There is a small looping audio issue at 9 minutes. I will fix it but if I swap out the videos it will mess with youtube.
There is a small looping audio issue at 9 minutes. I will fix it but if I swap out the videos it will mess with youtube.
CHARLESTON SHOOTER WAS ON DRUG LINKED TO VIOLENT OUTBURSTS Dylann Storm Roof was taking habit-forming drug suboxone Charleston Shooter Was on Drug Linked to Violent Outbursts by PAUL JOSEPH WATSON | JUNE 18, 2015
Charleston shooter Dylann Storm Roof was reportedly taking a drug that has been linked with sudden outbursts of violence, fitting the pattern of innumerable other mass shooters who were on or had recently come off pharmaceutical drugs linked to aggression. According to a CBS News report, earlier this year when cops searched Roof after he was acting suspiciously inside a Bath and Body Works store, they found “orange strips” that Roof told officers was suboxone, a narcotic that is used to treat opiate addiction. Suboxone is a habit-forming drug that has been connected with sudden outbursts of aggression. A user on the MD Junction website relates how her husband “became violent, smashing things and threatening me,” after just a few days of coming off suboxone. Another poster on the Drugs.com website tells the story of how his personality completely changed as a result of taking suboxone. The individual relates how he became “nasty” and “violent” just weeks into taking the drug, adding that he would “snap” and be mean to people for no reason. Another poster reveals how his son-in-law “completely changed on suboxone,” and that the drug sent him into “self-destruct mode.” A user named ‘Jhalloway’ also tells the story of how her husband’s addiction to suboxone was “ruining our life.” A poster on a separate forum writes about how he became “horribly aggressive” towards his partner after taking 8mg of suboxone. A website devoted to horror stories about the drug called SubSux.com also features a post by a woman whose husband obtained a gun and began violently beating his 15-year-old son after taking suboxone. According to a Courier-Journal report, suboxone “is increasingly being abused, sold on the streets and inappropriately prescribed” by doctors. For some users, it is even more addictive than the drugs it’s supposed to help them quit. As we previously highlighted, virtually every major mass shooter was taking some form of SSRI or other pharmaceutical drug at the time of their attack, including Columbine killer Eric Harris, ‘Batman’ shooter James Holmes and Sandy Hook gunman Adam Lanza. As the website SSRI Stories profusely documents, there are literally hundreds of examples of mass shootings, murders and other violent episodes that have been committed by individuals on psychiatric drugs over the past three decades. Pharmaceutical giants who produce drugs like Zoloft, Prozac and Paxil spend around $2.4 billion dollars a year on direct-to-consumer television advertising every year. By running negative stories about prescription drugs, networks risk losing tens of millions of dollars in ad revenue, which is undoubtedly one of the primary reasons why the connection is habitually downplayed or ignored entirely.
Very exciting news this past week! The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND), formerly known as the American Dietetic Association, released surprising yet highly welcome comments regarding The DGA (Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee) Scientific Report, which include the following statements:
“The Academy supports the decision by the 2015 DGAC not to carry forward previous recommendations that cholesterol intake be limited to no more than 300 mg/day, as ‘available evidence shows no appreciable relationship between consumption of dietary cholesterol and serum cholesterol.'”
Conclusion: No restriction on cholesterol
“In the spirit of the 2015 DGAC’s commendable revision of previous DGAC recommendations to limit dietary cholesterol, the Academy suggests that HHS and USDA support a similar revision deemphasizing saturated fat as a nutrient of concern.”
As a registered dietitian, I was well aware that I was taking a risk in speaking out against the AND’s recommendations. The topics I cover in this blog are certainly controversial, at least from the point of view of most dietitians and health care providers. However, I’ve worked hard to make sure that every blog post I write is balanced, well-referenced, and takes all of the available evidence into consideration. I also include a disclaimer on myAbout Me page that my advice may run counter to recommendations of major health organizations, including the AND — one that I may be able to remove in the near future.
