Author Topic: FDA warning on SSRIs  (Read 56003 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
FDA warning on SSRIs
« Reply #105 on: June 16, 2004, 02:08:00 PM »
Timoclea, I'd like to visit your website!  Would you mind providing a link?  If not open to the general public, that's okay.  I am very interested in your perspective on many subjects and was just hoping to learn more.

Thanks!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Deborah

  • Posts: 5383
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
FDA warning on SSRIs
« Reply #106 on: June 16, 2004, 07:36:00 PM »
**And that's not for your sake, it's for the sake of people reading who otherwise might be unknowingly led off into a fringe belief that doesn't match the science and that could do them harm. And I'm sorry I sound so miffed, but it's rather like being challenged to personally provide proof that the Earth is round rather than flat.

That seems a bit extreme, but if that's the way you see it. Just a couple of web links would suffice. Now that I know which studies convinced you, I can do my own research, as time allows.

All I asked was for some documentation that might prove a genetic link, and if there was none, to phrase your comments in a more truthful way- there appears to some to be a genetic link.
To do otherwise would be to deceive.

It's about both sides of an issue being presented. Transparency. Making informed choices.

I don't think my opinion is a 'fringe belief'.
I don't perceive my 'stake in disbelieving' as any stronger than your stake in believing. I think it's more that we resonate with different opinions from the industry.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
gt;>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Hidden Lake Academy, after operating 12 years unlicensed will now be monitored by the state. Access information on the Federal Class Action lawsuit against HLA here: http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?t=17700

Offline Deborah

  • Posts: 5383
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
FDA warning on SSRIs
« Reply #107 on: June 16, 2004, 09:38:00 PM »
That didn't take long.

http://www.allaboutdepression.com/cau_03.html

Much of what we know about the genetic influence of clinical depression is based upon research that has been done with identical twins. Identical twins are very helpful to researchers since they both have the exact same genetic code. It has been found that when one identical twin becomes depressed the other will also develop clinical depression approximately 76% of the time. When identical twins are raised apart from each other, they will both become depressed about 67% of the time. Because both twins become depressed at such a high rate, the IMPLICATION is that there is a strong genetic influence. If it happened that when one twin becomes clinically depressed the other always develops depression, then clinical depression would likely be entirely genetic. However because the rate of both identical twins developing depression is not closer to 100% this tells us   that THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THAT INFLUENCE A PERSON'S VULNERABILITY TO DEPRESSION. These may include environmental factors such as childhood experiences, current stressors, traumatic events, exposure to substances, medical illnesses, etc.

Research on the genetic causes of clinical depression has attempted to identify one or more specific genes that may lead to the development of a depressive illness. Although there have been a number of studies that APPEAR to name a particular gene as the culprit there has been LITTLE CONSISTENCY AMONG THEIR RESULTS. However, the outcome of some research has SUGGESTED that there may be specific genes that cause clinical depression to develop within certain families and not in others.

At this time there is much that we do not know about how genes may predispose a person to a depressive illness. Research has YET TO IDENTIFY A CLEAR LINK BETWEEN A SPECIFIC GENE AND A VULNERABILITY TO DEPRESSION in everyone. Rather than the possibility of only a single gene being responsible for the development of clinical depression, it APPEARS to be more likely that a number of genes acting together may cause a person to become vulnerable to depression.

Just because a person inherits a gene that predisposes him or her to a depressive illness, it does not mean that he or she is destined to develop major depression or bipolar disorder. It IS BELIEVED that a genetic influence is only partially responsible for causing depression. Other factors may also play a role.

http://www.allaboutdepression.com/cau_01.html
Unfortunately, it is NOT FULLY KNOWN WHAT EXACTLY CAUSES CLINICAL DEPRESSION. There are numerous THEORIES about causes such as biological and genetic factors, environmental influences, and childhood or developmental events.


That's my only point Timoclea. Until a genetic component is proven, it's all just suggestions and theories based on the interpretation of observations. I resent the deceptive language used by the industry that would lead someone to believe that is has been proven. Can we agree on that point?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
gt;>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Hidden Lake Academy, after operating 12 years unlicensed will now be monitored by the state. Access information on the Federal Class Action lawsuit against HLA here: http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?t=17700

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
FDA warning on SSRIs
« Reply #108 on: June 16, 2004, 10:07:00 PM »
Timoclea, Deborah - curious what you think of the potential of this surgically implanted device to
treat "resistant" (or any kind of) depression?
==========================================

FDA Panel Backs Implant To Counter Depression
But Questions Linger About Manufacturer Data

Shankar Vedantam
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 16, 2004; Page A03

A surgical implant that stimulates the brain should get government approval to treat chronic depression, an expert panel of federal experts said yesterday -- marking the first time an implanted device has been recommended for the treatment of a psychiatric disorder.

Using a technique known as vagus nerve stimulation, the device uses electrodes implanted in the neck to activate brain regions that are believed to regulate mood.

The decision by an expert advisory panel of the Food and Drug Administration came after a day of clashing scientific opinions about whether the data submitted by the manufacturer were adequate for approval. Proponents of the device prevailed, citing the desperate need of patients with chronic depression that does not respond to existing treatments.

"We lost four of these individuals in the last 2 1/2 hours," said A. John Rush, a psychiatrist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, basing that figure on the high suicide rate among patients with resistant depression.

The verdict by the advisory panel came after FDA scientists and some panel members argued the data presented by the manufacturer to show the device works were not convincing.

The agency is not required to follow the guidance of its advisory committee but usually does.

The device has been used in the United States since 1997 to control epileptic seizures. The manufacturer, Cyberonics Inc. of Houston, hopes to expand its market: Fifteen to 25 percent of the 19 million Americans with depression may not respond to available treatments, Rush said.

The implant involves connecting a wire to the left vagus nerve in the side of the neck; a battery is implanted high in the left chest or under the armpit, and the amount of current can be regulated externally. Typically, the implant sends a 30-second pulse of current followed by a five-minute pause, 24 hours a day.

