.org
Did you know that doctor's use to give amphetamines out for diet medication?
They stopped because of the dangerous and sometimes fatal heart related side
effects.
Now drug companies have a new market, with new names for the drugs and have
went from adult weight medication to children's ADHD.
The DEA has classified Ritalin as a schedule two drug, comparable to Cocaine.
Ritalin is also one of the top ten abused prescription drugs on the streets
today.
From the research that I have done on amphetamines, when they are used,
all the veins and arteries constrict and get very small which makes it hard for
the heart to pump blood throughout the body. The extra force it takes to circulate
blood causes damage to the heart.
There are many other drugs that are given to children for ADHD with different
names; Adderall, Concreta, Metadate, Ritalin, the list goes on and on, most
if not all are stimulant drugs with Amphetamine-Speed.
We are coming to a point in our history were children have been taking these
drugs for some time. Now the information is starting to come out. This is
a very sad why for us to find out the long-term side effects, by using our
children as guinea pigs.
Are you sick of the harassment and threats from school administrators to
have our children medicated with stimulant drugs for their evaluations of
ADHD? If so it's time we as parents pull together and put a stop to this
inhuman practice. School administrators need to stay out of our personal
business with their psychology and do the job we pay them to do!
If you are concerned about the following things taking place is our schools?
Handing out pro-drug information paid for by Psychology and the Pharmaceutical
industry, which is a violation of our informed consent, profiling, labeling,
coercion, manipulation, even the threat of educational
neglect by child protective services because parent's chooses not to medicate
their child with dangerous drugs?
Please feel free to post your story on the discussion board so state and
federal lawmakers can see first hand what is going on in our public and privet
schools.
If you are being harassed by school administrators to medicate your child?
for ADD or ADHD Tell Them Where To Go! http://www.RitalinDeath.com
COMMUNICATION PROBLEMS
Someone said one time
that when we talk, six things come into focus.
1. - What you heard me say.
2. - What you thought I said
3. - What you thought I meant.
4. - What I actually said.
5. - What I meant to say.
6. - What I thought I said.
TOOTHPASTE
WARNINGS!
AN OPEN LETTER TO
THE PRESIDENT OF COLGATE-PALMOLIVE
April 8, 2002
Dear President:
I am writing to you as
a consumer who still has a few teeth left in his mouth, lots of "hard
stuff" between the gums and teeth (my dentist just told me), and bad
breath on occasion (don’t ask!). I am seriously considering using your
product, Colgate Toothpaste, but after looking at the many boxes on the
shelves of my local Duane Reade for nearly an hour, and taking detailed
notes, I am somewhat confused about which "version" of Colgate
to buy. I also have some questions I’d like you to answer, based on what
I read on your boxes, so that I may decide whether to become a loyal Colgate
user or consider some sort of action against you and your company on behalf
of all brain-functioning consumers who use or have ever used your successful
product.
Questions
1. My first question should be easy
for you to answer, but it is important to me since I am about to adopt
a seven-year-old child tomorrow. On all of your many types of boxes there
is a TOOTHPASTE WARNING. It says to keep Colgate out of reach of
children six years of age or younger, because if the child swallows at
least the amount of toothpaste needed for brushing, the adult should contact
a Poison Control Center immediately. My question is, will a seven-year-old
also possibly die from swallowing too much Colgate, or is the cut-off point
really six-years-old? As a concerned parent-to-be, I of course want to
protect my impending arrival from harm while giving him good home dental
care. Also, related to this question, I’d like to ask (just out of curiosity,
of course), how did you determine that six years is the cutoff point? Was
that the result of a scientific study (or did you yourself suffer a personal
tragedy)? One final question about this issue: I have a grandfather who
has Alzheimer’s Disease, and I am petrified that he is going to suck down
a whole tube of Colgate one day. Will that kill him, or make him deathly
ill? Are senior citizens immune to the possible lethal effects of your
toothpaste, or is it safe to eat it after a certain age? Does it matter
whether a person ingests Colgate TOTAL or REGULAR toothpaste?
2. You market two lines of toothpaste:
the TOTAL line and the REGULAR line (for lack of a better term). Each line
comes in many variants: gel or paste, with or without "whitener," having
or not having "tarter control," and so on (Oh, it can make your
head swim!) It seems there would be a great difference between all these
choices, yet every box has one common active ingredient: Fluoride ("anti-cavity").
In addition, your TOTAL line lists another active ingredient: Triclosan
("anti-gingivitis"). So why can’t we just swish around some fluoride
instead of buying your product? And do adults need anti-cavity protection,
anyhow? Why don’t all your product variants have Triclosan, since most
adults’ gums are rotting in their mouths? Or is Triclosan only for the
hoity-toity?
3. I noticed that on some of your boxes
the fluoride ingredient is called Sodium Fluoride and on other boxes it
is called Sodium Monofluorophosphate. I also noticed that sometimes you
don’t give a number next to the fluoride listing and other times you do
give a number, like (.024%, 0.14% W/V Fluoride Ion), or (0.76%, with 0.15%
W/V fluoride ion). Why does the variation in listing exist? Are you hiding
something on some of your boxes? Perhaps you’ve cut back a bit in some
of your production units and don’t want to tell us. Or is it a typo? Please
explain.
4. One of your TOTAL variants says "TOTAL
PLUS WHITENING." It claims to have a "breakthrough cleaning ingredient" to
whiten teeth by gently removing surface stains. I read this box very closely,
and it had the same two active ingredients and the same slew of inactive
ingredients as the other TOTAL variants, except for two inactive ingredients:
mica and FD&C blue no. 1. Is either or both of them responsible for
the "whitening" effect? One or both would have to be, it would
seem (unless the other TOTAL variants also "whiten," but you’re
just not telling us). Which is it? A related question is, since mica and
FD&C blue no. 1 are both inactive ingredients, what is it that
produces their whitening action? Does "inactive" have a special
meaning in the toothpaste industry I may not be aware of? Please clarify.
