Category Archives: deaths

Stigma of Suicide & Substance Abuse… Winehouse, Joplin, Hendrix, etc.

The fact that people are incarcerated in the US for thinking & talking about suicide implies that Americans do not really believe in freedom of thought & speech- in addition to rejecting an individual’s right to commit suicide. In contrast, the assertion that people have a right to not only think about but to commit suicide has been made by many people who believe in individual freedom.

June 25, 2011  AlterNet / By Kristen Gwynne

In Death, Amy Winehouse Becomes Most Recent Member of 27 Club

When Winehouse died this Saturday at age 27, she joined the ranks of Joplin, Hendrix and Cobain in the mysterious “Twenty-Seven club.”
Amy Winehouse’s sad, and yet not unexpected, death this Saturday makes her the latest inductee to the mysterious “Twenty-Sevens,” an eerie post-mortem “club” of some of the most influential rock artists of all time, all of whom died, perhaps not coincidentally, at the ripe of age 27 — just before adulthood.

Alongside Kurt Cobain, Janis Joplin and Jimi Hendrix, beehive-rocking, door-knocker-earring-wearing Winehouse joins a shocking three dozen great rock-and-rollers to die at 27, the curious age at whichThe 27s: The Greatest Myth of Rock and Roll author Eric Segalstad claims more rockers have died than any other.

Like many other Twenty-Sevens, including Joplin and Jim Morrison, Winehouse is suspected to have died from a drug overdose. Despite her hit “Rehab,” in which Winehouse famously sang, “They tried to make me go to rehab, I said NO, NO, NO,” Winehouse had undergone several stints in rehab for an admitted heroin addiction.

While Amy Winehouse is the newest member of this most simultaneously revered and abhorred club, her induction into the peculiar group has rock fans like myself wondering once again if the Twenty-Sevens are, in fact, no coincidence. Thirty, the stepping-stone to adulthood, where creativity and good music often go to die, is, after all, just around the corner. Perhaps early death saved our greatest musicians from the mediocrity (or at least minimized rebellion) that for rock stars often accompanies aging.

Basic numerology (the most complicated of which is often applied to the Twenty-Sevens) suggests this may be the case. To start, numerologists attribute the number 27 to persons of the highest wisdom and enlightenment – an argument few die-hard fans may disagree with. According to author Alfred Weysen, the number 27 symbolizes light in darkness. What’s more, biblical numerology relates the number 27 to the expectancy of divine approval or redemption. Did talent, wisdom and divine redemption lead these stars to die at their peaks? We do, after all, like our rock stars gritty, druggy, edgy, and young. And their dangerous lifestyles and rebellious music offers so much to their fans that, as strange as it may sound, it seems they may have died for us – like the Jesuses of rock and roll.

For rebellious teens and fans to whom rock stars offer a sense of belonging and righteousness denied by our parents — and adults in general — the Twenty-Sevens never grew old enough to move away from the edge. Instead, they hurled themselves over it, and their permanent youth is (perhaps creepily) comforting, especially to those for whom rock and roll is a lone sign of hope that we are not all doomed to be dull, that the mainstream fueling our angst is not the only future.

Fascinated by the Twenty-Sevens from a young age, I remember being 14 and poring over Kurt Cobain’s diary like it was my own; being 17 and visiting the hotel where Joplin died; and now 21, I remember my own encounter with Winehouse while studying in London. Two years ago, 19 and enjoying the freedom of drinking legally in London, I was out with some friends in Camden, the punk London neighborhood where Winehouse lived, partied and was found dead this weekend, when a lucky encounter landed me at a bar where Winehouse was DJing. In another twist of fate, the bartender invited us to stay for the after-party.

by Andrew Colunga

As Winehouse stood behind the bar mixing drinks andstruggling with her balance, my friends and I excitedly introduced ourselves to the troubled star and took a few shots with her before walking home in the daylight. She was so tiny – emasculated by her huge beehive and door-knocker earrings – it was obvious she was sick. The next day, she made the cover of London tabloids for, once again, stumbling down the street intoxicated.

Winehouse was a rock star, and she did as rock stars do, living off excess and freedom in a daze of fame. What’s more, she died at her peak. Dying at 27 means dying a legend: to have never started to “suck,” to have never slowed down. It is to be forever young – to skip out onselling out and losing touch – to never become your parents.

For Twenty-Sevens like Cobain, who appear to have committed suicide, this argument holds particularly strong. Cobain, in his suicide note, said: “It’s better to burn out than fade away.” So were the Twenty-Sevens, consciously or otherwise, pushing themselves toward death to avoid the impending doom of adulthood? Perhaps they felt conformity and its comorbid acquaintance mediocrity, creeping up behind them. Or maybe it was the demands and chains of the record industry and fame, driving them toward dangerous addictions.

In the end, whether young death was in the stars or just a tragic coincidence of life as a rock star, Amy Winehouse will, like the other Twenty-Sevens, leave behind a legacy of youth, from which eager teens and other fans will continue to draw inspiration and support.

Psychiatry & Warfare: Deadly results from drugs given to troops!

by James Dao, Benedict Carey and Dan Frosch for The New York Times, published on February 12, 2011

In his last months alive, Senior Airman Anthony Mena rarely left home without a backpack filled with medications.

He returned from his second deployment to Iraq complaining of back pain, insomnia, anxiety andnightmares. Doctors diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder and prescribed powerful cocktails of psychiatric drugs and narcotics.