Karmen McGuffee of Garland, Tex., told the panel she had tried virtually every antidepressant drug on the market before getting the device. Improvement came within weeks, she said.

"My mother said she wasn't looking into the eyes of a dead person anymore," she said. When people asked why she was willing to get an implant, she replied, "I had nothing to lose."
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
FDA warning on SSRIs
« Reply #109 on: June 17, 2004, 12:11:00 AM »
No, Deborah, we can't.

The available evidence indicates that the major mental illnesses are caused, in most of the people that get them, by a combination of a genetic predisposition and some sort of environmental triggering event(s).

Just because they haven't identified the specific genes and mapped the exact mechanisms by which they operate on brain biology doesn't mean the existence of those genes is all just supposition.

A genetic component has been proved.

Sure, traumas damage people.  Traumatic stresses can make anyone's mental health worse.  We've seen that in the mere existence of PTSD.  Environment affects mental health.

Still, much of what happens to individual kids growing up happens by chance.  No matter how much we want to shield our children, we really don't have a lot of control over whether some other kid takes a sudden dislike to our kid and has the power to haze and traumatize the kid---by the time the parents find out, it's likely too late.

Heart disease and diabetes are heavily influenced by genes but can be triggered/affected by environment, too.

But if you've got high blood pressure you sure had better take your pills.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Deborah

  • Posts: 5383
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
FDA warning on SSRIs
« Reply #110 on: June 17, 2004, 12:36:00 AM »
There must be a problem with semantics or something. I didn't get that it had been proven. I read:

However because the rate of both identical twins developing depression is not closer to 100% this tells us that THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THAT INFLUENCE A PERSON'S VULNERABILITY TO DEPRESSION.

...studies that APPEAR to name a particular gene as the culprit there has been LITTLE CONSISTENCY AMONG THEIR RESULTS. However, the outcome of some research has SUGGESTED that there may be specific genes that cause clinical depression to develop within certain families and not in others.

Unfortunately, it is NOT FULLY KNOWN WHAT EXACTLY CAUSES CLINICAL DEPRESSION. There are numerous THEORIES about causes such as biological and genetic factors, environmental influences, and childhood or developmental events.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
gt;>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Hidden Lake Academy, after operating 12 years unlicensed will now be monitored by the state. Access information on the Federal Class Action lawsuit against HLA here: http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?t=17700

Offline Deborah

  • Posts: 5383
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
FDA warning on SSRIs
« Reply #111 on: June 17, 2004, 11:57:00 PM »
Anon,
Hadn't heard of it before; only the implants that deliver drugs.
Sounds very costly and minimally effective, based on the little research I did.

The Vagus nerve is pretty import to make vital organs and systems. I'd want to thouroughly research this and what the possibly negative effects of continually stimulating that nerve could be.

Time will tell. In the meantime, might be a good stock to invest in according to the owner's projections.

What are your thoughts anon?

http://www.mcmanweb.com/article-17.htm
The VNS device costs $12,000 and the cost of surgery to implant the device can run as high as $15,000. Insurance companies may find this is more cost-effective than antidepressant or talk therapy over the long term, and may one day pick up the tab.
The company expects $2.8 billion in sales to depressed patients by year six.

Sue (June 24, 2003):  Nice article. I just want to inform your readers of inflation. I had the VNS surgery as an outpatient for my epilepsy on May 1, 2003 and the total damage was $50,000.  Luckily for me the insurance co. picked up the whole tab!! You better check with yours first though. By the way, it is helping for my seizures. I have to wait and see for my depression. Good Luck!    

http://content.health.msn.com/content/a ... 5_nv_03#24
Can I stop all my seizures with the magnet?
Each person experiences different results from magnet stimulation. Some people report that the magnet stops all or most of their seizures, lessens the intensity, or shortens the duration. For others, the magnet has limited or no effect.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
gt;>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Hidden Lake Academy, after operating 12 years unlicensed will now be monitored by the state. Access information on the Federal Class Action lawsuit against HLA here: http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?t=17700

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
FDA warning on SSRIs
« Reply #112 on: June 27, 2004, 10:50:00 AM »
Recalling the conclusion of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ACNP) report published in Jan. 2004, that claimed the increase use of SSRIs appears to have lowered the risk of
suicide in youth, appears not to be the conclusion of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  The below study suggests gun safety
and reduced stigma (labels) is the reasons for the reduction in youth suicide, not the increased usage of anti-depressants.
---------------------------------------------

Suicide rate falls 25 percent among American youth
Reduced stigma for gays, tighter access to guns are among reasons cited
By DANIEL YEE
Associated Press
ATLANTA -- The suicide rate among American children and teens fell about 25 percent in the last decade, reflecting a dramatic dropoff in
gun suicides, the government said Thursday.

In fact, a steep drop in self-inflicted shootings among 10- to 14-year-olds helped make suicides by hanging or other forms of suffocation more common than gun suicides in that age group, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said.

CDC researchers did not immediately know why the overall rate dropped, but a specialist in adolescent medicine said restrictions on
children's access to firearms and decreased stigma about sexual orientation have played important roles.

Sexual orientation has been a factor in many suicides among young males, said Dr. Charles Wibbelsman, chief of The Teenage Clinic of
Kaiser Permanente in San Francisco.

"There are shows (concerning gays and lesbians) today that weren't on nine years ago," he said. "It's been much more `out' and in that
respect, we've saved a lot more people's lives."

The suicide rate for people ages 10 to 19 fell from 6.2 deaths per 100,000 people in 1992 to 4.6 per 100,000 in 2001, the CDC said.

The number of suicides also fell in that period, from 2,151 to 1,883.

The decrease in gun suicides was most dramatic among children 10 to 14, dropping from 172 in 1992 to 90 in 2001.

Among those 15 to 19, deaths from self-inflicted shootings dropped from 1,251 to 838 during the same period, the CDC said.

