Chiropractic Elk Grove

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) The new Food Tyranny Act — called the “Food Safety Modernization Act” in the U.S. Senate — has been passed by the senate today. It would give the FDA vast new powers to criminalize and imprison farmers and food producers while doing absolutely nothing to address to real root of the food contamination problem: Factory animal farm operations (which are regulated under the USDA, not the FDA).

The bill passed 73 to 25, with Sen Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) emerging as the greatest “voice of reason” in the debate. His last-ditch amendment to reduce the scale of the bill was defeated this morning.

Here’s the official vote record: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L…

Notably, there wasn’t a single Democrat who opposed the bill.

This bill, as originally written, would have outlawed most nutritional supplements through “harmonization” with European laws. It also would have authorized ten-year prison sentences for farmers selling raw milk to their neighbors. Both of those provisions were eventually stripped out of the bill thanks to some last-minute amendments, but it gives you an idea of the outright police state mentality of the original bill authors who attempted to put in place complete government control over food, gardens, raw milk and more.

To give you an idea of how clueless U.S. Senators are about food, the New York Times is reporting that when Senate staff members met to discuss this bill, they would eat Starburst candies and jellybeans. As the NYT reports, “In the midst of negotiations, the negotiators — nearly all women — took a field trip to a nearby food market so that a Republican staff member could teach the Democrats how to buy high-quality steaks.”

So what we have here is a new food tyranny law that was essentially negotiated by a group of women who eat dead foods, animals products and candy.

No wonder they still don’t get it. The contamination of lettuce and other fresh produce is caused by factory animals farms, not by produce farms. (E.coli can only thrive in the digestive tracts of animals, not plants.)

The “small farms” exclusion will soon be meaningless
The Tester Amendment of the bill did manage to exclude some smaller farmers from the more tyrannical provisions of the bill. As currently stated, this would exclude small farms that sell less than $500,000 worth of food and which sell most of their food locally.

However, Senators failed to consider what’s going to happen when the Federal Reserve keeps printing counterfeit money, devaluing the dollar and causing massive food price inflation. A farm that right now produces merely $100,000 worth of food (which could be a small, two-person farm) will soon find itself producing $500,000 worth of food (or more) due to the rapidly falling value of the U.S. dollar.

This is how the Federal Reserve’s money counterfeiting actions will further destroy America and place small family farms under the tyranny of the FDA.

What’s next: Defeat the bill in committee
The Senate version of the bill must now be reconciled with the House version that was passed last year. This reconciliation committee must hammer out the differences between the two bills.

Democrats are urgently rushing to do this during their “lame duck” session in order to avoid more Republicans getting involved who would seek to scale back the power and size of the federal government.

Some House Democrats are even suggesting they would support passing the Senate version of the bill as it is written, without requiring any changes whatsoever, just to rush it through before the end of the year. NaturalNews and other health freedom organizations intend to fight this effort, hoping to stall the bill until the new Congress can enter the picture and hopefully interject some common sense into the negotiations.

Please don’t feed the monster
If signed into law by the President (who is sure to sign it), this Food Safety Bill would provide yet more power and funding to one of the most dangerous monsters our nation has ever known: The FDA. This is the agency responsible for the death of more Americans than all the wars our nation has ever been involved with — combined! (http://www.naturalnews.com/030461_S…)

The idea that we’re going to save a few lives from food poisoning while subjecting everyone to yet another layer of Big Government tyranny is so abhorrent and downright evil that if our country’s founding fathers saw all this going on, they would be stunned into silence that it’s happening in “the land of the free.” Fresh milk being criminalized? You’ve got to be kidding…

Only they’re not kidding. The FDA is the agency that has raided vitamin companies (http://www.naturalnews.com/021791.html), arrested nutritional supplement manufacturers and ordered the destruction of books containing stevia recipes. This is the agency that censors the scientific truth about natural foods like cherries and walnuts (http://www.naturalnews.com/029698_c…) while promoting the outright fraud and quackery of the pharmaceutical industry.

And now the FDA is to be rewarded for its malfeasance with yet MORE power and authority?

This is how Washington works, folks. The government always thinks it’s here to save you, and the Democrats want Big Government to be your nanny and “take care of you.” (The Republicans, for their part, just want to bail out the wealthy banksters with your money.) And yet, when it all comes down to it, these people are just tyrants who have forgotten American history and abandoned the Constitution and its founding principles.

Mark my words: Five years down the road, when the FDA’s armed “food police” are running rampant across America, arresting farmers and imprisoning lettuce growers, people will be appalled, and they’ll wonder, “How could we have let this happen!?” The answer is right here: You let it happen because you allowed Big Government to rule over the food supply. And if there’s one thing we know about Big Government, it’s that it always wants to get bigger.

It always wants more power. More authority. More funding. And more excuses to function as a dictatorship that rules over the American people.

The Food Safety Modernization Act is to the food supply what the Patriot Act is to the Bill of Rights. We must make every effort to prevent this from becoming law, lest we find ourselves living under a food dictatorship where only dead, fumigated or irradiated food will be allowed to be sold to the public. The “food irradiation plot” has been the plan from the very beginning of all this (http://www.naturalnews.com/023015_f…).

Of course, once the real food is all criminalized and outlawed, there’s always soylent green. That might not be too far off, come to think of it.

Posted By Dr. Axe On October 20, 2010 @ 5:24 pm In Weight Loss | 1 Comment

The Journal of the American Medical Association reports that 35.5% American women are overweight compared to 32.2% of American men. If you’re one of these women you probably want to lose a few of those extra pounds you’ve been carrying. But according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) despite the goal set in 2001 by the U.S. Surgeon General, called the Healthy People Objective 2010, obesity rates have not declined but risen.
The goal of Healthy People 2010 was to reduce obesity amongst American adults to 15%. As of the date of this article no state has yet to reach that objective, according to an August 3, 2010 report from the CDC.

Obesity isn’t just about how you look either. In fact, that should be the least of your worries. Obesity contributes to premature aging and death by increasing the risk for developing life threatening diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, and cancer.

If you have more weight than you should it’s time to get serious about losing weight. It’s vital to protect your health today and into your later years of life. What you don’t see now may show up when it’s too late to make a change.

Like many other overweight people, particularly women, you may have tried time and time again to lose weight with no success. You may feel discouraged and figure ‘what’s the point’ to even try. While you’re not alone in these feelings and frustrations there are some key components involved in women’s weight loss you might not know about.