Yet his pain only deepened, as did his depression. “I have almost given up hope,” he told a doctor in 2008, medical records show. “I should have died in Iraq.”

Airman Mena died instead in his Albuquerque apartment, on July 21, 2009, five months after leaving the Air Force on a medical discharge. A toxicologist found eight prescription medications in his blood, including three antidepressants, a sedative, a sleeping pill and two potent painkillers.

Yet his death was no suicide, the medical examiner concluded. What killed Airman Mena was not an overdose of any one drug, but the interaction of many. He was 23.

After a decade of treating thousands of wounded troops, the military’s medical system is awash in prescription drugs — and the results have sometimes been deadly.

By some estimates, well over 300,000 troops have returned from Iraq or Afghanistan with P.T.S.D., depression, traumatic brain injury or some combination of those. The Pentagon has looked to pharmacology to treat those complex problems, following the lead of civilian medicine. As a result, psychiatric drugs have been used more widely across the military than in any previous war.

But those medications, along with narcotic painkillers, are being increasingly linked to a rising tide of other problems, among them drug dependency, suicide and fatal accidents — sometimes from the interaction of the drugs themselves. An Army report on suicide released last year documented the problem, saying one-third of the force was on at least one prescription medication.

“Prescription drug use is on the rise,” the report said, noting that medications were involved in one-third of the record 162 suicides by active-duty soldiers in 2009. An additional 101 soldiers died accidentally from the toxic mixing of prescription drugs from 2006 to 2009.

“I’m not a doctor, but there is something inside that tells me the fewer of these things we prescribe, the better off we’ll be,” Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, the vice chief of staff of the Army who has led efforts on suicide, said in an interview.

Growing awareness of the dangers of overmedicated troops has prompted the Defense Department to improve the monitoring of prescription medications and restrict their use.

In November, the Army issued a new policy on the use of multiple medications that calls for increased training for clinicians, 30-day limits on new prescriptions and comprehensive reviews of cases where patients are receiving four or more drugs.

The Pentagon is also promoting measures to prevent troops from stockpiling medications, a common source of overdoses. For instance, the Navy, which provides medical care forMarines, has begun pill “give back” days on certain bases. At Camp Lejeune, N.C., 22,000 expired pills were returned in December.

The Army and the Navy are also offering more treatments without drugs, includingacupuncture and yoga. And they have tried to expand talk therapy programs — one of which, exposure therapy, is considered by some experts to be the only proven treatment for P.T.S.D. But shortages of mental health professionals have hampered those efforts.

Still, given the depth of the medical problems facing combat veterans, as well as the medical system’s heavy reliance on drugs, few experts expect the widespread use of multiple medications to decline significantly anytime soon.

The New York Times reviewed in detail the cases of three service members who died from what coroners said were toxic interactions of prescription drugs. All were classified accidents, not suicides.

Airman Mena was part of a military police unit that conducted combat patrols alongside Army units in downtown Baghdad. He cleaned up the remains of suicide bombing victims and was nearly killed by a bomb himself, his records show.

Gunnery Sgt. Christopher Bachus had spent virtually his entire adult life in the Marine Corps, deploying to the Middle East in 1991, Iraq during the invasion of 2003 and, for a short tour, Afghanistan in 2005. He suffered from what doctors called survivor’s guilt and came back “like a ghost,” said his brother, Jerry, of Westerville, Ohio.

Cpl. Nicholas Endicott joined the Marines in 2003 after working as a coal miner in West Virginia. He deployed twice to Iraq and once to Afghanistan, where he saw heavy combat. On one mission, Corporal Endicott was blown more than eight feet in the air by a roadside bomb, medical records show. He came home plagued by nightmares and flashbacks and rarely left the house.

Given the complexity of drug interactions, it is difficult to know precisely what killed the three men, and the Pentagon declined to discuss their cases, citing confidentiality. But there were important similarities to their stories.

All the men had been deployed multiple times and eventually received diagnoses of P.T.S.D. All had five or more medications in their systems when they died, including opiate painkillers and mood-altering psychiatric drugs, but not alcohol. All had switched drugs repeatedly, hoping for better results that never arrived.

All died in their sleep.

Psychiatry and Warfare

The military medical system has struggled to meet the demand caused by two wars, and to this day it still reports shortages of therapists, psychologists and psychiatrists. But medications have always been readily available.

Across all branches, spending on psychiatric drugs has more than doubled since 2001, to $280 million in 2010, according to numbers obtained from the Defense Logistics Agency by a Cornell University psychiatrist, Dr. Richard A. Friedman.

Clinicians in the health systems of the Defense and Veterans Affairs Departments say that for most patients, those medications have proved safe. “It is important not to understate the benefit of these medications,” said Dr. Robert Kerns, the national director of pain management for the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Paradoxically, the military came under criticism a decade ago for not prescribing enough medications, particularly for pain. In its willingness to prescribe more readily, the Pentagon was trying to meet standards similar to civilian medicine, General Chiarelli said.

But the response of modern psychiatry to modern warfare has not always been perfect. Psychiatrists still do not have good medications for the social withdrawal, nightmares and irritability that often accompany post-traumatic stress, so they mix and match drugs, trying to relieve symptoms.

“These decisions about medication are difficult enough in civilian psychiatry, but unfortunately in this very-high-stress population, there is almost no data to guide you,” said Dr. Ranga R. Krishnan, a psychiatrist at Duke University. “The psychiatrist is trying everything and to some extent is flying blind.”