Trigger locks, lock boxes and other measures for keeping guns out of youngsters' hands have become more common in recent years, but CDC officials said they did not know whether that accounts for the decrease in suicides.

The number of suicides by hanging or other forms of suffocation, meanwhile, rose among young people from 1992 to 2001.

Such methods of suicides -- including use of belts, ropes or plastic bags -- rose from 96 to 163 in that period among youngsters 10 to 14.

Among teens ages 15 to 19, suicides by suffocation rose from 333 deaths to 551.

The nation's suicide rate among all age groups also has dropped in recent years, although it rose from 10.44 deaths per 100,000 in 2000
to 10.69 per 100,000 in 2001.

http://ishmael.com/Education/Writings/rice_u_2_98.shtml
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Deborah

  • Posts: 5383
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
FDA warning on SSRIs
« Reply #113 on: June 27, 2004, 12:16:00 PM »
Good article on how the US has gotten into the mind-altering drug advertisments.
10 million children on antidepressants.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/com ... t-opinions
ANTIDEPRESSANTS
Officials Swallow Industry Claims
By Greg Critser
Greg Critser, the author of "Fat Land: How Americans Became the Fattest People in the World," is writing a book about the pharmaceuticals industry.

June 13, 2004

Antidepressants are back in the news, with Americans, as usual, being tormented by contradictory messages about the drugs, now prescribed to more than 10 million children and adolescents annually, largely without FDA approval.

Early this month, the National Institute of Mental Health issued a study showing that one member of the family of antidepressants known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs, was effective for treating adolescent depression.

That was comforting.

The next day, the attorney general of New York sued GlaxoSmithKline, the maker of another SSRI, Paxil, for fraud, saying the firm had covered up unappealing safety problems in kids who took the medication, including some who had experienced suicidal thoughts or committed suicidal acts.

That wasn't so comforting.

The reasons behind these conflicting messages can and do fill millions of pages of legal briefs and clinical trial reports, with varying levels of clarity and veracity in both domains. But on the wider question - how did it become so easy for a drug firm to promote its wares for unapproved uses? - the answer is stunningly clear: Drug companies now enjoy the same license to promote their products that the food, beverage and, until recently, tobacco industries have enjoyed for decades. And for that we have two institutions to thank: the Supreme Court and the Food and Drug Administration.

Liberals and consumer activists might be surprised to learn that a series of court cases initiated by Ralph Nader in the 1970s gave rise to today's reigning legal notions about commercial speech, which supply the legal framework for such things as off-label promotion of drugs (the marketing to doctors of medications for uses other than those approved by the FDA) and direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs.

In a 1976 case known as Virginia State Board of Pharmacy, Nader's attorneys argued that consumers were entitled to information about drug prices - to be able to shop for the best price - and that state laws that barred pharmacy advertising violated "the consumer's right to know."

Except for Justice William H. Rehnquist, the court agreed, establishing the consumer's right to know, or, more broadly, the listener's "right to hear" all information, commercial or political.

The doctrine slowly worked its way through business and regulatory agencies, but the FDA was still able to retain its control over claims made for a drug's safety and efficacy. And, under that umbrella, the agency fiercely protected its ability to regulate off-label promotion. The practice was - and still is - illegal, but what is and isn't legal has gotten murkier.

Should a drug company be able to distribute, via highly trained and restrained medical affairs people, studies showing that a drug approved for one purpose also "seems" to help kids with, say, end-stage brain cancer, an unapproved use? The average consumer would probably say yes. But the waters quickly get muddier. Should a drug company be allowed, as has been the case with antidepressants, to dispatch tens of thousands of young, barely trained sales reps, most just out of college, to give general practitioners - many with no experience in psychiatric medications - studies that "suggest" that adult antidepressants "might" help kids with depression? The FDA's traditional response was to come down hard on the latter but not on the former, and most of us would be likely to agree with that inclination.

But beginning in the early 1990s, a new generation of legal activists, many working for the broadcast and advertising industries, instituted a wave of commercial speech cases, which, though not specifically aimed at curtailing the FDA's power to regulate off-label promotion, had that effect.

One such case took aim at a Rhode Island law that prohibited advertising the price of liquor except at the point of purchase. Arguing a strict constructionist theory in front of an increasingly conservative, strict constructionist court, conservative activist attorney Daniel E. Troy, who once clerked for Judge Robert Bork, focused on the intentions of the founding fathers when it came to the 1st Amendment and advertising. Citing a range of colonial newspapers, their publishers and leading Revolutionary War-era thinkers, including Benjamin Franklin, Troy told the court that "colonial Americans plainly viewed the freedom of speech as protecting far more than just political speech."

This lack of distinction between commercial and political speech was important because most colonial newspapers were primarily vehicles for advertising, hardly the impartial beacons that modern papers are expected to be, but Troy did not dwell on that technicality. Instead, he told the court that "there is no evidence on the other side - nothing at all - to suggest that, as an original matter, commercial messages should be treated differently from other types of messages."

The court was unanimous in striking down the Rhode Island law, with Justice Antonin Scalia writing about his "aversion toward paternalistic governmental policies that prevent men and women from hearing facts that might not be good for them."

In 1999, the same doctrine was invoked in another action, this one in a district court case specifically involving off-label promotion of prescription drugs. The case had been brought by the conservative Washington Legal Foundation, which was partly funded by advertising trade groups. In this case, Troy, working beside attorneys for the foundation, argued the same line, but the key to the win was the anti-paternalism argument.

The government "cannot justify a restriction of truthful, non-misleading speech on the paternalistic assumption that such restriction is necessary to protect the listener from ignorantly or inadvertently misusing the information," the court wrote. With that ruling, the "consumer's right to know" - Nader's great triumph of the 1970s - became the corporation's right to "subtly encourage."