Let’s explore the five most common reasons women struggle to lose weight. Once you discover the reason why you can’t lose weight, you can solve it, and start to live with vibrant health and vitality.

Reason #1: Eating the Wrong Foods
A walk down through the grocery store reveals aisle after aisle laden with foods that advertisers would like us to believe will help us to lose weight. Beware! These ‘fake’ foods actually starve your body for nutrients and you end up craving more to eat, because despite the meal you just consumed your body still is lacking in the vital nutrients it needs. You end up eating more and more of these calories but not giving your body enough nutrients.

How to Know:

Take a look in your cabinets and pantry. Are they loaded with foods in boxes and bags? These are fake foods. Check the labels of these foods. Do they contain all natural ingredients without preservatives, additives, and dyes? If you eat more processed foods every week than fresh foods you could be thwarting your own weight loss goals.

What to Do:

The first step is to eliminate or at least seriously cut down on the fake foods. Opt for real foods instead. Real foods are the foods that God gave us to begin with; apples, oranges, carrots, etc. You remember these nourishing foods, right?

Load your plate with fresh fruits and veggies that are grown organically and locally. Choose meats and dairy that are free range and not from animals that have been loaded up with hormones and other toxins.

Reason #2: The Wrong Kind of Exercise
Are you one of the die-hard exercisers who despite your dedication can’t seem to shake that extra weight? Recent research has shown that interval training can burn far more calories than when you keep a steady pace throughout your workout.

How to Know:

This one is pretty easy to determine. If you spend dedicated time exercising but aren’t dropping any pounds you may want to consider interval training instead of the classic cardio you’re doing now.

What to Do:

Instead of just running or walking on the treadmill do bursts of high intensity running or sprinting followed by a cool down. For example, you can sprint full force for thirty to ninety seconds, slow down and walk for two minutes, then rev it up sprints again for 30-90 seconds. Continue this routine for ten to twenty minutes. This type of training causes your body to burn fat for the next 36 hours to replenish your body’s vital energy (glycogen) stores. It really is possible to burn fat while you sleep!

Reason #3: Thyroid Problems

Life is all about balance and when it comes to your body and proper functioning this couldn’t be truer. Our body operates on a delicate balance of chemicals that it must maintain to function properly.

Some of the most important chemicals when it comes to weight and metabolism are the thyroid hormones [1], T3 and T4 aka triiodothyronine and thyroxine.

These hormones can be thrown out of whack by many issues. From a diet with too much or too little iodine, to toxicity from amalgam fillings, to an undiagnosed medical condition the thyroid can produce too much or too little T4 or thyroxine impacting your metabolism.

How to Know:

Hyperthyroidism (too much T4):

•Nervousness
•Insomnia
•Racing heart
•Unexplained weight loss
•High amounts of perspiration
•Muscle weakness
•Multiple bowel movements
•Thin, brittle hair
Hypothyroidism (too little T4):

•Fatigue
•Dry hair, skin
•Unexplainable weight gain
•Constipation
•Muscle weakness and discomfort
If you’re experiencing one or more of these symptoms consult your health care practitioner to learn more.

The three most commonly used tests to determine if you have a thyroid condition are blood tests, a thyroid scan, and the radioactive iodine uptake test. Your doctor can determine which one is best for you after a review of your specific conditions.

What to Do:

Instead of turning to hormone replacement therapies with the use of pharmaceuticals, natural hormones using animal hormones, or in extreme cases surgery, first look at any nutritional deficiencies like iodine or toxicity from things like amalgam fillings in your teeth. Consider supplementing with kelp, and if you have amalgam fillings, I highly recommend you seek a natural dentist to have them removed.

Reason #4: Hormone Imbalances

It’s not just the thyroid hormones that can impact your metabolism and weight. Cortisol, aka the stress [2] hormone, can block your attempts to lose weight too. This fight or flight hormone increases your appetite, makes you crave loads of carbs, and keeps fat in your mid section.

How to Know:

While you can get tests to evaluate the cortisol level in your blood, only you can determine your own innate level of stress. Take some time to evaluate if you are living in a constant (or close to constant) state of stress.

What to Do:

The best way to lower your cortisol levels is by decreasing stress [2]. Learn to say no, take time to exercise (a huge stress buster as well as a great way to burn calories, improve sleep, and feel great), take up a hobby (and stick to it), and use breathing techniques to ward off stress when it first starts.

Reason #5: Birth Control Pills (or Other Synthetic Hormones)

According to the Mayo Clinic, taking the birth control pill can make you more likely to suffer from fluid retention. It also makes fat cells or adipose cells grow larger in size. This is due to the effect of estrogen in the birth control pill on the body chemistry.

How to Know:

If you take the birth control pill and find since you’ve started you’ve gained weight or your clothes feel tight or uncomfortable the ‘pill’ may be the cause.

What to Do:

Consider a more natural form of birth control [3], like Fertility Awareness. Aside from weight gain, there are many other negative side effects to birth control pills like anxiety, headaches, nausea, and trouble getting pregnant after discontinuation. They also increase your risk for cancer and stroke. If you are taking birth control pills for another health reason, learn how to naturally balance your hormones using nutrition and exercise.

Our bodies operate on a delicate balance. We throw so much at our precious bodies on a daily basis we often forget how important it is to protect. If you’ve been struggling to achieve your optimal weight (which we all should) consider these five very common roadblocks for women trying to lose weight. Once you know the cause for you – take action!

Sources
Mayo Clinic (2009) [4]

Newsmaxhealth.com

Dr. Russell Blaylock is a nationally recognized board-certified neurosurgeon, health practitioner, author, lecturer, and editor of The Blaylock Wellness Report.

The growing outrage over the Transportation Security Administration’s new policy of backscatter scanning of airline passengers and “enhanced pat-downs” brings to mind these wise words from President Ronald Reagan: “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.’”

So, what is all the concern really about — will these radiation scanners increase your risk of cancer or other diseases? A group of scientists and professors from the University of California at San Francisco voiced their concern to Obama’s science and technology adviser John Holdren in a well-stated letter back in April.

The group included experts in radiation biology, biophysics, and imaging, who expressed “serious concerns” about the “dangerously high” dose of radiation to the skin.