Thousands of troops struggle with insomnia, anxiety and chronic pain — a combination that is particularly treacherous to treat with medications. Pairing a pain medication like oxycodone, a narcotic, with an anti-anxiety drug like Xanax, a so-called benzodiazepine, amplifies the tranquilizing effects of both, doctors say.

Similarly, antidepressants like Prozac or Celexa block liver enzymes that help break down narcotics and anxiety drugs, extending their effects.

“The sedation is not necessarily two plus two is four,” said Cmdr. Rosemary Malone, a Navy forensic psychiatrist. “It could be synergistic. So two plus two could be five.”

Commander Malone and other military doctors said the key to the safe use of multiple prescriptions was careful monitoring: each time clinicians prescribe drugs, they must review a patient’s records and adjust dosages to reduce the risk of harmful interactions. “The goal is to use the least amount of medication at the lowest doses possible to help that patient,” she said.

But there are limits to the monitoring. Troops who see private clinicians — commonly done to avoid the stigma of seeking mental health care on a base — may receive medications that are not recorded in their official military health records.

In the case of Sergeant Bachus of the Marines, it is far from clear that he received the least amount of medication possible.

He saw combat in Iraq, his brother said, and struggled with alcoholism, anxiety, flashbacks, irritability and what doctors called survivor’s guilt after returning home.

“He could make himself the life of the party,” Jerry Bachus recalled. “But he came back a shell, like a ghost.”

Sergeant Bachus received a diagnosis of P.T.S.D., and starting in 2005, doctors put him on a regimen that included Celexa for depression, Klonopin for anxiety and Risperdal, an antipsychotic. In 2006, after a period of stability, a military doctor discontinued his medications. But six months later, Sergeant Bachus asked to be put on them again.

According to a detailed autopsy report, his depression and anxiety worsened in late 2006. Yet for unexplained reasons, he was allowed to deploy to Iraq for a second time in early 2007. But when his commanders discovered that he was on psychiatric medications, he was sent home after just a few months, records show.

Frustrated and ashamed that he could not be in a front-line unit and unwilling to work behind a desk, he applied in late 2007 for a medical retirement, a lengthy and often stressful process that seemed to darken his mood.

In early March 2008, a military doctor began giving him an opiate painkiller for his back. A few days later, Sergeant Bachus, 38, called his wife, who was living in Ohio. He sounded delusional, she told investigators later, but not suicidal.

“You know, babe, I am really tired, and I don’t think I’ll have any problems falling asleep tonight,” he told her. He was found dead in his on-base quarters in North Carolina nearly three days later.

According to the autopsy report, Sergeant Bachus had in his system two antidepressants, the opiates oxymorphone and oxycodone, and Ativan for anxiety. The delirium he experienced in his final days was “most likely due to the interaction of his medications,” the report said.

Nearly 30 prescription pill bottles were found at the scene, most of them recently prescribed, according to the report.

Jerry Bachus pressed the Marine Corps and the Navy for more information about his brother’s death, but received no further explanations. “There was nothing accidental about it,” he said. “It was inevitable.”

Self-Medicating

The widespread availability of prescription medications is increasingly being linked by military officials to growing substance abuse, particularly with opiates. A Defense Department survey last year found that the illegal use of prescription drugs in the military had tripled from 2005 to 2008, with five times as many troops claiming to abuse prescription drugs than illegal ones like cocaine or marijuana.

The problem has become particularly acute in specialized units for wounded troops, where commanders say the trading of prescription medications is rampant. A report released last month by the Army inspector general estimated that up to a third of all soldiers in these Warrior Transition Units are overmedicated, dependent on medications or have easy access to illegal drugs.

Some of that abuse is for recreational purposes, military officials say. In response, the Army has taken several steps to tighten the monitoring of troops on multiple prescriptions in the transition units.

But in many cases, wounded troops are acquiring drugs improperly because their own prescriptions seem ineffective, experts say. They are self-medicating, sometimes to death.

“This is a huge issue, and partly it’s due to the availability of prescription drugs among returning troops,” said Dr. Martin P. Paulus, a psychiatrist at the University of California, San Diego, and the V.A. San Diego Medical Center. “Everyone knows someone who’ll say, ‘Hey, this worked for me, give it a try.’ ”

Corporal Endicott, for instance, died after adding the opiate painkiller methadone to his already long list of prescribed medications. His doctors said that they did not know where he got the narcotic and that they had not authorized it.

Corporal Endicott, who survived a roadside bomb explosion, was in heavy fighting in Afghanistan, where he saw other Marines killed. After returning from his third deployment, in 2007, Corporal Endicott told doctors that he was having nightmares and flashbacks and rarely left his house. After a car accident, he assaulted the other driver, according to medical records. Doctors diagnosed P.T.S.D. and came to suspect that Corporal Endicott had a traumatic brain injury.

Over the coming year, he was prescribed at least five medications, including the antidepressants Prozac and Trazodone, and an anti-anxiety medication. Yet he continued to have headaches, anxiety and vivid nightmares.

“He would be hitting the headboard,” said his father, Charles. “He would be saying: ‘Get down! Here they come!’ ”

On Jan. 29, 2008, Corporal Endicott was found dead in his room at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., where he had checked himself in for anger management after another car accident. He was 26.

A toxicologist detected at least nine prescription drugs in his system, including five different benzodiazepines, drugs used to reduce anxiety or improve sleep. Small amounts of marijuana and methadone — a narcotic that is particularly dangerous when mixed with benzodiazepines — were also found in his body.