Still, in the back of my mind, I’ve always worried about retaliation from dietitians who feel that I may be providing harmful advice to my clients and readers of my blog posts and articles. I know at least two dietitians in other countries are being threatened with discipline for making low-carbohydrate recommendations that include higher amounts of fat and saturated fat than their governing bodies deem healthy. Because these investigations are ongoing, I can’t provide specifics about either case at the moment but will definitely do so in the future. In addition, I’ve received several emails from other dietitians who want to discuss carbohydrate restriction with their overweight and diabetic patients yet feel they can’t because it’s not accepted practice at the facilities where they work. It’s extremely upsetting to me that those of us who give truly beneficial advice are often seen as “rogue” practitioners who reject “evidence-based” guidelines, and that we need to watch our backs.
I sincerely hope that dietetic associations around the world follow the AND’s lead in updating their recommendations given the totality of the evidence, rather than maintaining the status quo. Improving the nutritional health of all individuals should be the highest priority of these organizations, and if that means admitting their previous positions were wrong, they should step up to the plate and do so.
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) June 10, 2015
Worse, while in the US the rising healthcare costs are at least spread across a broader social safety net, the TPP is targeting countries where the potential jump in drug prices will have dramatic effects. As the NYT notes, “foreign governments and health care activists have accused pharmaceutical giants, mostly based in the United States, of protecting profits over public health, especially in poor countrieswhere neither the government nor consumers can afford to pay rates anywhere close to those charged in wealthier nations.
What is amusing is that the true motive behind theTPP’s secrecy have been quite clear tovirtually everyone butthe population of theTPP’s host nation:
“It was very clear to everyone except the U.S. that the initial proposal wasn’t about transparency. It was about getting market access for the pharmaceutical industry by giving them greater access to and influence over decision-making processes around pricing and reimbursement,” said Deborah Gleeson, a lecturer at the School of Psychology and Public Health at La Trobe University in Australia. And even though the section, known as the transparency annex, has been toned down, she said, “I think it’s a shame that the annex is still being considered at all for the T.P.P.”
RT adds that one country that should be in arms over the TPP is Australia:
Why? Just so shareholders of pharmaceutical companies could reap even greater profits at theexpense of not just the US population, but of the populations of some of the biggest US trading partners, all of whom are about to see the prices of medical care skyrocket.And since nothing is confirmed until it is officially denied, here is the punchline:
“The transparency annex in T.P.P. is not subject to Investor-State Dispute Settlement, and nothing in its provisions will undermine our ability to pursue the best health care policy for Americans, including any future action on health care expenditures and cost containment,” a trade representative spokesman said.
Those Americans who may wish to challenge the claim well, they are out of luck: Congress is about to make sure there is no way anyone can have a say into what big corporations have in store for the US population.
Both mental illness and the use of psychiatric drugs have been blamed for violent behaviors, but the scientific evidence for a connection is limited. Now, a new study suggests that taking not only tranquilizers but also regular prescription pain relievers is linked with an increased risk of committing homicide.
Researchers in Europe found that people who were on certain medications were at greatest risk of killing someone, compared with people who were not using these medicines. The high-risk drugs include benzodiazepines, a class of tranquilizers used to treat anxiety, insomnia and panic disorders, as well as pain relievers, such as opioid medications and anti-inflammatories,
The results also showed that people taking antidepressants had only a slight increase in homicide risk compared with people taking other medications involved in the analysis, even after the researchers took into account factors such as mental illness. The study was published online today (June 1) in the journal World Psychiatry.
The substantially smaller risk associated with antidepressants is the study’s most important finding, said lead author Dr. Jari Tiihonen, a professor of psychiatry at the Karolinsksa Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden.
Antidepressants have previously been thought to be linked with crimes, for example, in some high-profile school shootings in Finland and the United States over the last decade, Tiihonen said.
In the new study, the researchers looked at data collected from about 960 men and women in Finland, ages 13 to 88, who were all convicted of homicide. For a control group, the researchers matched each person who committed homicide with 10 other people who had not committed homicide but were the same age and gender, and lived in the same town.
The researchers then searched a nationwide drug registry, looking at whether the people in the study had used psychiatric drugs, as well as medications that relieve pain, manage epilepsy and control addictions, over a seven-year period. The researchers also reviewed police reports to check whether the criminals were considered drunk or high at the time of these murders.