5. A very closely related question
to that above involves TOTAL FRESH STRIPE: I notice that it makes all the
same claims on the box as generic TOTAL, including no claim about "whitening" -
yet it has same active and inactive ingredients as the "PLUS WHITENING" box
- and it even has an additional inactive ingredient: D&C Yellow no.10.
Is this inactive ingredient responsible for the fresh stripe? And if this
variant has all the same ingredients as the PLUS WHITENING box, how come
this box does not say PLUS WHITENING? Please clarify.
6. One variant of your General line
promises TARTAR CONTROL. What is that, and what produces it, since this
line only lists fluoride as the active ingredient? Is the tartar control
produced by an inactive ingredient? If so, how is that possible, from both
a chemical and a philosophical point of view?
7. Your Colgate box that says TARTAR
CONTROL with BAKING SODA & PEROXIDE claims that it "deep cleans
teeth." Could you please explain what that means? Do the ingredients
seep into the dentin, and dissolve stains?
8. Your different boxes list so many "inactive" ingredients,
and some boxes leave some out while adding others. Common inactive ingredients
listed are water, hydrated silica, glycerin, sorbitol, PVM/MA copolymr,
sodium lauryl suflate, cellulose gum, flavor, sodium hydroxide, propylene
glycol, carrageenan, sodium saccharin, titanium dioxide, mica, FD&C
blue no. 1, and D&C yellow no. 10. My question is: what do they do
if they are inactive? Do they just hold the fluoride and triclosan? Do
they make the "taste” you’re so noted for? Is Peroxide an inactive
ingredient (see question 7 above)? And by the way, what is "flavor"?
Is that an ingredient?
Of course I have many other
questions I could ask you about your toothpaste, but I will stop here,
and anxiously await your answers to the above. I look forward to either
becoming a loyal Colgate user in the near future or to launching a $200
billion dollar class action suit against you and your company.
Thank you,
Ginger "Sweetbreath" Vitis
(Alias, Richard Altschuler) From
Red Flags Weekly
Consent for
Administration of Vaccination
Dear (Physician’s Name):
If you will be administering a vaccination to me, or my child, today, I will
need for you to complete the
following consent form. Thank you.
Physician Statement
I, (Physician Name) ______________________ do hereby state that I have advised
my patient, (patient or child’s name) _________________________and/or parent
of my patient, (parent’s name)
__________________________that in my professional opinion this patient/child
should be given the
vaccination, drug or other (name of vaccination/drug/other) ______________________________.
Manufacturer’s name ____________________________Serial number _______________
Batch Number ______________________.
I have on this (day) __________ (month) ______________ (year) _________________administered
this vaccination/medication/drug AFTER advising the above named patient/parent
of minor patient that there is little or no risk involved with this vaccination/medication/drug
therapy or treatment. I hereby do agree that should this patient/child at
anytime suffer or develop any permanent condition deleterious or injurious
to his/her health as a result of this treatment, I will pay for any and all
costs involved related to the care and treatment necessary for this patient/child
for the rest of his/her natural life. I further agree that if my earnings
are insufficient to meet these costs, I will sell my home, my business and
all material possessions and put those proceeds towards meeting the expenses
of the patient involved.
Date: _____________________________
Signature of responsible physician: ________________________________
Signature of responsible person administering vaccination/medication/drug:
______________________
Occupational Title: ___________________________
Witness: Parent or other: _____________________________
SPEAKING SCHEDULE:
“Cellular Consciousness: Has
Science Been Wrong?”
By:
Dr. Edward F. Group III, D.C., Ph.D,
N.D.
October 19-20, 2002 (Dr. Group will speak Saturday @ 1:30
p.m.)
Wellness Expo & Clean Air Festival
Addison Conference Centre
15650 Addison Road
Dallas, Texas
Info: 972.378.3770
“Cellular Consciousness & Disease: Has
Science Been Wrong?”
Global Healing Center, Inc.
Presents
A “Cutting-Edge – Total Health” Seminar & Workshop
Featuring
Dr. Edward F. Group III, D.C., Ph.D, N.D.
November 2, 2002 (Saturday,
8:30 a.m. – 5:30 p.m.)
Mission Valley Hilton
901 Camino del Rio South
San Diego, California
Registration Fee: $99/postmarked by October 18, 2002; $125/postmarked
after October 18, 2002.
Info: 619.303.6904 or 281.383.0038
Certificates will be presented to all participants
for 6 hours in Advanced, Alternative Medicine.
If you would like to have Dr. Group speak at your church,
organization or civic group or know of an organization that would benefit
from this seminar, please contact us at 281.383.0038.
DISCLAIMER: It is your constitutional right to educate yourself in
health and medical knowledge, to seek helpful information and make use
of it for your own benefit, and for that of your family. You are
the one responsible for your health. In order to make decisions
in all health matters, you must educate yourself. The views and nutritional
advice expressed by Global Healing Center are not intended to be a substitute
for conventional medical service. If you have a severe medical condition,
see your physician of choice. We do not claim to "cure" disease,
but simply help you make physical and mental changes in your own body
in order to help your body heal itself.
PLEASE PASS THIS NEWSLETTER ON TO OTHER POTENTIAL SUBSCRIBERS.
“He who does not use
his endeavors to heal himself is a brother to him who commits suicide.”
Proverbs 18:9 (Amplified)