His death prompted Marine Corps officials at Bethesda and Walter Reed Army Medical Center to initiate new procedures to keep Marines from inappropriately mixing medications, including assigning case managers to oversee patients, records show.

Whether Corporal Endicott used methadone to get high or to relieve pain remains unclear. The Marine Corps concluded that his death was not due to misconduct.

“He survived over there,” his father said. “Coming home and dying in a hospital? It’s a disgrace.”

Trying to Numb the Pain

Airman Mena also returned from war a drastically changed man.

He had deployed to Iraq in 2005 but saw little action and wanted to go back. He got the chance in late 2006, when sectarian violence was hitting a peak.

After coming home, he spoke repeatedly of feeling guilty about missing patrols where a sergeant was killed and where several platoon mates were seriously wounded. Had he been driving on those missions, he told therapists, he would have avoided the attacks.

“On my first day, I saw a total of 12 bodies,” he said in one psychological assessment. “Over there, I lost faith in God, because how can God allow all these dead bodies?”

By the summer of 2008, he was on half a dozen medications for depression, anxiety, insomnia and pain. His back and neck pain worsened, but Air Force doctors could not pinpoint a cause. Once gregarious and carefree, Airman Mena had become perpetually irritable. At times he seemed to have hallucinations, his mother and friends said, and was often full of rage while driving.

In February 2009, he received an honorable discharge and was given a 100 percent disability rating by the Department of Veterans Affairs, meaning he was considered unable to work. He abandoned plans to become a police officer.

Now a veteran, his steady medication regimen continued — but did not seem to make him better. His mother, Pat Mena, recalls him being unable to sleep yet also listless, his face a constant shade of pale. Shocked by the piles of pills in his Albuquerque apartment, she once flushed dozens of old prescriptions down the toilet.

Yet for all his troubles, he seemed hopeful when she visited him in early July 2009. He was making plans to open a cigar store, which he planned to call Fumar. His mother would be in charge of decorating it.

The night after his mother left, he put on a new Fentanyl patch, a powerful narcotic often used by cancer patients that he had started using just five weeks before. The Food and Drug Administration issued warnings about the patches in 2007 after deaths were linked to it, but a private clinic in Albuquerque prescribed the medication because his other painkillers had failed, records show.

With his increasingly bad memory, he often forgot what pills he was taking, his mother said. That night when he put on his new patch, he forgot to remove the old one. He died early the next day.

Was the Fentanyl the cause? Or was it the hydromorphone, another narcotic found in his system? Or the antidepressants? Or the sedative Xanax? Or all of the above?

The medical examiner could not say for sure, noting simply that the drugs together had caused “respiratory depression.”

“The manner of death,” the autopsy concluded, “is accident.”

 

 

What you need to know about the Carcinogen found in water

December 22, 2010 |

When you see news reports about a cancer-causing chemical in drinking water everywhere you turn, you probably have a few questions. Of course you can read EWG’s full report, but on the off chance you’re pressed for time and just want to know the basics, we put together these 11 questions and answers.

1. What is hexavalent chromium?

Hexavalent chromium (or chromium-6) is a highly toxic form of the naturally occurring metal chromium. It is a well-known human carcinogen when inhaled, and recent evidence indicates it can cause stomach or gastrointestinal cancer when ingested in drinking water. However, a different form, trivalent chromium, is an essential nutrient.

People typically are exposed to chromium-6 by consuming contaminated water or food, and in some workplaces by breathing contaminated air. That’s a concern especially for those working in metallurgy or leather-tanning facilities. Ingesting or inhaling contaminated soil particles may also be a source of exposure. Widespread industrial use has led to detections of hexavalent chromium in two-thirds of current or former Superfund toxic waste sites.

2. How does it get into tap water?

Chromium-6 can get into water as a result of industrial contamination from manufacturing facilities, including electroplating factories, leather tanneries and textile manufacturing facilities, or from disposal of fluids used before 1990 in cooling towers. It also occurs naturally in some minerals. The widely used tap water disinfectant chlorine can transform trivalent chromium into the toxic hexavalent form.

3. Why is it a problem?

Exposure in tap water has been linked to cancers of the stomach and gastrointestinal tract in both animals and people. California’s Environmental Protection Agency has issued a draft public health goal based on the conclusion that levels of chromium-6 greater than 0.06 parts per billion (ppb) in tap water may increase cancer risk.

Some people may be especially susceptible. Fetuses, infants and children are more sensitive to carcinogenic chemicals. In addition, people with less acidic stomachs appear to have a limited ability to convert chromium-6 to the benign trivalent form (chromium-3), putting them at greater risk. Using common antacids and proton pump inhibitors can lower stomach acidity. Other conditions that can inhibit stomach acid production include infection with Helicobacter pylori (a common bacterium linked to ulcers), pernicious anemia, pancreatic tumors, mucolipidosis type IV and some autoimmune diseases.

4. How can I find out if my tap water has hexavalent chromium in it?

California requires water utilities to test and report levels of chromium-6 in their water. For Californians, this is a good way to find out if this contaminant is a concern in your area. Unfortunately, these tests only measure levels at or above 1 ppb, more than 16 times above the suggested public health goal of 0.06 ppb.

Of the 438 community water sources in California that have provided test data to EWG, 223 detected levels above 1 ppb, and 93 detected levels above 5 ppb. This means more than 13.7 million Californians drink tap water contaminated with chromium-6.