Radiation increases cancer risk by damaging the DNA and various components within the cells. Much of the damage is caused by high concentrations of free radicals generated by the radiation. Most scientists think that the most damaging radiation types are those that have high penetration, such as gamma-rays, but in fact, some of the most damaging radiation barely penetrates the skin.

One of the main concerns is that most of the energy from the airport scanners is concentrated on the surface of the skin and a few millimeters into the skin. Some very radiation-sensitive tissues are close to the skin — such as the testes, eyes, and circulating blood cells in the skin.

This is why defenders using such analogies as the dose being “1,000-times less than a chest X-ray” and “far less than what passengers are exposed to in-flight” are deceptive. Radiation damage depends on the volume of tissue exposed. Chest X-rays and gamma-radiation from outer space is diffused over the entire body so that the dose to the skin is extremely small. Of note, outer space radiation does increase cancer rates in passengers, pilots, and flight attendants.

We also know that certain groups of people are at a much higher risk than others. These include babies, small children, pregnant women, the elderly, people with impaired immunity (those with HIV infection, cancer patients, people with immune deficiency diseases, and people with abnormal DNA repair mechanism, just to name a few).

As we grow older, our DNA accumulates a considerable amount of unrepaired damage, and under such circumstances even low doses of radiation can trigger the development of skin cancers, including the deadly melanoma. I would also be concerned about exposing the eyes, since this could increase one’s risk of developing cataracts.

About 5 percent of the population have undiagnosed abnormal DNA repair mechanism. When exposed to radiation, this can put them at a cancer risk hundreds of times greater than normal people.

It also has been determined that when skin is next to certain metals, such as gold, the radiation dose is magnified 100-fold higher. What if you have a mole next to your gold jewelry? Will the radiation convert it to a melanoma? Deficiencies in certain vitamins can dramatically increase your sensitivity to radiation carcinogenesis, as can certain prescription medications.

As for the assurances we have been given by such organization as the American College of Radiology, we must keep in mind that they assured us that the CT scans were safe and that the radiation was equal to one chest X-ray. Forty years later we learn that the dose is extremely high, it is thought to have caused cancer in a significant number of people, and the dose is actually equal to 1,000 chest X-rays.

Based on these assurances, tens of thousands of children have been exposed to radiation doses from CT scanners, which will ruin the children’s lives. I have two friends who were high-ranking Environmental Protection Agency scientists, and they assure me that in government safety agencies, politics most often override the scientists’ real concerns about such issues.

This government shares House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s view when she urged passage of the Obamacare bill sight unseen — “Let’s just pass the bill, and we will find out what is in it later.”

When the real effects of these scanners on health become known, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and the rest of the gang who insist the scanners are safe will be long gone.

© 2010 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

“I Opt Out:” What You Must Know About New Airport Backscatter Scanners

Posted By Dr. Axe On November 24, 2010 @ 1:00 am In Cancer | 1 Comment

If you’ve paid any attention to the news over the past month or so you’ve heard all the controversy about the new scanners at sixty-eight airports across the country. It seems like every time we turn around someone is complaining about something or someone wants to object to one or another implemented change.

Coming on the heels of last year’s thwarted Christmas Day terrorist attack on Northwest Airlines Flight 253, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has chosen to implement a way to deter terrorists and provide a level of security for travelers through the use of the whole body backscatter scanner.

But will this device deter and catch terrorists? And of equal importance, will it cause more harm to innocent travelers than ever intended?

Holiday Travel Plans: Will Yours Change?
With today’s transient world more and more people travel during the holidays, particularly Thanksgiving and Christmas. The most opted for form of travel is the airplane. Do you or someone you love plan to do any air travel during the fast approaching holiday season? If so, you’ll want to read on and find out more about these backscatter scanners causing a national stir.

First, it’s important to note that there are more than just everyday air travelers up in arms about these new x-ray machines. It’s not just about an invasion of privacy, although with these whole body backscatter scanners the airport security viewing the images can see many parts of the body considered private.

These scanners show such an accurate body picture the user can detect whether the passenger (or airplane personnel) are male or female, have surgical scars, and even if a female passenger is menstruating. But that’s not even the most notable concern.

The concerns expressed by two airline unions, The United States Pilot Association and the Allied Pilots Association as well as a group of four scientists from the University of California in San Francisco are about the health and well being of air travelers and airplane personnel like fight attendants and pilots.

University of California’s Researchers Health Concerns Voiced
The two airline unions mentioned above sent letters out to all of their members, totaling almost 20,000 pilots flying for US Airways and American Airlines urging them to avoid and opt out of these whole body backscatter scanners.

The unions stated concerns about the safety of the accumulative effects of these intense x-ray machines on pilots who already are exposed to far more radiation on the job than even nuclear plant workers.

But the unions aren’t the only organizations alarmed by the addition of these scanners to airports nationwide. Four scientists from the University of California’s San Francisco campus are so concerned about the impact of these body scanners on public health they were compelled to put it in writing and send it to Presidential Science Adviser John Holdren.

In their letter the group voiced serious concerns for the health of the public with the use of these machines. The group, led by scientist John W. Sedat, PhD and Professor Emeritus in the Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, stated that the whole body backscatter scanner hasn’t been fully or adequately tested for certain safety concerns, mostly having to do with radiation exposure.

One of the primary concerns with the backscatter scanners is that the radiation is delivered almost entirely to the skin and underlying tissues. The amount of radiation delivered would be better distributed throughout the entire body, however with this type of scanner it is strictly put on the skin and tissues. This makes the amount of radiation delivered to the skin and tissues high.

The type of radiation used is ionizing radiation. This type of radiation’s effects are cumulative and they are a known health hazard. This means that every time you are exposed to it, you are adding to your risk of developing cancer.

The group also voices concern that there is no independent scientific data ensuring that the amounts of radiation claimed by the government to be delivered during a scan is accurate.

The other area of concern is for certain passengers who will go through these backscatter scanners while they travel. Certain groups are more susceptible to the harmful effects of radiation than others.

People Who MUST Avoid Backscatter Scanners

•Older travelers over the age of 65
•Certain females sensitive to mutagenesis- provoking radiation
•Immune compromised individuals
•Children and adolescents
•Pregnant women
The problem for some of these people is known, or at least partially known. For older travelers we already know that this group is at risk for problems from the mutating impact of x-rays based on the biology of the body from melanocyte aging.