The FDA's response was to embrace the decision. Soon, advocating the regulation of anything but the most over-the-top and misleading drug promotion activity was viewed, internally, as a career-killing move. The Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising and Communications, the tiny department charged with such regulation, was routinely underfunded and rife with institutional second-guessing. This year, a congressional report found that in 2003 the division issued drug makers 75% fewer warning letters, its chief enforcement device, than during the last two years of the Clinton administration. Even the pharmaceuticals trade press was stunned by the change, noting in one headline that "most medical promotion is out of sight of regulators."

The FDA's tolerance of drug company product promotion reached new heights under Bush appointee Mark McClellan, until March the agency's chief. McClellan made clear to the pharmaceutical industry immediately after his appointment that he intended to change the FDA's image. Under him, that image morphed from one of a tough, independent-minded regulatory body to a partner in nurturing pharmaceutical innovation. On the January 2004 cover of Medical Marketing & Media, for example, then-Commissioner McClellan could be found with Peter Pitts, his new public affairs director, alongside the headline, "We won't bite."

In an interview inside the magazine, Pitts bragged about how he had welcomed visiting drug representatives, even offering to edit advertising and communication proposals before the agency. Pitts and McClellan have since been ubiquitous on the (unpaid) pharmaceuticals industry speakers' circuits, appearing at marketing confabs that promise to teach attendees things like "how to push the promotional envelope." (McClellan is probably less desired nowadays because he has ended his once-virulent anti-imports stance since being named head of the Medicare agency.)

But even if a new commissioner decides to again get tough on off-label promotions, the agency would seem to have little leeway left to regulate commercial speech unless it's demonstrably false. And the agency's chief legal counsel is unlikely to push the envelope because the FDA's top lawyer is now . Dan Troy.

Will the responsibility of public life reshape Troy's thinking? Apparently not. One of his first acts in office was to file a "friend of the court" brief in two legal cases involving antidepressants. In both, he entered on the side of the industry.

If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at latimes.com/archives.
Article licensing and reprint options
Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
gt;>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Hidden Lake Academy, after operating 12 years unlicensed will now be monitored by the state. Access information on the Federal Class Action lawsuit against HLA here: http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?t=17700

Offline Deborah

  • Posts: 5383
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
FDA warning on SSRIs
« Reply #114 on: June 28, 2004, 10:40:00 AM »
To whom it may concern,

Below find our mission statement and the announcement of the creation of the International Medical Veritas Association. The IMVA is an alliance that includes a range of participation--from individuals to entire organizations--working together in co-operation with professionals, parents and governments worldwide to expose and end unsafe and unnecessary medical practices and replace them with alternative strategies for ensuring the health of the world population, including healthy living environments, clean water, sustainable development, optimal nutrition and real health education untainted with commercial interests. What is now considered alternative must be thrust into the mainstream and what is false and harmful in orthodox medicine must be cast completely aside.

We invite you to our site and to please share the below with your associates and friends. We are open to creating strategic partnerships with others and if you are interested in more information please sign up on our site for the IMVA mailing list. If you would not like to receive further communications from us please return this message with unsubscribe pasted into the subject line. If you do not you will soon begin to receive our medical news commentaries which are untainted by commercial interests.

    Best Regards,

    Mark Sircus Ac., OMD
    Executive Director
    International Medical Veritas Association
    http://www.imva.info


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The International Medical Veritas Association (IMVA) was formally launched May 30, 2004. Mandated to investigate and confront those medical and pharmaceutical interventions that are compromised by conflicts of interests, the IMVA takes an authoritative and compelling stand on diverse issues in the world of health and healthcare. For example, the IMVA will present ongoing objective scientific research, data and analyses with conclusions that challenge the recent positions of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on key aspects of the childhood immunization program.  

Serious errors exist in policies that permit:  inoculation of children with up to five vaccines during a single doctor visit; the use of mercury as a vaccine preservative; newborn inoculation with the Hepatitis B vaccine prior to discharge; and, all children 6 months and older to receive the flu vaccination every year. These publicly approved policies are leading to tragic consequences that include, in large part, the 700% increase in autism over the past 10 years. In reality, these so-called interventions are large-scale experiments conducted at the expense of our young children, who are showing an increase in childhood cancers and other chronic diseases such as asthma and diabetes.

Why were these untoward policies authorized? In one word: greed. Dr. Kate Scannell recently reported that, "According to confidential documents recently acquired and reviewed by the New York Times, the U.S. drug company trade
association PhRMA (Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America) intends to spend $150 million in the current year in hopes of influencing our domestic and foreign policy makers. The Times reports that PhRMA's budget for such lobbying activities during the fiscal year beginning July 1 represents a 23 percent increase over the prior year. The plan includes a $72.7 million allocation for lobbying at the federal level, $49.7 million for state lobbying efforts, and $4.9 million to lobby the Food and Drug Administration."

Medicine will never be safe as long as we tolerate the incursion of the power of pharmaceutical companies into the medical decision making process, since the profit motive interferes greatly with sound medical judgment. The IMVA recognizes that medical disasters are being perpetrated by the pharmaceutical industry. Hardly a week goes by without news or another report on the corrupting influence of these companies on the medical community.  Instead of serving the interests of those who have entrusted them with their health, the medical establishment has become a legally sanctioned purveyor of death. Dr. Barbara Starfield estimates that there are approximately 250,000 avoidable deaths occurring at the hands of doctors each year, while Dr. Gary Null and his colleagues estimate the figure to be much higher -- 786,000 in the United States alone. Although these estimates have been published in reputable medical and health journals,  they do not touch upon the tragedy of infants found dead in their cribs, or other babies thought to be shaken to death by their parents ? outcomes that sometimes were later attributed to adverse vaccine reactions. These estimates also do not reflect the abominable situation in third world countries,
where immunization is forced on sick and malnourished children who already have
compromised immune systems.