Elsewhere, water utilities only test and report levels of total chromium — which includes both the toxic form and the essential nutrient chromium-3. Moreover, these tests only detect levels at or above 10 ppb, more than 160 times higher than California’s proposed public health goal. If your tap water has detectable levels of total chromium, it’s quite possible that it has levels of hexavalent chromium that exceed California’s suggested public health goal. The ratio of chromium-3 to chromium-6 varies in different water supplies, so it is difficult to estimate how much of each might be in your water.

Contact your local water utility or check EWG’s tap water database to learn if chromium has been detected in your tap water.

5. My tap water has high levels of chromium-6. What should I do?

If your tap water contains high levels, your best bet is to install a reverse osmosis filter certified to remove it. Reverse osmosis filters, especially when combined with superior carbon filter technology, are the best way to remove the largest number of contaminants.

EWG assembled a list of reverse osmosis water filters certified to remove hexavalent chromiumand available for purchase on Amazon.com.

See EWG’s water filter buying guide for more information on how to choose a water filter.

While drinking bottled water might seem like a good way to avoid exposing yourself to hexavalent chromium in tap water, there is no guarantee that bottled water has lower concentrations of this contaminant. If you drink bottled water, choose brands that provide water quality information indicating their water has levels of chromium-6 below 0.06 ppb or that use reverse osmosis filtration to treat their water.

Because infants can be especially sensitive to carcinogenic chemicals, it is particularly important to use safer water when preparing infant formula. Water treated with a reverse osmosis filter will contain fewer contaminants and be safer for babies than bottled water.

6. Can I test my own tap water for chromium-6?

Most commercial water quality laboratories do not offer this test.

7. Besides drinking water, how else can I be exposed?

Other sources of exposure to hexavalent chromium include contaminated food and contaminated workplace air, especially for those working in metallurgy or leather-tanning facilities. Contaminated soil particles may also be a source of exposure via ingestion or inhalation. Widespread industrial use has led to detections of chromium-6 in two-thirds of current or former Superfund sites.

8. Are some people more vulnerable to the effects?

Yes. Fetuses, infants, and children have a higher sensitivity to carcinogenic chemicals. Their developing organ systems are more susceptible to damage from chemical exposures, and less able to detoxify and excrete chemicals.

In addition, people with less acidic stomachs appear to have a limited ability to convert chromium-6 to chromium-3, exposing them to higher levels of the toxic form and putting them at greater risk. Using common antacids and proton pump inhibitors can reduce stomach acidity. Other conditions that can inhibit stomach acid production include infection with Helicobacter pylori (a common bacterium linked to ulcers), pernicious anemia, pancreatic tumors, mucolipidosis type IV and some autoimmune diseases.

9. What other chemicals in my tap water should I be concerned about?

Check out EWG’s tap water database for an in-depth look at water contaminants, including drinking water quality information for 48,000 communities in 45 states and the District of Columbia.

10. What is EPA doing to promote safe drinking water?

Not enough. In the case of hexavalent chromium, the EPA has taken no specific action to limit amounts in drinking water. The agency has left in place an inadequate standard for total chromium, set nearly 20 years ago. It does not distinguish between toxic hexavalent and nutritionally essential trivalent chromium and cites “allergic dermatitis” as the only health concern. The agency has not set a new, enforceable drinking water standard for any contaminant since 2001.

Recently, however, the federal government has begun to focus a critical eye on chromium-6 and other water contaminants. EWG recommends that the EPA set a legal limit for hexavalent chromium in drinking water as quickly as possible and require water utility testing to assess exposures nationwide.

11. Is bottled water a safe alternative?

Drinking bottled water might seem like a good way to avoid exposing yourself to hexavalent chromium, but there is no guarantee that bottled water contains less of this contaminant. Furthermore, there is no legal limit for chromium-6 in bottled water, so consumers cannot assume it is free of it. EWG has assessed bottled water quality and the industry’s labeling practices and isn’t impressed with either. If you drink bottled water, choose brands that provide water quality information indicating that the water has less than 0.06 ppb of chromium-6 or that use reverse osmosis filtration to purify it. Overall, test results strongly indicate that the purity of bottled water cannot be trusted. As EWG’s Jane Houlihan says,

“It’s buyer beware with bottle water. The bottled water industry promotes its products as pure and healthy, but our tests show that pollutants in some popular brands match the levels found in some of the nation’s most polluted big city tap water systems. Consumers can’t trust that what’s in the bottle is anything more than processed, pricey tap water.”

Plus, there’s all that plastic waste.

 

 

 

Nation of Pill Poppers, 19 Dangerous Drugs Pushed by Big Pharma

from AlterNet, December 5, 2010 , by Martha Rosenberg

Here are some of the dicey drugs many Americans are hooked on, thanks to greedy pharmaceutical companies.

Since direct-to-consumer drug advertising was legalized 13 years ago, Americans have become a nation of pill poppers — choosing the type of drug they desire like a new toothpaste, sometimes whether or not they need it.

But if patients want the drugs, doctors and pharma executives want them to have the drugs and media gets full page ads and huge TV flights (when many advertisers have dried up), is the national pillathon really a problem?

Yes, when you consider the cost of private and government insurance and the health of patients who take potentially dangerous drugs like these.

Seroquel, Zyprexa, Geodon, atypical antipsychotics

Even though the antipsychotic Seroquel surpasses 71 drugs on the FDA’s January quarterly report with 1766 adverse events, even though it’s linked to eight corruption scandals, even though military parents blame Seroquel for unexplained troop deaths, it is the fifth biggest-selling drug in the world and netted AstraZeneca almost $5 billion last year.