The findings showed that tranquilizers increased the risk of committing a homicide by 45 percent and antidepressant use increased the risk by 31 percent. [Understanding the 10 Most Destructive Human Behaviors]
But those psychiatric drugs had a more modest effect on homicide risk than other types of medications. The researchers were surprised to find that the use of anti-inflammatory pain relievers was tied to an increase of more than 200 percent in the risk of committing homicide, while opioid pain relievers elevated risk by 92 percent, Tiihonen said.
The researchers speculate that tranquilizers may weaken people’s impulse control. Other studies have suggested that using certain painkillers may dull mechanisms responsible for processing emotions.
It’s important to point out that the study found an association, not a cause-and-effect relationship, so it does not prove that the use of specific drugs could lead someone to kill.
And while a 200-percent increase may seem like a large effect, the actual likelihood of someone committing a murder is still quite low, because the baseline rate of homicides is low, Tiihonen told Live Science. This is true even in the United States, which has a higher rate than Finland, he said.
Tiihonen said he suspects that doing a similar analysis of homicide and drug use in the United States would produce similar results. The higher baseline rate of homicide in the United States may be attributed to a higher proportion of premeditated crimes compared with Finland, a country where homicides tend to be impulsive acts, he said.
When asked about the practical implications of these findings, Tiihonen said that people should not be worried about the risk of violence associated with antidepressant use.
“If anything, we should be concerned about prescriptions of high-dose benzodiazepines and opioid painkillers for people with substance abuse,” he said.
In the past few years more professionals have come forward to share a truth that, for many people, proves difficult to swallow. One such authority is Dr. Richard Horton, the current editor-in-chief of the Lancet – considered to be one of the most well respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world.
Dr. Horton recently published a statement declaring that a lot of published research is in fact unreliable at best, if not completely false.
“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.” (source)
This is quite disturbing, given the fact that all of these studies (which are industry sponsored) are used to develop drugs/vaccines to supposedly help people, train medical staff, educate medical students and more.
It’s common for many to dismiss a lot of great work by experts and researchers at various institutions around the globe which isn’t “peer-reviewed” and doesn’t appear in a “credible” medical journal, but as we can see, “peer-reviewed” doesn’t really mean much anymore. “Credible” medical journals continue to lose their tenability in the eyes of experts and employees of the journals themselves, like Dr. Horton.
He also went on to call himself out in a sense, stating that journal editors aid and abet the worst behaviours, that the amount of bad research is alarming, that data is sculpted to fit a preferred theory. He goes on to observe that important confirmations are often rejected and little is done to correct bad practices. What’s worse, much of what goes on could even be considered borderline misconduct.
Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and longtime Editor in Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ), which is considered to another one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world, makes her view of the subject quite plain:
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine” (source)
I apologize if you have seen it before in my articles, but it is quite the statement, and it comes from someone who also held a position similiar to Dr. Horton.
There is much more than anecdotal evidence to support these claims, however, including documents obtained by Lucija Tomljenovic, PhD, from the Neural Dynamics Research Group in the Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences at the University of British Columbia, which reveal that vaccine manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, and health authorities have known about multiple dangers associated with vaccines but chose to withhold them from the public. This is scientific fraud, and their complicity suggests that this practice continues to this day. (source)
This is just one of many examples, and alludes to one point Dr. Horton is referring to, the ommision of data. For the sake of time, I encourage you to do your own research on this subject. I just wanted to provide some food for thought about something that is not often considered when it comes to medical research, and the resulting products and theories which are then sold to us based on that research.
It’s truly a remarkable time to be alive. Over the course of human history, our planet has experienced multiple paradigm shifting realizations, all of which were met with harsh resistence at the time of their revelation. One great example is when we realized the Earth was not flat. Today, we are seeing these kinds of revelatory shifts in thinking happen in multiple spheres, all at one time. It can seem overwhelming for those who are paying attention, especially given the fact that a lot of these ideas go against current belief systems. There will always be resistance to new information which does not fit into the current framework, regardless of how reasonable (or factual) that information might be.