A percentage of the female population suffers from defects in their DNA repair mechanisms making them more likely to suffer from cancers from radiation often leading to breast cancer. In fact, this group of women is recommended to avoid mammograms for this reason. (I actually recommend that NO women get a mammogram.)

When it comes to the latter three groups the problem is that not enough is known about the cumulative effects of the whole body backscatter scanner. When it comes to health, these groups in general they are always more susceptible to health issues from radiation exposure.

Another concern is what happens when the system malfunctions? What are the dangers if the machine doesn’t scan but instead gets ‘stuck’ on one part of the body? What is the potential radiation exposure to that one part and what are the resulting health effects? The problem is no one really knows yet the government is now virtually forcing millions of Americans to find out by trial and error.

As John Sedat stated in his groups letter to Holdren,

“Crises create a sense of urgency that frequently leads to hasty decisions where unintended consequences are not recognized.”

Think blood transfusions and HIV amongst other huge ‘goofs’ by well intending government agencies.

Getting Proactive for Holiday Travel
So now what? These devices will be popping up in more and more airports across the country. Do you have to go through them? Do you have a choice?

Of course you do but you must exercise this choice.

There are several options if you plan to use air travel. First of all you can look for the lines without the backscatter scanners which are blue and have two walls. The other machine you can choose is the millimeter-wave machine which is cylindrical in shape and whitish-gray in color.

If you can’t make this choice and do find yourself face to face with the backscatter scanner you can opt out. You cannot be forced to go through this machine. However in this case you must go through a physical ‘pat down.’

Don’t expect all airport security personnel to be understanding; in fact some may insist you say the exact phrase as follows,

“I opt out.”

Simple but now very powerful words.

If you do opt out be prepared for the pat down. The TSA is now using what they call the enhanced pat down which includes using their palms to search genitals. This is also allowed for children so be aware of what’s going on before you decide to fly and opt out of the backscatter machines. The entire pat down should last no more than ten minutes. You are able to request a member of your same sex perform the pat down, as well as request that the pat down is done in public view.

Opting out is your right, you may be intimidated into the scan but standing your ground is your legal right and should be exercised if you want to do so. If for any reason you feel the pat down for you or any member of your family was inappropriate either contact local law enforcement or the TSA complaint line at 1-866-289-9673. Be sure to take note of the name of the TSA employee who did your pat down.

It’s vital that we make a serious effort to protect ourselves from the new terrorist threat but it’s equally important that in haste and fear we don’t jeopardize our own health, both now and long term. Avoiding excessive radiation is vital to optimal health and vital living. Exercise your rights to optimal living!

Sources
National Public Radio (2010) [1]

Next Gov (2010) [2]

University of California San Francisco (2010) [3]

We Won’t Fly (2010) [4]

JUSTIN PRITCHARD | 11/21/10 08:50 PM |

LOS ANGELES — Drinking glasses depicting comic book and movie characters such as Superman, Wonder Woman and the Tin Man from “The Wizard of Oz” exceed federal limits for lead in children’s products by up to 1,000 times, according to laboratory testing commissioned by The Associated Press.

The decorative enamel on the superhero and Oz sets – made in China and purchased at a Warner Brothers Studios store in Burbank – contained between 16 percent and 30.2 percent lead. The federal limit on children’s products is 0.03 percent.

The same glasses also contained relatively high levels of the even-more-dangerous cadmium, though there are no federal limits on that toxic metal in design surfaces.

In separate testing to recreate regular handling, other glasses shed small but notable amounts of lead or cadmium from their decorations. Federal regulators have worried that toxic metals rubbing onto children’s hands can get into their mouths. Among the brands on those glasses: Coca-Cola, Walt Disney, Burger King and McDonald’s.

Coca-Cola, which had been given AP’s test results last week, announced Sunday evening that after retesting it was voluntarily recalling 88,000 glasses.

The AP testing was part of the news organization’s ongoing investigation into dangerous metals in children’s products and was conducted in response to a recall by McDonald’s of 12 million glasses this summer because cadmium escaped from designs depicting four characters in the latest “Shrek” movie.

The New Jersey manufacturer of those glasses said in June that the products were made according to standard industry practices, which includes the routine use of cadmium to create red and similar colors.

To assess potential problems with glass collectibles beyond the “Shrek” set, AP bought and analyzed new glasses off the shelf, and old ones from online auctions, thrift shops and a flea market. The buys were random.

The fact it was so easy to find glasses that appeal to kids and appear to violate the federal lead law suggests that contamination in glassware is wider than one McDonald’s promotion.

The irony of the latest findings is that AP’s original investigation in January revealed that some Chinese manufacturers were substituting cadmium for banned lead in children’s jewelry; that finding eventually led to the McDonald’s-Shrek recall; now, because of the new testing primarily for cadmium in other glassware, lead is back in the spotlight as well.

AP’s testing, conducted by ToyTestingLab of Rhode Island, found that the enamel used to color the Tin Man had the highest lead levels, at 1,006 times the federal limit for children’s products. Every Oz and superhero glass tested exceeded the government limit: The Lion by 827 times and Dorothy by 770 times; Wonder Woman by 533 times, Superman by 617 times, Batman by 750 times and the Green Lantern by 677 times.

Federal regulators will decide whether the superhero and Oz glasses are “children’s products” and thus subject to strict lead limits; if U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission staffers conclude the glasses to fall outside that definition, the lead levels would be legal.

Judging by the agency’s own analysis, obtained by the AP under the Freedom of Information Act, the Oz and superhero glasses appeal to kids.

“Licensed characters based on action superhero themes or friendship themes are very popular” with children ages 6 to 8, CPSC staff wrote when explaining why the “Shrek” glasses, which featured the cartoon ogre and his friends, would end up in children’s hands.

Warner Brothers said, “It is generally understood that the primary consumer for these products is an adult, usually a collector.”

However, on Warner Brothers’ website, the superhero glasses are sold alongside kids’ T-shirts with similar images and a school lunch box. An online retailer, , describes the 10-ounce glasses as “a perfect way to serve cold drinks to your children or guests.” http://www.retroplanet.com

The importer, Utah-based Vandor LLC, said it “markets its products to adult collectors.” The company said less than 10,000 of each set had been sold and that the products were made under contract in China.