Atypicals were originally promoted to replace side-effect prone drugs like Thorazine but soon became pharmaceutical Swiss Army Knives for depression, anxiety, insomnia, bipolar and conduct disorders and other off label uses — and betrayed the same side effects as older antipsychotics. (Especially tardive dyskinesia-linked Abilify.)

Foisted disproportionately on the young, poor and disadvantaged, atypicals cause such weight gain and metabolic derangement — 16 percent of Zyprexa patients gain 66 pounds and some gain over 100 — manufacturer Lilly Eli Lilly agreed to pay the state of Alaska $15 million in 2008 for the Medicaid costs of Zyprexa patients who developed diabetes.

Atypicals carry warnings of death in demented patients but are widely used in nursing homes. And even though Risperdal maker Johnson & Johnson, Geodon maker Pfizer, Abilify maker Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly and AstraZeneca have all entered into government settlements that acknowledge fraudulent or wrongful atypical marketing, FDA rewarded atypical makers by approving Zyprexa and Seroquel for children last year. And approved a new atypical antipsychotic, Latuda, in October. Maybe the FDA is bipolar.

Ritalin, Concerta, Strattera, Adderall and ADHD drugs

When it comes to the epidemic of 5.3 million US children between 3 and 17 diagnosed with ADHD, suspicions of pharma pushing the disorder are exceeded only by pharma’s admissions thereof.

During an August conference call with financial analysts, Shire specialty pharmaceuticals president Mike Cola credited the “very dynamic ADHD market” to Shire’s globalization efforts and “investments we have made in new uses for our existing products.”

Those uses, a.k.a. diagnoses, for Shire products like stimulants Adderall, Vyvanse and Intuniv include adult ADHD, cognitive impairment, depression and excessive daytime sleepiness.

Still, Cola says despite the 10 percent ADHD “new starts” that are helping Shire “grow the market,” and the “co-administration market” of add-on prescription drug$, the ADHD franchise suffers from patients who drop out when they quit seeing their pediatrician. “We don’t see those patients show up again until their mid-to-late 20s,” laments Cola.

ADHD drugs, in addition to “robbing kids of their right to be kids, their right to grow, their right to experience their full range of emotions, and their right to experience the world in its full hue of colors,” as Anatomy of an Epidemic author Robert Whitaker puts it, can also be deadly.

A 2009 article in the American Journal of Psychiatry called Sudden Death and Use of Stimulant Medications in Youths found 1.8 percent of youthful stimulant users died sudden deaths from cardiac dysrhythmia or unexplained causes versus 0.4 percent who were not on stimulants. Though it helped fund the study, the FDA said the results proved no “real risk” and kids should keep taking their meds.

Meanwhile, says Robert Whitaker, kids on ADHD meds “are told they are going to be on these drugs for life. And next thing they know, they’re on two or three or four drugs,” a phenomenon also known as the co-administration market.

Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, SSRIs

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRIs) antidepressants like Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft and Lexapro probably did more to inflate pharma profits in the last decade than direct-to-consumer advertising and Viagra put together, no pun intended: over 60 million prescriptions were filled in the US in 2007 with many patients reporting their depression lifted.

But some critics say for mild depression, SSRIs don’t work at all and are no better than placebo.

And others say they can add aggression, bizarre behavior, self-harm and suicidal thoughts to depression. In fact, there are 4,200 published reports of SSRI-related violence, aggression, bizarre behavior, self-harm and suicide since the drugs were introduced in 1988 including the well known gun massacres at Columbine (1999), Red Lake (2005), NIU and likely, Virginia Tech (2007).

SSRIs have non-behavioral perks both sides agree on: life-threatening serotonin syndrome when taken with migraine drugs, gastrointestinal bleeding when taken with aspirin, Aleve or Advil and the bone condition, osteoporosis.

Paxil can reduce or abolish the effect of tamoxifen in breast cancer patients and increase deaths says British Medical Journal. It’s linked to a two-fold increased risk of cardiac birth defects in infants according to its own manufacturer, GSK.

And sex? SSRIs are so linked to dysfunction even the pharma-identified web site WebMD admits many will experience impotence, delayed ejaculation or no orgasm. But there is a solution (besides going off SSRIs) says WebMD: Add another antidepressant that’s not an SSRI, like Wellbutrin!

Effexor, Cymbalta, Pristiq, SNRIs

Selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) are like their SSRIs chemical cousins except their norepinephrine effects can modulate pain, which has ushered in your-depression-is-really-pain, your-pain-is-really-depression and other crossover marketing. But the problem with giving a psychoactive drug for pain is that you’re giving a psychoactive drug for pain. “After three months of taking Savella [another SNRI], I started self-destructing and cutting myself,” writes a 40 year old woman on askapatient.com. “I don’t know why or anything, but it does similar to Prozac where it makes you think and do weird things.”

And Cymbalta, approved this fall for chronic back pain and osteoarthritis?

Cymbalta was the drug healthy 19-year-old volunteer Traci Johnson was testing when she hung herself in an Eli Lilly dorm in 2005. It was the drug Carol Anne Gotbaum killed herself on at Phoenix’s Sky Harbor airport in 2007.

SNRI’s are also harder to quit than SSRIs, especially Effexor. 25-year-old Chicagoan David F. told AlterNet he stood at the top of an 8-story parking lot contemplating jumping every day for weeks after quitting. It’s also the drug Andrea Yates was on when she drowned her five children in 2001.