The IMVA is also concerned about the dogmatic adherence to reductionistic paradigms that emphasize costly and dangerous surgical procedures that can only prognosticate minimal - if any - benefit.  With 8.9 million unnecessary
hospitalizations and 7.5 million unnecessary medical procedures per year, we have many individuals thrust into the unnecessary danger of a potentially fatal consequence. Thus, invasive and unnecessary medical procedures must be considered as part of the deaths due to iatrogenic causes. Of particular concern to the
IMVA, is the unnecessarily high C-section rate in the U.S. and other countries, and the entire medical process surrounding birth. The IMVA supports efforts toward achieving a more natural birthing process that minimizes the use of
medications and drugs.

National and international medical and health organizations are in sort of a "Catch 22" predicament -- unable to honestly publicize deleterious effects of vaccines and other medical procedures, since this would lower public trust and confidence, which in turn would, for example, decrease vaccination rates and profits. Interestingly, the IOM and the CDC publicly declare they are clueless as to what is causing the notable increase in autism -- with one U.S. child in 166 affected. Some have gone so far as describing this problem as a modern holocaust. The major health organizations have lost their objectivity and dedication to human welfare,  preferring to defend the interests of the pharmaceutical companies that flood these organizations with money and staff.

The long-standing use of mercury as a preservative in vaccines is perhaps the greatest medical nightmare -- a case in point screaming for dramatic changes in the medical establishment  -- and speaks of the need for the IMVA as an independent review body. It is here where the love affair of medical science and pharmaceuticals has abandoned all ability to reason. And, writes Sharyl Attkisson, in a recent CBS New report, ?the results could be devastating to vaccine makers and federal health officials who have steadfastly defended the use of mercury, a potent neurotoxin, in childhood vaccines.? We often worry about the terrorists abroad, but medical terrorism is discreet and cleverly disguised in a facade of short term "safety studies." The bottom line is that hundreds
of thousands of American children are living with the fallout. The cost to raise those surviving with late-onset learning disabilities and autism following childhood vaccination is staggering and has become an immense burden that is compromising school systems and impacting society in general. Medical authorities have chosen to ignore the documented observations of thousands of parents, whose children were previously noted at well-baby visits as developmentally normal, but then lost language, social contact, and regressed into autism following vaccination.    

The IOM, CDC, AMA, AAP, WHO, UNICEF and FDA are proving to be ineffective in gauging vaccine safety and other critical medical interventions. Either inadvertently or deliberately, public health organizations have endangered the health of the nation and the world with an arrogance that has led, step by tragic step, to the present situation: infants being bombarded with toxic viruses and other biological components, injected one after another in a brutal attack on their immature immunological and neurological systems. Such arrogance has locked the entire medical establishment around the world into a pre-emptive war:  injurious to children, yet threatening contemp -- or worse -- on any physician or scientist courageous enough to challenge the status quo. The void that once existed for an impartial international investigative group has now been filled in the IMVA.

Tragedies are evident in many areas including: food additives and preservatives, pesticides, water fluoridation, cancer and AIDS treatments, anti-depressive medications, and other drugs having only marginal, if any, benefit. The IMVA supports improving nutrition as a first line of defense against disease--it promotes wellness rather than continuous disease and treatment cycles.

The IMVA's  goal is to resolve the above problems by creating a new medical paradigm through a synthesis of all primary healthcare paths, eliminating aspects not standing up to close scrutiny.  The IMVA will continue to expand in
its  role as a truly independent body to public health, providing balanced information to parents, patients, and physicians. Our conviction is that better-informed people will have a great impact on better medical treatment.

    International Medical Veritas Association
    http://www.imva.info
                                         
    Gary Goldman, Ph.D.
    Mark Sircus, Ac., OMD
    Michael Primero, B.Sc., M.Sc.Soc
    Mohammed Ali Al-Bayati, Ph.D., DABT, DABVT
    Jewel Euto, Ed.D, Ph.D., N.D.
    Michael Godfrey, M.D., MB.BS, FACAM, FACNEM
    Boyd Haley, Ph.D.
    Viera Scheibner, Ph.D.
    John Parks Trowbridge, M. D., FACAM, Dipl. ABCMT
    Bob Dublin, DC
    Nancy Massotto, Ph.D.
    Sandra Desorgher, MA-FScN
    Maureen Fontaine, B.Ed, ECS
    Bronwyn Hancock, B.Sc., Cert. Nutr.
    Luciana Valentim, B.Sc Oc, B.Ed - Liason Brazil
    Sallye Wentz
    Dawn Winkler
    Joan Mootry
    Bob Flint - Liason Maine
    Edda West - VRAN - Canada
    Georgia Janisch
    Liam Scheff
    Ingri Cassell
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
gt;>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Hidden Lake Academy, after operating 12 years unlicensed will now be monitored by the state. Access information on the Federal Class Action lawsuit against HLA here: http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?t=17700

Offline Deborah

  • Posts: 5383
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
FDA warning on SSRIs
« Reply #115 on: July 06, 2004, 03:29:00 PM »
Psychiatry and the Schools: Mental Hygiene in the 21st Century

By John Breeding, PhD

It was only about 70 years ago that the Nazis' final solution began with the extermination of an estimated 100,000 "mentally handicapped" Germans
considered unfit for living. Many today are unaware that the Nazis looked to the early 20th Century example of the United States eugenics movement for inspiration.

As the American Eugenics Records Office (ERO) proudly reported at the time, "the text of the German statute reads almost like the American
model sterilization Law." Upon receiving an honorary degree in 1936 from the University of Heidelberg for his devotion to racial biology, ERO
superintendent Harry Laughlin gave thanks to the university for validating "the common understanding of German and American scientists of the nature of eugenics." Largely because of the shameful excesses of the Holocaust, the
American eugenics experiment was gradually discontinued.

We all now decry the notion of eliminating life judged "unfit", and with less unanimity, we reject sterilization to prevent birth from unfit parents such as the mentally retarded or "mentally ill." A modern analogue remains,
however, in the form of our mental health system, as illustrated in how we deal with our school-age children today.