The company said that superhero and “Oz” glasses both passed testing done for Vandor by a CPSC-accredited lab, including the same lead content test that ToyTestingLab did for AP – a test only required of children’s products. Spokeswoman Meryl Rader did not answer when asked why a test specific to children’s products would be performed on glasses the company said were not intended for kids.

“The results were well within the legal limits” of 0.03 percent lead, Rader wrote in an e-mail. The company would not share those results.

Informed in general terms of AP’s results, CPSC spokesman Scott Wolfson said that the agency would pursue action against any high-lead glasses determined to be children’s products. The agency has authority to enforce lead levels for glasses going back decades, he said.

AP’s testing showed Vandor’s Chinese manufacturer also relied on cadmium. That toxic metal comprised up to 2.5 percent of the decorative surface of the Oz and superhero glasses, nearly double the levels found in the recalled “Shrek” glasses. But the CPSC only limits how much cadmium escapes from the designs, not how much cadmium the designs contain. Even that regulation is new: The CPSC used the “Shrek” glasses to establish a standard for how much cadmium coming out of children’s glassware creates a health hazard.

Five of the glasses that AP tested, including one ordered from the online Coca-Cola store, shed at least as much cadmium as the CPSC found on the “Shrek” glasses. While those five could have been deemed a health hazard under the CPSC guidelines used for the recall, recent revisions tripled the allowable amount of cadmium and the agency may no longer consider them a problem. The agency has said its upward revision means the “Shrek” glasses did not need to be recalled.

The all-red Coke glass shed three times more cadmium than the Puss in Boots “Shrek” glass that worried federal regulators the most last summer. Coke Zero and Diet Coke glasses did not exhibit the same problem.

In announcing that it was voluntarily recalling 22,000, four-glass sets “for quality reasons,” the Coca-Cola Co. said the glass designed to look like a red can of Coca-Cola “did not meet our quality expectations. While recent tests indicated some cadmium in the decoration on the outside of the glass, the low levels detected do not pose a safety hazard or health threat.”

The company said consumers who purchased the glasses from Coke’s online store will receive an automatic credit; customers who bought the glasses in retail stores will be instructed on what to do starting Nov. 30.

The glasses, which Coke said were “designed for the general adult population,” were manufactured in the United States by Arc International, the same company that made the recalled “Shrek” glasses.

In all, AP scrutinized 13 new glasses and 22 old ones, including glasses sold during McDonald’s promotion for a 2007 “Shrek” movie. The used glasses date from the late 1960s to 2007, mostly from promotions at major fast-food restaurants. Thousands of such collectibles are available at online auction sites; countless others are kept in American kitchen cabinets, and used regularly by children and adults.

First, AP screened them using a state-of-the-art Olympus Innov-X gun that shoots X-rays into a glass and delivers an estimate of how much lead, cadmium or various other elements are present.

The glasses were then sent to ToyTestingLab, which is accepted by the CPSC as an accredited laboratory for a range of procedures.

The glasses were tested according to the procedure that the safety commission used in the “Shrek” recall. The decorated surface of each glass was stroked 30 times with water-soaked wipes, with each stroke representing a hand touch. The wipes were then analyzed for how many micrograms of lead, cadmium or other elements they collected.

Finally, for seven of the superhero and Oz glasses the lab extracted samples of the decorations. That colored enamel was analyzed for its total lead content.

“I was extremely surprised at the levels,” said Paul Perrotti, ToyTestingLab’s director, of the total content test. He said his lab has seen glasses that fail to meet government standards, “But not 30 percent lead.”

Despite what Perrotti described as “grossly high” levels, the wipe testing picked up very little lead coming out from these seven glasses. His staff had to use a diamond-tipped grinder to remove the colors, suggesting the enamel was strongly bonded to the glass.

Perrotti and glass engineers interviewed by AP said the surface of the glasses AP tested could break down with repeated use, scouring and trips to the dishwasher, making the metals more accessible.

Following a cascade of problems with products manufactured in China, Congress in 2008 passed strict new limits that effectively ban lead in any children’s product. The underlying materials in these products – including the baked-in enamel – cannot be more 0.03 percent lead.

Lead has long been known to reduce IQ in kids; recent research suggests cadmium also can damage young brains. Cadmium also is a carcinogen that can harm kidneys and bones, especially if it accumulates over time.

Cadmium, however, also happens to be an indispensable pigment for an important part of the color palette – without it there is no “fire engine red” (think Superman’s cape and Dorothy’s slippers). Lead on the other hand is not essential.

A lot of a toxic metal in a glass does not necessarily mean a health hazard. Most of the 35 lab-tested glasses were safe under normal conditions – their decorations shed very low or no detectable amounts of lead or cadmium. Among those that did release higher levels in the wipe test, none gave off nearly enough to make someone immediately sick, according to AP’s analysis of the results.

Instead, the concern is low levels of exposure over weeks or months, whether kids also are eating a sandwich or licking their fingers.

In addition to the seven contaminated Oz and superhero glasses, 10 others raised concern over longer-term contact – two for both lead and cadmium, five for lead only and three for cadmium only. According to widely used computer modeling, the contamination that came off three of the glasses could measurably increase a child’s blood lead level.

If half of what gets onto a child’s hand enters their mouth, as the CPSC calculates, seven of the glasses would require fewer than 20 hand touches for kids age 6 and under to exceed U.S. Food and Drug Administration guidelines for the maximum amount of lead they should ingest in a day.

Most of the 10 additional glasses were released before 2000, including a Disney “Goofy” glass distributed by McDonald’s that shed lead and cadmium, and three “Return of the Jedi” glasses from 1983 released by Burger King. One of the “Jedi” glasses hit the FDA lead level for 6-year-olds after just eight touches.

Both fast food chains said in statements that their glasses met applicable safety standards at the time they were manufactured. Disney, which ran several promotions with McDonald’s for glassware AP tested, had no comment.

Using computer modeling, nationally recognized toxicologist Dr. Paul Mushak, who has advised government agencies including the CPSC and now operates a consulting practice in North Carolina, concluded that if half of what came off the glasses was ingested, it could raise a 5- to 6-year-old’s blood lead level by 11 percent on the high end and 4 percent on average.

The blood level changes didn’t alarm Mushak, but he expressed concern because lead from the glasses would be absorbed into the bones, only to be released much later in life, for example in menopausal women.

Mushak suggested that the safety commission’s wipe test could underestimate real-world exposure, because it uses water on the wipes, a very mild approach. AP’s testing showed that when glasses were subjected to a wipe wetted with artificial sweat, the amounts of lead or cadmium that came off were up to four times higher than water wipes.