But not all SNRI side effects are behavioral. The FDA would not approve Pristiq, a newer version of Effexor, when Wyeth/Pfizer tried to market it for vasomotor symptoms, because it caused heart attacks, coronary artery obstruction and hypertension in clinical trials. That’s similar to another SNRI, the diet pill Meridia, which was just withdrawn from the market for causing heart problems. Pristiq is still available.

Foradil Aerolizer, Serevent Diskus, Advair and Symbicort

How could asthma drugs that increase the chance of dying of asthma become pharma’s top sellers? The same way antidepressants that cause depression and antifracture drugs that cause fractures become top sellers: good consumer marketing.

Still, unlike drugs that look safe in trials and develop safety signals postmarketing, the long-acting beta agonists (LABA), salmeterol and formoterol, found in many asthma products, never looked safe. In fact it was their links to deaths and adverse events that led to studies in the 1990s and 2000s which showed more deaths and adverse events: LABAS increase death in users, say the studies, especiallyAfrican-Americans and children.

Original safety trials were also marred with major fraud.

Pharma doctors, when reviewing the study results at FDA hearings in 2005 and 2008, blamed LABA deaths on patients’ underlying disease and non-compliance and dismissed hospitalization as a side effect less serious than death. They danced around FDA testimony, including from Dr David Graham of Vioxx fame, that there is no scientific evidence that the inhaled corticosteriods found in Advair and Symbicort make the products safer and that LABA’s modest clinical benefit does not justify their 28-fold increase in mortality risks. (5,000 deaths in ten years estimated Graham.)

While many regard LABAs as a medical mishap, marketing for “step up” asthma treatment is no misttake. Though inhaled corticosteriods are still considered the best asthma treatment, millions have been convinced they need two drugs to control their asthma and that the combination is keeping them out of hospitals. Except when it isn’t.

Singulair and Accolate, leukotriene receptor antagonists

How did Merck convince Americans to use an allergy drug that works no better than over-the-counter antihistamines but costs eight times as much?

A drug in which “asthma control deteriorates when switched from low dose inhaled corticosteriods” according to original FDA reviewers in 1998 — but was approved anyway?

How did Merck convince pediatricians and mothers to give kids such a drug on a daily basis for seasonal allergies, runny noses and minor wheezing? Even though FDA reviewers cautioned that adult trials “may not be predictive of the response” in children in the New England Journal of Medicine? And infant monkeys given Singulair had to be euthanized because “infants may be more sensitive” FDA reviewers wrote?

Last month, the saga of Singulair mismarketing story continued when Fox TV reported that Merck’s top selling allergy drug is suspected of producing aggression, hostility, irritability, anxiety, hallucinations and night-terrors in kids, symptoms that are being diagnosed as ADHD.

And that Singulair is being huckstered to parents by the trusted educational service Scholastic, Inc. and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Eight-nine parents on the drug site askapatient.com report hyperactivity, tantrums, depression, crying, school trouble, facial tics and strange eye movements after their children, some as young as one, were put on Singulair. Similar reports appear on medications.com and parentsforsafety.org. Most symptoms subside when Singulair is stopped.

“Do NOT recommend this drug to other parents,” writes one mother. “4 year olds that suddenly talk about killing themselves are influenced by a DRUG!!

“THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF THEMSELVES FOR APPROVING THIS!!!!” writes another mother, though the shame may well not stop there.

 

 

Women Are Dying and Pharma is STILL Pushing Hormones!

From AlterNet, October 21, 2010
By Martha Rosenberg
Big Pharma is still pushing its hormone therapy for women, despite the fact that it increases women’s risk of cancer and other health problems.

Want to increase your chances of getting, and possibly dying from, node-positive breast cancer? Take hormone therapy.

Pharma’s lucrative estrogen plus progestin combo is already known to increase the chance of getting breast cancer by 26 percent. But an article in this week’s Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) shows hormone therapy also increases the chance of dyingfrom breast cancer, as followups are conducted on women who took it.

In fact hormone therapy, already indicted for causing delays in breast cancer diagnosis by increasing breast density (and increasing lung cancer deaths) is now so dangerous that Peter B. Bach of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, who wrote an accompanying JAMA editorial, told the New York Timesthat even the recommendation to take “the lowest possible doses for the shortest possible time” is now questionable. Perhaps like prescribing the fewest and lowest tar cigarettes as possible.

It is hard to image men putting up with a therapy for “outliving their testes” that kills and maims them decade after decade. Women given Premarin for their “estrogen deficiency” in the 1980s developed so much endometrial cancer, the cancer rate dropped when they quit taking the drug. Five years ago, the same thing happened with breast cancer when women quit Prempro. Who can say “iatrodemic” physician-caused epidemic? Who can say fool me twice?

Both Prempro and Premarin are made by Wyeth, now part of Pfizer.

And just as hormone therapy is repackaged for a new generation of women, so are pharma-friendly press stories that push it, such asParade’s fabled piece with Lauren Hutton extolling hormone therapy did some years ago.

In April, the New York Times magazine ran a pro-hormone piece called “The Estrogen Dilemma,” by Cynthia Gorney, relying on five Wyeth-linked researchers whose conflicts of interests were not disclosed. Three — Claudio Soares, Louann Brizendine and Thomas Clarkson — have served on Wyeth’s speaker boards.

In 2009, the Washington Post ran a pro-hormone piece lifted intact from Massachusetts General Hospital’s industry-friendly magazine, where it ran next to a piece pushing hormone therapy for coronary heart disease written by Wyeth-linked doctors. Hormone therapy causes a 29 percent increase in heart attacks, according to the Women’s Health Initiative.