In 1970, alarmed by the fact that almost 200,000 American children were taking stimulant drugs, the U.S. Congress convened a special hearing on the issue. Despite the fact that these hearings resulted in the stimulant drugs being classified as Schedule 2 controlled substances by the Drug Enforcement Administration because of their high addictive potential and risk of abuse, rates of administration to our children soared during the last 30 years.

Today, an estimated 6 million children are being prescribed stimulants and millions more are taking other psychotropic drugs such as the
antidepressants Zoloft and Paxil and the antipsychotics Thorazine and Zyprexa. Jessica Vascallero reports in the July 2nd Boston Globe that "About 11 million schoolchildren and adolescents took prescription drugs for mental
health in 2002, and the number is rising. That would be close to 20 percent of our nation's school-age children, which is about a 5,000 percent increase since 1970.

Many think the drugs represent a benevolent medical response to our hordes of mentally ill children. Others like myself consider the practice a shameful disgrace, a form of institutionalized child abuse. Regardless of
one's opinion, here are two significant facts:

1. No children's behavioral problem routinely seen by a psychiatrist or other physician has been scientifically demonstrated to be of biological or genetic causation. There is no objective test, no confirmatory physical or
chemical abnormality-for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD), Depression, Bipolar Disorder, Schizophrenia, or any of the other childhood diagnoses popular among psychiatrists. These diagnoses are wholly subjective, based on judgments of what is and isn't normal behavior.

2. Psychiatric drugs are dangerous: they are toxic and potentially lethal. Consider these facts. There were 186 Ritalin-related heart deaths reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) during the 1990s. Because the
system of reporting is voluntary, experts believe that this figure represents only 1-10 percent of the actual number of deaths. In other words,
from this one drug alone, during a ten-year period, there were 1,800 to 18,000 deaths. In addition, because of evidence indicating their potential for inducing suicidal thinking and behavior in children, the United Kingdom has banned, for children, the use of all but one of the antidepressants known as Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRI's such as Paxil,
Zoloft, Celexa, Effexor and Remeron). The FDA is investigating the matter, but thus far has issued only a warning.

That over 10 million of our nation's children are on these drugs is intensely disturbing. That parents are being cajoled, threatened and forced
to drug their children is no less troubling. People in the schools and in our Child Protective Service (CPS) agencies have become such true believers in the value of drugging our children that they are using coercion on parents. This helps explain why it was necessary for the 2003 Texas legislature to pass House Bills 1406 and 320 prohibiting schools and CPS employees, respectively, from pressuring parents to drug their children. Many other states have enacted similar legislation.

Last year, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Child Medication Safety Act by a vote of 425-1. This Act would make it unlawful for a school to force children to take psychotropic drugs as a condition of attending school. The bill has been held up in the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee all year. The chair of the committee is Judd Gregg, and
according to the Boston Globe article mentioned above, it is Senator Edward Kennedy who is responsible for committee's failure to act.

As a graduate from a school psychology training program at the University of Texas, I am absolutely appalled that the National Association of School Psychologists is trying to kill the bill. The Association's lobbyist, Libby Nealis, says "it would deter schools from discussing crucial mental health information with parents" This is nonsense. All the law says is that drugs
cannot be required as a condition of attending school.

Incredibly enough, promoters of psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry are not satisfied with drugging 15-20 percent of our nation's children. As Jeanne Lenzer reports in the June 19th issue of the British Medical Journal,
President Bush's New Freedom Commission (NFC) plans to unveil this month an initiative to screen for possible "mental illness" all 52 million children and 6 million adults in our nation's public schools. Not only that, but the
screening is linked to a policy which has been used in Texas and other states to require certain recommended drugs for treatment! For those who still believe that the schools are about academic education, it is time to wake up to the overwhelming presence of psychiatry in the schools and resolve to do something about it. The NFC's understanding of freedom is clearly not
freedom to be or think or do, but freedom to be "treated" with psychotropic drugs as the educational/psychiatric forces deem necessary.
*********************

If you are so inclined, send your thoughts to Sen Kennedy at:
senator@kennedy.senate.gov
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
gt;>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Hidden Lake Academy, after operating 12 years unlicensed will now be monitored by the state. Access information on the Federal Class Action lawsuit against HLA here: http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?t=17700

Offline Deborah

  • Posts: 5383
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
FDA warning on SSRIs
« Reply #116 on: August 11, 2004, 01:15:00 PM »
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/8/prweb148258.htm


(PRWEB) August 11, 2004 -- In a bold move reminiscent of Ralph Nader's 1960's "Unsafe At Any Speed" campaign a consumer activist group which calls itself "SSRI Citizen" has launched a national awareness campaign designed to educate the general public about the serious health risks associated with the use of popular antidepressants such as Paxil, Zoloft, Effexor and Prozac.

The group's web site (see http://www.ssriCitizen.org) sells bumper stickers emblazoned with drug names followed by the warning 'Unsafe At Any Dose'. "Our hope is the proliferation of the stickers will help raise public awareness of the dangers these drugs present and encourage people to visit our web site where they will discover drug safety information and other resources which heretofore have not been readily available to the consumer," said Rob Robinson, the organization's founder and spokesperson.

"Given the lengths we know pharmaceutical companies will go to guard the commercial profile of multi-billion dollar profit generators like Paxil, Zoloft, Effexor or Prozac it is surprising we haven't been contacted by one of these companies."

The group is also challenging SSRI drug company promotions which position celebrities such as actress Delta Burke (Effexor) and former NFL star Terry Bradshaw (Paxil) as drug spokespersons. "These individuals, who are paid handsomely for the use of their name and influence, are not spelling out for the public the extraordinarily serious risks associated with their drug of choice," Robinson said. "Its 'Trojan horse' marketing . get the pills into medicine cabinets of America using glitzy ads and slick Hollywood stars. But don't tell the public what really might be lying-in-wait for them inside those innocent-looking pills."