Members of the association representing the U.S. glassware industry say the glasses are safe and strongly protest that the wipe test does not accurately reflect how much lead or cadmium escapes in the real world.

Myra Warne, executive director of the Society of Glass and Ceramic Decorated Products, said she is frustrated that the CPSC used it, rather than a more commonly used method developed by the FDA.

“As we are aware, government agencies don’t always (or perhaps often) share their insight and knowledge with one another which is likely why CPSC and others are fixated on improper test protocol for our products,” she wrote in an e-mail.

___

The AP National Investigative Team can be reached at investigate(at)ap.org

November 10 2009

by Dr. Josh Axe

Stress is a part of everyday life. Without it we would never get off the couch, never worry about our work efforts, what our kids are up to, never put out the fire or avoid the car that veers into our lane!

The degree of stress that we encounter on a constant basis in modern society, however, has reached epidemic proportions.

“Stress is nothing more than a socially acceptable form of mental illness.”
~Richard Carlson

I love the quote above, because we often do fall into the trap of stressing out and just generally driving ourselves crazy.

But it’s important to remember that stress triggers the “fight-or-flight” response. The surge of adrenaline and the slowing down of other basic functions provides us with the instant energy we need to run from a predator or battle an attacker.

This survival response comes with side effects though. Over time, that extra energy and alertness comes with altered hormone levels, heightened blood sugar, depleted nutrients and lowered neurotransmitters.

Over time, our bodies adapt to invoke that same response with smaller and smaller triggers.

“Fight or flight” is the normal operating mode for many of us, rather than the true emergency survival mechanism it was meant to be. We rarely work off that energy, take restorative actions or release ourselves from that state of mind.

Chronic stress affects every bodily system. It suppresses the immune system, slows metabolism and cell regeneration, makes airways reactive and creates muscle tension. It is estimated that 90% of doctor visits can be traced back to stress.

Stress can be linked to weight gain, heart disease and depression. It increases the risk of diabetes, hypertension, arthritis and osteoporosis.

Stress impairs cognitive function over time, reducing creativity, memory and problem-solving skills.

Headaches, sexual dysfunction, irritability, problems sleeping and addictive behaviors are often stress-related.

The degree of stress we experience on a daily basis might be a cultural norm but personal priorities, personal choices and our purposeful reactions to stress can limit the negative health effects of stress.

Pick a few of these suggestions below to reduce stress in your life and promote health and healing in your body.

1. Spiritual Triathlon. This is my personal method for keeping my focus throughout the day. Every morning when I wake up I spend 5 minutes saying all that I am grateful for, 5 minutes in prayer and 5 minutes reading my Bible or something inspirational.

2. Schedule relaxation. Write it down in your planner and stick to it. Make time at least once a week to do something you love–something that refreshes you. Maybe that’s a game of tennis, spending an hour alone with a good book or taking a yoga class.

3. Pour yourself a cup. Many varieties of hot tea have calming effects on the body and can help lower blood pressure. Try green or black tea or herbal teas with chamomile.

4. Take a deep breath. Try deep breathing for a few minutes every day. Tighten and release muscles. Hum to release nitric oxide and improve blood pressure.

5. Just say “No.” I promise it’s ok! Don’t spread yourself too thin or you won’t be able to give 100% of your efforts to any of the tasks you attempt. Your value does not depend upon how much you do for others at the expense of your own time, relationships and health.

“Men, for the sake of getting a living, forget to live.” ~Margaret Fuller

6. Expel excess adrenaline. Before, during and after stressful situations, walk briskly for 5 minutes, run up a flight of stairs, do backward pushups on your chair, or do 5 minutes of deep breathing. A short burst of physical activity can expel anxiety and give you clarity and calm.

7. Ask yourself why. The next time you’re racing around trying to accomplish too many things in too short a time, ask yourself why you’re doing it, who it really serves, what belief its based on, whether this feeling is really what you want, whether this is a value or principle you want to base your life on.

“Worry does not empty tomorrow of its sorrow; it empties today of its strength.”
~Corrie Ten Boom

8. Nix the caffeine, nicotine and alcohol. Don’t add to nervous energy with stimulants and don’t mask stress with alcohol. The long-term effects compound the negative effects of stress.

9. Exercise regularly. Regular exercise helps expel built-up tension, stress hormones and clears the mind. Exercise helps to release endorphins, the brain’s natural feel-good chemicals. I recommend Burst Training for the most health benefits.

10. Sleep. Staying up late to get more done robs you of your total productivity. It dulls your mind, increases stress, promotes weight gain and contributes to mood swings.

11. Use your senses. Find colors that soothe you, wear fabrics that please you. Take a scented bath, play music you love. Paint, get a massage, or take a walk in the woods.

“Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take,
but by the number of moments that take our breath away.”
~Hilary Cooper

12. Connect with others. Making time for social connection is very important and restorative. Social connection is what makes us a part of something larger than ourselves and our worries. It gives us perspective.

13. Serve someone else. Related to connecting with others, try volunteering at a soup kitchen, making meals for parents with a newborn baby or helping with home repairs for an elderly neighbor. Remind yourself that it’s not always all about you.

“If you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change.”
~Wayne Dwyer

14. Be prepared. You can combat alarmist or catastrophic thinking by being prepared. Keep a change of clothes in the car, create an emergency fund for car repairs, have an alternative proposal in mind at work.

15. Make a vision board. Write down your goals and post them on a board where it can be seen every day. What do you want to accomplish? Who do you want to become? Print out pictures to visually remind yourself of what is most important to you.

“Life is a journey, not a destination.” ~Rumi

16. Share responsibility. Delegating really is an important skill. Instead of complaining about how much you have to accomplish, teach your kids to cook, share the credit with a co-worker, or work out sports shuttling with another parent.

By Miriam Falco, CNN Medical Managing Editor
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Giving children antibiotics for ear infections does little to speed their recovery

Only using antibiotics when it’s absolutely necessary may preserve the use of antibiotics

The study found that 80 out of 100 children would recover from an acute ear infection within days
(CNN) — Giving children antibiotics for ear infections does little to speed their recovery while raising the risk of some side effects, according to a study published Tuesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The study found that 80 out of 100 otherwise healthy children would recover from an acute ear infection within a few days if given medication only to relieve pain or fevers. If all 100 were given antibiotics instead, 92 would be better in the same period, said Dr. Tumaini Coker, the study’s lead author.