Hormone therapy is also linked to asthma, lupus, scleroderma, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, urinary incontinence, hearing loss, cataracts, gout, joint degeneration, dementia, stroke, blood clots, malignant melanoma, and five other kinds of cancer according to medical journal reports.

Nor does industry want to let go of the hormone gravy train.

Oblivious to the JAMA article and many others, trials are underway with NIH tax dollars, to see if pre-menopausal women given hormones will be helped instead of hurt. (Let’s start smoking at 12!) In addition to the Kronos Early Estrogen Prevention Study trials at major medical centers conducted by several Wyeth-linked researchers, Wake Forest and at Mount Sinai medical school researchers are conducting hormone experiments on ovariectomized primates. (Like Premarin mares, immobilized on pee lines, their offspring killed, female primates suffer unduly from hormone therapy.)

Given over 5,000 lawsuits brought by women with hormone therapy-caused breast cancer, why is it still on the market? Why is it being tested (with tax dollars) to extend the franchise into a new generation of women? And why is it still presented to women as a “choice”? As in We Warned You.

Ten years ago, when pharma still said it didn’t know about the hormone risks, Dr. Janette Sherman exposed hormone therapy’s cancer links and its diagnosis-delaying breast density in a prescient book called Life’s Delicate Balance: Causes and Prevention of Breast Cancer.

“The promotional literature urges we women to confer with our doctors to decide if hormone replacement is for us,” writes Sherman. “Does that mean if we have an adverse outcome as a result of our decision that we will be again blamed for the outcome?”

This week in a Times interview, Dr. Bach makes the same observation. “The fallback is that doctors and patients should be deciding this on a one-to-one basis, weighing risks and benefits. How do you do that when you don’t know what the risks are?” he says.

Has anything changed?

 

 

Psychiatrists target infants as mental patients

By CCHR International
June 23, 2010

A new study, published in the American Journal of Psychiatry and headed by psychiatrist John H. Gilmore, professor of psychiatry and Director of the UNC Schizophrenia Research, claims to be able to detect “brain abnormalities associated with schizophrenia risk”  in infants just a few weeks old.   We would like to point out the obvious flaw in this bogus study; there is no medical/scientific test in existence that schizophrenia is a physical disease or  brain abnormality to start with.  There is not one chemical imbalance test, X-ray, MRI or any other test for schizophrenia, not one.   So with no evidence of medical abnormality to start with, the “associated with schizophrenia risk” amounts to what George Orwell called Doublespeak (language that deliberately disguises, distorts, misleads)—it means nothing.

For decades, psychiatrists and Pharma have spouted lines to the press and public amounting to, “researchers now believe” they have medical evidence of schizophrenia as a physical/biological abnormality, or “new evidence suggests” evidence of schizophrenia as a real disease.   But despite millions of dollars in research funds and countless tales of “belief” —no evidence to support the theory.  One of the most common tricks employed by the Psycho/Pharmaceutical industry to mislead the public, legislators and the press, is to take X-rays or brain images of people who have been long-term users of antipsychotic drugs (known to cause brain atrophy/shrinkage) and then claim people with schizophrenia have smaller brains.   They’ve spouted similar studies on kids with ADHD having smaller brains, but the bottom line to that study was that the kids with smaller brains, were…smaller kids. These are just a few of the many PR spins employed by Psycho/Pharma to try and maintain the “belief” in psychiatry, in their credibility as a science.   As evidenced by the recent statement of psychiatrist Allen Frances, former DSM- IV Task Force Chairman, this belief is falling apart even within their own ranks, “There are no objective tests in psychiatry-no X-ray, laboratory, or exam finding that says definitively that someone does or does not have a mental disorder.” —Allen Frances (And Frances isn’t the only psychiatrist exposing the fraud of the biological brain disease model;

continued here

In Honor of Mother’s Day… for the should-have-been Mothers…

In Honor of Mother’s Day… will doctors please HONOR their OATH and rethink when prescribing psychiatric drugs for MOTHERS-TO-BE?!

Psychiatrists should NOT prescribe ANY drugs that bring the following life-threatening side effects: death, suicide, etc. to consumers and/or their families. It’s unfortunate that the consumers are not informed by their doctors of the dangerous side effects these drugs can foster. These side effects can change the immediate future of the consumer, as seen in the video below. The ‘quick’ fix and the selling of drugs seems to be the ONLY recommendation most doctors know of. They forgot about nutrition, exercise, meditation, physical therapy, spa therapy, yoga, etc.!!! They forgot all about the basics and alternative therapies that exist. 
 
The brain damage cannot be seen immediately! Nor can the birth defects!! As the birth approaches, these videos reveal the TRUTH.

In loving memory of Indiana…
 
Manie asks why? 
 
In Melanie’s words…after her pregnancy…

SIGN TO STOP THE MOTHER’S ACT NOW

How will doctors be convinced that their OATH is more important than $$$ ???

Just two days ago, the New York Times reported that a growing number of people are turning to acupuncture. Conditions that can be cured include: infertility, chronic pain, depression, menopause symptoms, etc. Even though health insurances do not cover this type of health care yet, this out-of-pocket money seems to be worth it for clients. 

From 2002 to 2007, 1 million more adults reported using acupuncture  according to the government’s National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a unit of the National Institutes of Health.

But the question still remains … why didn’t these Western doctors tell their clients this? Please post your comments below.

Website- UNITE: United Non-profits for Truth and Ethics