"The bottom line is these drug companies are driven by shareholders to increase sales of these drugs and thus increase profits," Robinson said. "In the case of GlaxoSmithKline its 'If we can make three billion dollars a year off Paxil . why not four, five or more?' Its that kind of rationale that led to GSK's pivotal role in the creation of another 'Trojan horse' marketing stratagem called 'TMAP' or the Texas Medication Algorithm Project. Through TMAP, GSK and other drug companies methodically compromised the decision making of elected and appointed public officials to gain access to captive populations of mentally ill individuals in prisons and state mental health hospitals." For more information see http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/07/07.html

In another marketing ploy GlaxoSmithKline is using Terry Bradshaw to lead the Paxil marketing charge in a program called 'The All-Stars at Work' which targets 'mental health in the workplace.' "The 'program' is supported by an unrestricted 'educational grant' from GlaxoSmithKline," Mr. Robinson said. "We considered sending Mr. Bradshaw a complimentary case of bumper stickers that say "Terry Brashaw Says Eat More Paxil" to hand out to workers. Maybe it would make him think twice about his continued promotion of the drug. At least, we'd like to think so."

Mr. Bradshaw is also traveling throughout the country under the aegis of GSK to promote the use of Paxil through a series of speeches, albeit without his former Paxil sidekick Ricky Williams. (Mr. Williams, another football star, parted company from GSK last year and was recently quoted in the press as saying 'Marijuana is 10 times better for me than Paxil.') The web site GSK formerly maintained for the duo at http://www.rickyandterry.com has vanished and been replaced by another dubbed http://www.terryinyourtown.com All mention of Mr. Williams has been expunged from GSK's web site at http://www.gsk.com

"Although Mr. Bradshaw claims his GSK-backed 'depression tour' is 'the coolest thing he's ever done in his life' his tour schedule is not posted at his web site. If you contact GSK or the public relations firm responsible for coordinating Mr. Bradshaw's appearances all you get is an answering machine asking you to leave your contact information. But no one ever calls back," Robinson said. "If Mr. Bradshaw's promotion of Paxil is, as he puts it - 'so cool' - wouldn't GSK want everyone in the world to know where Mr. Bradshaw is going to be, and when, so the public can have an opportunity to hear him talk about Paxil?"

SSRI Citizen is demonstrating against Mr. Bradshaw who is slated to speak in Chattanooga, Tennessee at the Trade Center on November 18th, 2004 from 6:00 p.m. E.S.T - 8:30 p.m. E.S.T. His topic will be "Why Not Be Your Best: The Winning Strategy of Conquering Depression." For more information contact Marianne Edwards at (423) 763-4626. Individual tickets are $65. A table for eight is $500. Paxil victims as well as families who lost a loved one to a Paxil-induced suicide are encouraged to attend and participate in the protest. Concerns over the planned protest have already caused the sponsor to cancel a book signing session that was to follow Mr. Bradshaw's speech.

The group's public awareness campaign follows the announcement of a suit filed in June, 2004 by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer which alleges Paxil's manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline, engaged in repeated and persistent fraud by concealing and failing to disclose to physicians critical information about Paxil's safety and efficacy relative to its use in the pediatric population. "Doctors should have access to all scientifically sound information so that they can prescribe appropriate medication for their patients," Spitzer said. "By concealing critically important scientific studies on Paxil, GSK impaired doctors' ability to make the appropriate prescribing decision for their patients and may have jeopardized their health and safety."

Other states may soon follow Spitizer's lead.

But Spitzer is late bringing Glaxo (et al) to the bar of justice. Previously, over 5,000 individuals in the United States and more than 2,500 in Britain have sued GlaxoSmithKline after they became addicted to Paxil - and then suffered what in many cases were severe and sometimes life-threatening drug withdrawals. "But for every individual represented by counsel there are probably a minimum of a hundred or more people who are not . but who should be. Many victims addicted to Paxil never grasp what has happened to them until they tried to stop taking the drug - and then could not do so without suffering severe withdrawal symptoms. And if they contacted GlaxoSmithKline for help they were advised the drug was not the problem," Mr. Robinson said. "Yet in Britain GSK has dropped the claim on its patient leaflet saying Paxil is not addictive. Logically, one can only conclude the company knows and concedes that Paxil can be addictive. Why else would they drop the claim?"

In July, 2004 in another civil action involving SSRIs a suit was filed in California by attorneys Karen Barth-Menzies and Ronald Goldman on behalf of Roberta Madison, a nurse and doctor of Public Health, acting as a Private Attorney General. That suit alleges Zoloft's maker, Pfizer, misled physicians and the public regarding Zoloft's safety and efficacy, particularly with regard to suicidality and withdrawal symptoms caused by the drug. Ms. Barth-Menzies said "We have been trying for years to raise public awareness about these issues. We believe that the truth has been suppressed for too long and as a result there has been an enormous waste of money, thousands of people have been harmed by these drugs and many lives have been shattered. We hope this lawsuit will be a significant step toward exposing the fraud."

For more information visit http://www.ssriCitizen.org
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
gt;>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Hidden Lake Academy, after operating 12 years unlicensed will now be monitored by the state. Access information on the Federal Class Action lawsuit against HLA here: http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?t=17700

Offline Antigen

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12992
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
    • http://wwf.Fornits.com/
FDA warning on SSRIs
« Reply #117 on: August 11, 2004, 02:32:00 PM »
Quote
On 2004-07-06 12:29:00, Deborah wrote:

In 1970, alarmed by the fact that almost 200,000 American children were taking stimulant drugs, the U.S. Congress convened a special hearing on the issue. Despite the fact that these hearings resulted in the stimulant drugs being classified as Schedule 2 controlled substances by the Drug Enforcement Administration because of their high addictive potential and risk of abuse, rates of administration to our children soared during the last 30 years.

Wow! This, I did not know! Here's the part of the story I have heard. Back in the late `70's, early `80's, methamphetamine was a favorite, easily accessed drug for graduate students cramming for exams as well as cross country truck drivers. Physicians were concerned about the side effects they were seeing in patients and that was the primary reason for rescheduling that class of stimulant drugs.

Cut to the present:

Quote

Today, an estimated 6 million children are being prescribed stimulants and millions more are taking other psychotropic drugs such as the
antidepressants Zoloft and Paxil and the antipsychotics Thorazine and Zyprexa.


Not only has the CDA legislation and DEA enforcement failed, utterly, to address the problem, but it has given us a violent black market in methamphetamine! Nice goin', folks!

Reminds me of something else. Watching ABC late last night (probably Nightline) I heard Richard Clark, backed by a pose of cronies, telling America that all we need to solve the problems in the mideast is MORE CIA covert activity!!!

I almost couldn't believe what I was hearing!

Doesn't anyone else in the audience remember how Sadam came to power? How, back when he was all chummy w/ Rummy, our hard earned tax dollars went to prop up his regime, even after he gassed a town or two of rebellious Kurds? Has everyone completely forgotten about when Osama BinLaden was a brave, Western-friendly freedom fighter against USSR agression?

Aparently, none of the anchors or commentators at ABC had the presense of mind to recal those minor details and ask "Isn't that pretty much what got us into this mess in the first place?"

I thought for about half a minute about sending my comments to Mr. Kennedy, as suggested at the foot of that article. But what would be the point? It's not asif these bastards don't know already everything I could possibly tell them and more.

Vote Libertarian, or for the most liberty minded candidate on your local ballot! The best and most peaceful way out that I can see is to shift enough political power to the local level so that we can collectively tell the NWO idiots to go fuck themselves and get real jobs.
 

A drug is neither moral nor immoral - it's a chemical compound. The compound itself is not a menace to society until a human being treats it as if consumption bestowed a temporary license to act like an asshole.
--Frank Zappa

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
"Don\'t let the past remind us of what we are not now."
~ Crosby Stills Nash & Young, Sweet Judy Blue Eyes

Offline Deborah

  • Posts: 5383
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
FDA warning on SSRIs
« Reply #118 on: August 12, 2004, 08:23:00 AM »
Listen Live online Thursday, 8/12/04, 7:00 PM Pacific time at:
http://www.worldtalkradio.com/show.asp?sid=97

Upcoming Shows:   8/12/2004
DANGERS OF PSYCHIATRIC DRUGS - Part 1 (Series)

Special Guest: Cassandra Dawn Casey - President, Co-Founder of ASPIRE - The Alliance to Stop Psychiatry?s Influence in Religion and Education -at http://www.aspire.us.
Expert Guest: Karen Barth Menzies - Reputable partner in the national law firm of Baum Hedlund; lead attorney on dozens of antidepressant (SSRI)
suicide and violence cases involving Paxil and Zoloft. Ms. Menzies is spearheading the Paxil withdrawal/dependence cases in the United States.

Topic: ?DANGERS OF PSYCHIATRIC DRUGS ? Part 1"

Annie Armen LIVE Special Tribute to Kevin Rider: Annie Armen dedicates today's program to the everlasting spirit of Kevin Rider! In the words of Kevin?s mother, Cassandra Dawn Casey, ?This child had not been suicidal. He was fun loving and quick-witted with a promising future, loving family and supportive community and church.? Therefore, why would a talented, fun loving, handsome, deeply loved child make a decision to end his life? This question has haunted, and
continues to torment his mother.

Stay tuned for this evening?s EXPLOSIVE program! Cassandra Dawn Casey, will speak of her journey in pursuit of truth to one day unravel the mystery behind her precious son?s death. Did Kevin die of suicide? Homicide? Whether suicide
or homicide, Cassandra states the following: ?? My son?s thoughts and his actions were influenced by a brain altering drug that should have never been prescribed to him. My son would still be alive if I had listened to him, rather than to our physician, and I will continue to warn others?.?
What brain altering drug you may ask? Tune in and find out! You may very well end up saving your child!

Expert Guest - Karen Barth Menzies, Esq. will be joining Annie Armen and Cassandra Dawn Casey, and sharing with us what we need to know about the perils of SSRI-s, and what is legally being done against this infectious drug disease, disguised behind what appears to be remedial, yet life endangering medical terms such as ?Prozac could correct the chemical imbalance causing depression in your child.? Karen filed the first Paxil withdrawal/dependence class action against the makers of Paxil, Glaxo SmithKline, in 2001 and has subsequently filed class actions, mass joinders, and individual death cases in over 25 states across the United States. Karen most recently testified at a hearing before the
California State Senate on August 4, 2004 regarding antidepressant drugs and suicide. More to be said about Karen, as she will be prescribing her legal AnnieBiotics during the AnnieBiotics segment of our program.

All child advocates, parents, children, friends, and loved ones: This is definitely one show you CANNOT AFFORD TO MISS!

5pm to 6pm Pacific Time
6pm to 7pm Mountain Time
7pm to 8pm Central Time
8pm to 9pm Eastern Time

Link to listen to the show on your computer:  

http://www.worldtalkradio.com/show.asp?sid=97

[ This Message was edited by: Deborah on 2004-08-12 06:46 ]
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
gt;>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Hidden Lake Academy, after operating 12 years unlicensed will now be monitored by the state. Access information on the Federal Class Action lawsuit against HLA here: http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?t=17700

Offline Deborah

  • Posts: 5383
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
FDA warning on SSRIs
« Reply #119 on: August 12, 2004, 12:51:00 PM »
***Today, an estimated 6 million children are being prescribed stimulants and millions more are taking other psychotropic drugs such as the
antidepressants Zoloft and Paxil and the antipsychotics Thorazine and Zyprexa.

Anyone care to guess what that figure might be on the first anniversary of Bush's initiative to have all women and children screened for mental illness?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
gt;>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Hidden Lake Academy, after operating 12 years unlicensed will now be monitored by the state. Access information on the Federal Class Action lawsuit against HLA here: http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?t=17700