“But we would also expect three to 10 kids to develop rash and five to 10 to develop diarrhea,” said Coker, a pediatrician at Mattel Children’s Hospital at the University of California-Los Angeles.

Coker noted that the increased number of children in the study who benefited from treatment with antibiotics was similar to the number that could be expected to get side effects from the antibiotic treatment.

“Clinicians and parents need to know the benefits and side effects on how to manage their child’s ear infection,” Coker said.

The study was designed to review existing research on the topic for the American Academy of Pediatrics, which is in the process of revising its guidelines for treating uncomplicated acute otitis media — ear infections that cause pain and fever. The pediatricians’ group and the American Academy of Family Physicians have suggested since 2004 that “observation” — avoiding antibiotics — is an option for treating ear infections in otherwise healthy children between the ages of 2 and 12.

Of the three basic types of ear infections, acute otitis media may benefit from antibiotics because it is often caused by a bacteria. But it also can be caused by a virus, which won’t respond to antibiotics.

Another type of ear infection, otitis media with effusion, causes a buildup of fluid in the middle ear. That is also caused by a viral infection, against which antibiotics are ineffective. But antibiotics usually work for the third type, otitis externa, or “swimmer’s ear.”

It is the academy’s policy to review guidelines every three to five years, according to Dr. Allan Lieberthal, a pediatrician at Kaiser Permanente in the Los Angeles area and chairman of the academy’s committee revising the guidelines.

Lieberthal said that while he is not in a position to say what the new guidelines will be, the results of this study, which summarizes a much larger report on existing data, will factor into the new recommendations.

“We’re hoping to be finished with the new guidelines by this spring,” Lieberthal said.

The study found that it doesn’t matter which antibiotic is used to treat an ear infection when antibiotics are warranted. It found older types such as amoxicillin work as well as newer and more expensive antibiotics. Coker said for a child who weighs 44 pounds (20 kilograms), a seven-day course of cefdinir costs about $96, while the same course of amoxicillin costs $34. The cheaper drug was prescribed in 49 percent of cases, according to the research. Lieberthal said newer antibiotics generally produce more side effects because they are more complex drugs.

Using antibiotics only when absolutely necessary may allow continued use of antibiotics for future generations, because overuse of the drugs is contributing to antibiotic resistance, the doctors said.

This week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention launched a campaign called “Get Smart: Know When Antibiotics Work.” Educating parents about ear infections is one of the targets of the campaign, said Lauri Hicks, the campaign’s medical director. Hicks said antibiotic resistance “represents a community problem” because every time bacteria get exposed to antibiotics, “they put on a new coat of armor that reduces the effectiveness of antibiotics.”

Hicks said she understands parents want their children to feel better, but they can always ask their doctor or pharmacist if there are alternatives to antibiotics.

By Deborah Huso Nov 17th 2010 1:06PM

More than 13 percent of Medicare patients in the U.S. experience an adverse event each month in American hospitals, and some 15,000 of them die as a result.

The events are often the result of medical errors, like surgical mistakes or infections that have originated in and spread through the hospital. The data comes from a new report from the Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General.

The report, which was released this month, was designed to track medical errors, determine their preventability, and then estimate the cost of those errors to Medicare plans. Medicare covers some 40 million Americans, most of them age 65 or older, though it also covers disabled patients as well as those suffering from end-stage renal disease.

The news is startling, particularly since the report points out that 44 percent of adverse incidents occurring in hospitals are avoidable. And all-together, these adverse events are costing Medicare more than $300 million a month.

And while Kevin K. Golladay, regional inspector general for evaluation and inspections with OIG, told AOL Health the Medicare population doesn’t experience anymore adverse effects in hospital settings than the general population, Dr. Albert Wu, professor of health policy and management at John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, says elderly patients are of special concern.

“They are both more likely to experience errors in care and more likely to suffer adverse consequences,” Wu told AOL after reviewing the OIG report. “They have many more things wrong with them and are more likely to be taking many medications.”

But as the OIG report indicates, the problem is a large one and not easy to remedy. Golladay says hospitals need to pay greater attention to errors and report them. “There is much oversight and attention to events such as performing surgery on the wrong body part or leaving an object in the patient during surgery,” he says, “but little attention to events that harm patients far more often, such as intravenous fluid overload and poor diabetes control.”

He thinks hospitals need to have greater incentives to reduce errors and adverse events, and the OIG report suggests that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services could perhaps create this incentive by denying payment for conditions acquired while in the hospital setting.

Golladay says hospitals also need to actively adopt evidence-based practices for reducing adverse effects. Wu agrees, pointing out that Johns Hopkins Hospital has developed a reporting system on adverse effects and gets about 1,000 reports a month, indicating, he says, that hospital staff are starting to take note and understand there is a problem industry-wide.

But as government agencies and hospitals work to reduce risks to patients while under hospital care, patients can be proactive in preventing adverse events too.

“When a loved one is hospitalized, family members should educate themselves regarding medical treatment and expected outcomes and speak up when things go awry,” Golladay says. “To facilitate this, hospital staff should treat patients and their familes as partners, welcoming family monitoring of patients as an additional safeguard against poor medical outcomes.”

Wu, too, urges patients and families to take action for themselves, advising them to always communicate with health-care providers about medications they are taking, allergies they have, doctors they have seen recently, changes in treatments and recent surgeries. “Patients can help prevent things from falling through the cracks,” Wu says. “Be more assertive in reporting what you see or expressing concerns. If a provider doesn’t wash his hands, report it.”

November 15, 2010 By Dr. Mom Online

Yesterday I decided to cook with one of the pumpkins sitting outside on our deck that had been spared the Jack-o-Lantern treatment at Halloween.

I had been given a “Meal in a Pumpkin” recipe by a friend of mine a few weeks ago, so I thought it sounded like a fun way to cook dinner that the kids would enjoy helping with. Grandpa was coming over for dinner, so we figured we’d “wow” him with our creative culinary skills… because he’s easily impressed!

There’s not much rocket science to this recipe… it’s basically just a stuffed pumpkin, more than a “meal” in a pumpkin!

