Health & WellnessS


Alarm Clock

Antidepressant exposure in utero increases risk of psychiatric disorders in children

pregnancy
© Psychiatry Advisor
Antidepressant use during pregnancy is tied to an increased risk of psychiatric illnesses, especially mood disorders, in children, according to a new study.

The overall risk is low, though. Only about 3 percent of the nearly 905,383 children in the study were diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder by age 16.

But compared to the children of women who took antidepressants before pregnancy but not during, kids whose mothers continued taking the medications in pregnancy were 27 percent more likely to be diagnosed with mood, anxiety, behavioral or autism spectrum disorders.

Comment: The following article, carried back in 2013, has additional information: Autism linked to mothers taking antidepressant drugs
The research investigated not only the clinical research, but the mechanisms associated with taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) during pregnancy.

Medical research has established that about a third of autistic children have increased levels of a neurotransmitter called serotonin in the blood stream. Other findings have determined that these higher serotonin levels are often caused by errors in the signaling process amongst brain and nerve cells - as the cells are not utilizing serotonin properly.

The hypothesis that is being proven out by the research is that when the mother takes SSRIs during or prior to pregnancy, the baby's brain and nerve cells' ability to utilize and process serotonin becomes diminished.

And because serotonin is intimately related to the brain's ability to focus and concentrate thoughts - as well as experience empathy and other moods - dysfunctional serotonin metabolism can produce a myriad of mental and emotional issues...

In other words, this research linking SSRIs and high circulating serotonin levels with autistic children might be considered the canary in the coal mine. The one consistent parallel with the dramatic increase in autism over the past few decades has been the dramatically increased use of these chemical toxins amongst our foods, water, air and living spaces.



Pills

How many prescriptions do doctors write every year?

handful of pills
Medical News Today reports that, in 2011, there was a modest uptick in the number of prescriptions written in the US.

The increase brought the total to: 4.02 billion.

Yes, in 2011, doctors wrote 4.02 billion prescriptions for drugs in America.

That's an average of roughly 13 prescriptions for each man, woman, and child.

That's about one new prescription every month for every American. (Update: the Kaiser Family Foundation reports that in 2016, 4,065,479,343 drug prescriptions were written by US doctors-an increase of 65 million.)

The Medical News Today article concluded, "...the industry should be heartened by the growth of the number of prescriptions and spending." Yes, I'm sure the drug industry is popping champagne corks.

We're talking about prescriptions here. We're not talking about the number of pills Americans took. We're also not counting over-the-counter drugs or vaccine shots.

Comment:


Heart - Black

Vaccination, social violence, and criminality: The medical cartel's assault on the human brain

money vaccines
I am a medical writer and medical historian who never went to medical school. Sometimes this is held against me, but not having an M.D. degree can also be an advantage in writing about medicine, since one does not have the prejudices and blind spots that come with a medical education.

One of the most common of these prejudices is that the medical profession never does anything systematically harmful to the patient. But, after all, we all know that bloodletting was used for centuries and, even in the United States, was only fully abandoned in the 20th century. Although it was positively harmful to patients, physicians insisted on using it. What is more, intelligent laymen understood - long before the medical profession itself - that this procedure was damaging to the health. Physicians had difficulty appreciating this fact because that's how they were making their living, and it is hard, even for a physician, to take an objective attitude toward how he earns his (or her) daily bread. The asbestos and the tobacco companies, after all, were not the first to come forward and say that asbestos and tobacco are bad for your health.

Another procedure which intelligent laypersons realize is actively harmful to health, but which is still desperately defended by physicians, is the childhood vaccination. The first book I wrote on this subject (coauthored with Barbara Loe Fisher) was DPT: A Shot in the Dark in 1985. The second was Vaccination, Social Violence, and Criminality, in 1990.

Comment: "Tap Dancing" around vaccine issues


SOTT Logo Radio

SOTT Focus: The Health & Wellness Show: What's the deal with AIDS?

hiv/aids
The disease we now call AIDS burst onto the scene in 1981 after a group of gay males in New York City and Orange County were stricken with a rare type of pneumonia and sarcoma. A year later GRID (gay related immune deficiency) morphed into AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome) and in 1984 the 'probable' cause of AIDS was named. It was called HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) and the entire world recoiled in fear whilst subjected to a publicity campaign the likes of which had never been seen. According to HIV/AIDS researchers, everyone -- not just gay men and IV drug users -- is susceptible. The science was clear and to be diagnosed was a death sentence.

But is it? From the beginning there were disturbing questions raised regarding the shoddy scientific methods involved in identifying HIV and the unreliable testing parameters required for a definitive diagnosis. These questions were never fully answered by mainstream science and what we're left with is a morass of confusion, contradiction and of course, suffering and death. On this episode we dip our toes into heresy and denialism and ask the question: What if the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is just that -- a hypothesis?

Running Time: 01:23:31

Download: MP3


Here's the transcript of the show:

Arrow Down

Think before you ink - Tattoo ink may color your lymph nodes

Getting Tattooed
© Shutterstock
It's not news that tattoos are hitting the mainstream, but a new study reported in the journal Scientific Reports reveals that tattoo inks' nanoparticles are adding color to other parts of your body.

As the tattooed population knows all too well, the process of tattooing consists of placing insoluble deposits of pigmented ink just below the epidermis, or outermost layer of skin. As they also know, your body does pretty much anything it can to get that ink out - which is why new tattoos excrete ink, plasma, and lymphatic fluid through the epidermis while healing.

But what ink is left in the body gets additionally filtered through the lymphatic system. The ink-lymph mixture is carried through the lymph nodes, whose job it is to process and filter harmful substances from the body.

None of this is really news - tattooed individuals have displayed pigmented lymph nodes for decades.

But what is it, exactly, that the lymph nodes are filtering out?

Arrow Up

Stand up for your health!

stand up
Too much time spent in a chair could shorten our lives, even if we exercise, according to a study that uses objective measures to find the links between lengthy sitting time and death among middle-aged and older adults.

More hopefully, the study also suggests that we might be able to take steps to reduce our risks by taking steps every half-hour or so.

Most of us almost certainly have heard by now that being seated and unmoving all day is unhealthy. Many past epidemiological studies have noted that the longer people sit on a daily basis, the likelier they are to develop various diseases, including obesity, diabetes and heart disease. They also are at heightened risk for premature death.

This association between sitting and ill health generally remains, the past science shows, whether people exercise or not.

Arrow Down

Bogus study warns diabetics against red meat and poultry

diabetic red meat chicken
© Getty Images
Dinner time favourites such as beef and lamb are high in iron, a mineral associated with triggering the debilitating disease.

But even chicken thighs and drumsticks can be bad for you, say experts.

The darker the meat, the greater the risk, with scientists finding a direct link between consumption and Type 2 diabetes.

Almost 12 million Britons are thought to be at risk of developing the condition, which is linked to lifestyle factors such as poor diet.

Analysis of more than 60,000 people shows those eating the most red meat increase their risk by 23 per cent while for those who eat a lot of dark poultry meat the risk increases by 15 per cent.

Experts suggest cutting out dark meat and replacing it with chicken breast, fish, shellfish and vegetables.

Comment: The Health & Wellness Show: MEAT: Setting the Record Straight


Syringe

New study linking miscarriages to vaccines goes mainstream

vaccine
A puzzling study of U.S. pregnancies found that women who had miscarriages between 2010 and 2012 were more likely to have had back-to-back annual flu shots that included protection against swine flu.

Vaccine experts think the results may reflect the older age and other miscarriage risks for the women, and not the flu shots. Health officials say there is no reason to change the government recommendation that all pregnant women be vaccinated against the flu. They say the flu itself is a much greater danger to women and their fetuses.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reached out to a doctor's group, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, to warn them the study is coming out and help them prepare for a potential wave of worry from expectant moms, CDC officials said.

Comment: This study is correct. See also:


Propaganda

Producer of Vaxxed film banned from Australia - and how the Australian press is lying about it

Polly Tommey,
Polly Tommey, Producer of documentary Vaxxed
Polly Tommey, producer of the famous documentary, Vaxxed (trailer), has been banned from Australia. If that sounds quite insane-it is.

Vaxxed has been screening across the world. It is an explosive revelation about egregious fraud at the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC).

The film focuses on the 2014 public confession of a long-time researcher at the CDC, William Thompson. Thompson admits that he and his colleagues committed a crime, by manipulating data to give the MMR vaccine a free pass, "proving" it had no connection to autism - when in fact, as Thompson states, the vaccine does raise the risk of autism in children.

Here are a few statements from the The Sydney Morning Herald's report, headlined: "Anti-vaccination advocate 'banned from Australia' after documentary tour."

Comment: Australia appears to be fully on board and in line with the West's vaccination agenda:


Arrow Down

Big Ag nightmare: The many ways that factory farming contaminates our land and water

water contamination, toxic Kewaunee County wells
Flooded fields like this one from Calumet County, in May 2013, are innocuous when the ground below is clay, which protects the aquifers below. But if there are karst features like cracks or sinkholes, flooding means more risk that agricultural chemicals or manure will get into the groundwater below.
Water pollution is a growing problem, and nonorganic farming activities - both on land and in water - are significant contributors. In addition to farming chemicals such as nitrates, which pose a serious threat to water quality, there's the issue of drug-resistant bacteria. As reported by the Center for Public Integrity,1 water testing in Kewaunee County, Wisconsin, has revealed coliform bacteria "at levels too dangerous to drink."

Drug-resistant bacteria are a direct result of antibiotic overuse, especially in livestock, and recent investigations reveal antibiotic-resistant genes are being spread across the globe via animal feed - especially feed made from fish meal. Turns out aquaculture, which has been touted as a sustainable alternative to overfishing, is just as environmentally devastating as land-based farms.

The answer to these serious and interconnected dilemmas is to transition over to regenerative and biodynamic farming, both of which go above and beyond organic methods.

We also need to come up with more sustainable solutions for fish, as fish farms are turning out to be no less of an environmental nightmare than land-based factory farms. The recent escape of hundreds of thousands of non-native Atlantic salmon into the Pacific is just the latest testament to the environmental harm aquafarms do.


Comment: CAFO's: The facts about factory farms