Here are the ingredients I used:

1 medium pumpkin (large enough to hold your meal but short enough to fit into your oven!)
2 lbs. grass-fed ground bison
1 cooking onion
2.5 cups (dry) organic long-grain brown rice
1/2 – 3/4 cup dried organic cranberries
1/2 – 3/4 cup organic roasted pumpkin seeds (The particular recipe I was given called for pine nuts… but I’m in a frugal mood these days!)
allspice – to taste
cinnamon – to taste
sea salt and freshly ground pepper – to taste
pure coconut oil
grass-fed butter

Picking “Dinner”!
Preparations:

Cut a hole in the top of the pumpkin, large enough to easily put your meal in. Set the lid aside – you’ll need it later. Clean out the seeds and excessive pumpkin membrane. Place the pumpkin on a foil-lined baking sheet.

Pre-heat your oven to 350 degrees. Check the height of your oven rack to make sure your pumpkin will fit.

Cook the brown rice on the stove top or in rice steamer as per directions. I added a bit of grass-fed butter to the mixture during cooking.
While the rice is cooking, brown the ground meat on the stove top in a large skillet. I used coconut oil to cook it in.
Add some chopped onions, if you like. I added approximately 1/3 of a small onion. Not a whole lot this time.
Once the meat is nearing completion, add the spices to taste.
Add the rice, cranberries and pumpkin seeds (*and whatever else your heart desires!) to the meat in the skillet – mix together.
As an afterthought, I added just a few pieces of diced organic apples. Next time, I’ll add more – great flavor!

* Obviously, you can use whatever combination of ingredients you want for the mixture. I used what I had on hand!

Now scoop your mixture into the pumpkin. Put the lid back on the pumpkin. Place the pumpkin on the baking sheet into the oven and cook for 1 and 1/2 hours.

After the time is up, take the pumpkin out, open the lid (carefully… lots of steam!) and VOILA! Yummy, pumpkin flavored meal!

When you scoop the mixture out of the pumpkin to serve, you can pull a little bit of the pumpkin membrane along with the mixture… yummy!

Last night, we served this mixture alongside fresh greens, steamed green beans and roasted carrots.

I had kept all the seeds as we cleaned out the pumpkin, scooping them onto their own baking sheet. After I pulled the pumpkin out of the oven, I put the seeds in to roast them. Our kids love to snack on pumpkin seeds, so they had fun ‘making’ their own snack!

Good thing to make if you need to get rid of some pumpkins this time of year!

by Evelyn Pringle, health freedom writer

(NaturalNews) The United States has become the psychiatric drugging capital of the world for kids with children being medicated at a younger and younger age. Medicaid records in some states show infants less than a year old on drugs for mental disorders.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On April 7, 2009, the author of the book, “Shyness: How Normal Behavior Became a Sickness,” Christopher Lane, featured an interview on his Psychology Today blog, “Side Effects,” with journalist, Philip Dawdy, the creator of the popular website, Furious Seasons, and discussed the rising number of children being diagnosed with bipolar disorder.

“As for bipolar disorder in kids (meaning pre-teens and younger), it’s simply not an issue in the rest of the world,” Dawdy told Lane. “The bipolar child is a purely American phenomenon.”

“The pharma companies and the Harvard crew worked hand-in-hand to bring America a generation of ADHD kids and bipolar children, and their profound influence can be seen in the millions of children and teens who now carry lifetime diagnoses and take gobs of psychotropic drugs each day, often to their detriment,” he advised.

Lane asked for Dawdy’s opinion on a recent report in the St Petersburg Times that found 23 infants less than one-year-old had been prescribed antipsychotics in Florida in 2007, as well as the drug overdose death of 4-year-old Rebecca Riley in Massachusetts. “How is it possible for psychiatrists to continue prescribing to infants in such numbers without more oversight?” Lane asked.

“What’s gone on with antipsychotics prescribed to infants and toddlers is simply inexplicable to me,” Dawdy said. “The drugs are known to cause huge problems in adults, so why the heck would a doctor give them to little kids, especially infants? It boggles my small mind.”

“I’m no fan of bans or restrictions,” he told Lane, “but this does strike me as a situation where there needs to be a serious rethinking of what we are doing — and maybe there should be a ban on the use of these drugs in kids under, say, 6 years of age.”

An October 2007 report by the University of South Florida found the most common diagnosis for antipsychotic use with children in Florida’s Medicaid program, between July and December 2005, was ADHD. Roughly 54%, or 1,372 cases, involved prescriptions for children five and under and the total number of antipsychotic users in this young age group was 2,549, with all disorders combined, according to the report.

Increased Prescribing to Poor Children
Federally funded research published online in December, 2009, revealed that children covered by Medicaid were prescribed antipsychotics at a rate four time higher than children with private insurance. The data showed that more than 4% of children in Medicaid fee-for-service programs received antipsychotics, compared to less than 1% of privately insured youth. The study found Medicaid kids were more likely to receive antipsychotics for unapproved uses such as ADHD and conduct disorders than privately insured children.

The researchers examined records for children in seven states for the years 2001 and 2004, chosen as representative of the US Medicaid population. But more recent data through 2007 indicates that the disparity has remained, said Stephen Crystal, a Rutgers professor who led the study, according to the December 11, 2009, New York Times.

Antipsychotics were the top selling class of drugs in both 2008 and 2009. With sales of $14.6 billion in 2009, they brought in more than the $13.6 billion earned by both heart burn and cholesterol medications. Antidepressants ranked fourth with sales of $9.9 billion, according to data by IMS Health. In 2008, the drug makers took in $11.3 billion from antiseizure drugs and $4.8 billion from ADHD drugs.

In a new book titled, “Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs, and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America,” Robert Whitaker reports that the number of children on government disability rolls due to severe mental illness has increased more than 35-fold since 1987.

The book explores the question of whether the epidemic rise in people disabled by mental illness, among all age groups in the US over the past 20 years, could have been fueled by a drug-based paradigm of care.

It also explores what is happening to children over the long-term who are placed on psychiatric drugs. “Once again, science tells a very clear story, and, as you might imagine, it is one that — when you think of the millions of children so affected — makes you want to weep,” Whitaker stated in a March 26, 2010, notice for the book’s release on the Beyond Meds Website.

About the author:
Evelyn Pringle is an investigative journalist focused on exposing corruption in government and corporate America. This report is one of a series of articles focused on the rising rates of psychiatric drugging in the US and is sponsored by the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology.