In 2025 there will be an estimated one billion women going through menopause (Hill, 1996). Prescriptions for anti-depressants are being offered before the question is explored as to whether a women is in the peri/menopause phase. This lack of recognition of the true impact can potentially disempower and disadvantage those most in need.
This workshop looks to understand how to manage the ever-expanding demographic of menopause whilst avoiding the marketing of the trojan horse of menopause that is being commodified at an alarming rate.
It will encourage participants to question the ‘why’ in the headlines indicating the rise in suicide rates amongst women in the 45-54 age bracket, higher rates of divorce, depression, anxiety, paranoia and rage and why women are leaving their careers. If peri/menopause is not the direct causation there is certainly room to discuss the correlation between such events – and we will not know until we talk about it openly.
Through discussion and not didactic conditioning from an ever present “McMedia Circus” this workshop will bring in the lived-experience voice/s alongside evidence-based facts. Challenging the seeming bias to treat those in the peri/menopause stage of life as a prescriptive ‘mental health’ tick box – next patient please! (Even NICE guidelines, are clear that HRT and not anti-depressants should be the first line treatment for low mood due to menopause).
Participants will be able to consider an emerging new paradigm which we believe reflects a human centred approach where the most valuable support for those in peri/menopause is in the recognition of the individual experience. From there we can collectively recognise how a co-produced support network can be built to offer what is needed in the peri/menopause phase – beyond the guaranteed consumers for the pharmaceutical industry.
Annesh de Vos will be presenting this workshop – supported by Dr Helen Douglas.
A CPD certificate for 2.5 hours will be available on request after the workshop.
Please join us!!! The Wildflowers’ Movement will be exhibiting and presenting SHINE ON YOU CRAZY DIAMOND, an innovative workshop with music, singing and art! Our group is about giving & receiving mindful support while practicing self-awareness, cultivating radical wellness, and celebrating diversity. We meet every 1st and 3rd Sunday at SHARE! in Culver City and out at various events, and in nature, our natural habitat.
New York Times, By ALAN SCHWARZ, Published: February 2, 2013
VIRGINIA BEACH — Every morning on her way to work, Kathy Fee holds her breath as she drives past the squat brick building that houses Dominion Psychiatric Associates.
It was there that her son, Richard, visited a doctor and received prescriptions for Adderall, an amphetamine-based medication for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. It was in the parking lot that she insisted to Richard that he did not have A.D.H.D., not as a child and not now as a 24-year-old college graduate, and that he was getting dangerously addicted to the medication. It was inside the building that her husband, Rick, implored Richard’s doctor to stop prescribing him Adderall, warning, “You’re going to kill him.” It was where, after becoming violently delusional and spending a week in a psychiatric hospital in 2011, Richard met with his doctor and received prescriptions for 90 more days of Adderall. He hanged himself in his bedroom closet two weeks after they expired.
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.
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.
The definition of child abuse is simple: whenever the spirit of the child is disrespected the child is abused. Abuse of the spirit of the child can take many forms, from the overt forms of child abuse that conventional society is able to accept – such as overt sexual abuse, physical violence and the extremes of neglect – to whole realms of abuse that fall below society’s radar and are considered normal and healthy forms of parenting. Children have massive needs, and where parents fail to meet these needs – whether society notices or cares or even bats an eye – the child ends up abused.
Children are born into the world with a total right to have all their needs met. This is the responsibility of parents, and although parents have a whole palette of ways and techniques to deny their responsibility and pathologize defenders of the child, this does not change the basic facts. Children experience torture when their needs go unmet, and while I might sound like a fanatic writing this, it is only because I am taking the deep emotional side of the most disenfranchised minority in our society: the child. This is something that so few – and so few parents, those largely false advocates of society’s most innocent and squelched – do, or have any deep capacity to do.
When a mother has a child because she feels her life emotionally incomplete and wants someone to make it more whole, her child is BOUND to be abused. He will pick up her deepest unconscious needs from the time he is in her womb and start growing toward them to insure that he gets loved, and his abuse will only increase from that point onward.
When a mother takes psychiatric medication or drinks alcohol or smokes for whatever reason she becomes less emotionally available to her child, and this is abuse. Anything that takes a mother away from her deepest connection with herself, and her deepest healing process, is a cruelty to her child. This starts in the womb as well – but continues throughout his childhood.
When a mother and father fight in front of their child, and worse yet use their child as a pawn in the marriage, even in the mildest and subtlest of ways – which is so utterly common in our world that it goes essentially unnoticed – the child suffers abuse. Children need two parents who live in radical emotional harmony with each other. Any family dynamic that fails to meet this basic criteria is a setup for toxicity for the child.
When parents have not healed from any of their own traumas of their own childhood – however mild those traumas might be – they have no choice but to act out these traumas unconsciously on their child. This often takes place in subtle and symbolic form – such as the use of doubletalk, ultimatums, or conditional love – but it is abuse nonetheless. Parents cannot help but act out their unresolved childhood traumas on their children. Because children are so needy for parental love and have so few resources for defending themselves they make the most highly charged magnets for parental acting out.
When parents do not devote 100% of the best of their life’s energies toward guiding and nurturing their children, their children suffer abuse. And how many parents can realistically say that they devote even 20% of the best of their energies to their child? Some parents might argue that they do, but that does not mean their arguments hold any water. Most parents have so much to deny and defend against that they can rationalize almost anything. We live in a world where most people live almost entirely unconscious of who they are – and what their deepest motives are. It is no surprise that the most unconscious people often think themselves enlightened. This is comforting. Dissociation mimics enlightenment.
My writings might sound like I am setting the bar impossibly high for parents. Good! I am. For most parents I set the bar impossibly high because most parents have absolutely no business having children. On their deep emotional levels they can barely take care of themselves, and still ARE emotional children themselves. The horror taking place in our world is enough proof of this!
From the child’s perspective the bar I speak of is not set high at all, and the torture the child feels when the parents fail to meet his full needs – much less actively thwart them – tells where the child stands on this question.
If children could feel safe enough to speak about their deepest feelings, and have neither need nor motivation to protect the denial of their parents, they themselves would be the loudest advocates against all forms of child abuse. And often they are, much as our sick adult society misreads the child’s advocacy. Every crying and screaming child strapped into his stroller is railing against abuse, and yet so few notice – and even if they did, it would be totally taboo for anyone to step into the sacred world of his family and say anything. Protecting the denial of abusive parents is sacred in our sick world. And selling out children is the norm.
But there is a reason little children stand transfixed watching other children scream and cry: they know what the screaming and crying child is experiencing. They know torture. They still remember. They are watching a mirror of themselves go down the same emotional toilet down which their own parents have flushed them.
Daniel is a filmmaker and musician in New York City. He also worked for ten years as a psychotherapist in New York. His writings focus on the causes, consequences, and radical significance of childhood trauma. More about him and his work on –raresoul
By Dr. Jeffrey Schaler
Assistant Professor of Justice, Law & Society
It is fifty years now since Thomas Szasz rocked the world of psychiatry by writing The Myth of Mental Illness: Foundations of a Theory of Personal Conduct. His work continues to have a profound impact on how we think about disease, behavior, liberty, justice, responsibility, and most important of all, what it means to be human. Szasz has shown us how the idea of mental illness is used by the state to deprive innocent people of freedom, and guilty persons of justice. Without the state involved, the medicalization of behavior means nothing.
He has shown us how the idea of mental illness functions as legal fiction within our legal system. In this sense, the idea of mental illness has been used much as the idea that African American slaves were considered three-fifths of a person. Persons labeled as mentally ill are now considered three-fifths of a person. It is as if there was a postscript at the bottom of the Bill of Rights that reads: “PS: For mentally healthy people only.”
The courts will not allow the idea of mental illness to be disproved, in much the same way that the idea that slaves could be three-fifths person was not allowed to be disproved. Today, mental illness as legal fiction maintains the institution of psychiatric slavery.
Mental illness diagnoses have more to do with politics and science fiction, than medicine and science. Take for example the idea that people with a homosexual orientation are mentally ill. The category was excluded from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – our contemporary “Malleus Maleficorum,” or “Hammer of Witches” – the same way it was included, for political reasons, not scientific reasons. No one discovered that homosexuality was a disease, and no one discovered that it isn’t a disease. They pronounced it as such, in each case, because of political pressure.
About two years after The Myth of Mental Illness was first published, Szasz published another book that has had an equally profound impact on freedom and responsibility. In Law, Liberty and Psychiatry he predicted the following:
“Although we may not know it, we have, in our day, witnessed the birth of the Therapeutic State. This is perhaps the major implication of psychiatry as an institution of social control.”
Thomas Szasz wrote that in 1963.
We live in a Therapeutic State today. Moral management now masquerades as medicine. The state dictates a “duty to be healthy.”
Seventy years ago another state, Nazi Germany, dictated a “duty to be healthy.” Back then, murder masqueraded as medicine. I think you all know what I’m referring to. We don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
Today, good health practices have become a social responsibility. Bad health practices are viewed as socially irresponsible behavior. When health and illness are applied to the mind and behavior, this means that people must think and speak and act the right way. Otherwise, they may end up in a prison called a mental hospital.
I am one of the few college professors in the United States, if not in the world, who teaches Szasz’s ideas on a regular basis in college. And in every course, my students have always said at least two things to me: This stuff by Szasz is changing my life. And why hasn’t anyone ever taught his work in class before?
Because professors are punished for teaching Szasz; they can lose their jobs if they do so. I know. I have the scars to prove it. If you read my book, Szasz Under Fire, you will see how the same thing almost happened to Thomas Szasz. He came a hair away from being fired for teaching Thomas Szasz!
The Myth of Mental Illness and the subsequent Law, Liberty and Psychiatry are not so unsophisticated as to deny the existence of behaviors that people find disturbing. Quite to the contrary, Szasz’s writings clarify the difference between behavior and disease, description and explanations for behavior, and the consequences of labeling behavior as a disease within the arenas of law, medicine, social and public policy.
Szasz has simply pointed out what pathologists have always known: A disease refers to cellular pathology. Period. A behavior cannot be a disease. And he has also fought endlessly for the rights of persons labeled mentally ill. He will be ninety years old on April 15. He is still writing one book after another. He writes books faster than I can read them!
He has also shown us how behavior is strategic, the expression of what philosophers call moral agency. Today’s neuroscientists, psychiatrists and clinical psychologists have attempted to reduce man to the category of things. They deny the existence of moral agency. Let me give you one simple example of how this is so.
Conventional wisdom, particularly as it appears in the media, leads people to believe that brains cause behavior, as if the brain could act. Psychiatrists and the neuroscientists they aspire emulate, regard man as a machine, an incredibly complicated machine, but a machine nevertheless. Everything that is human is ultimately reducible to electrical and chemical interactions.
This is especially so when it comes to socially unacceptable, abnormal, disturbing and criminal behavior. Bad brains are said to cause bad behavior. Bad brains, in this, sense refers to problems in the structure and function of the brain.
Now if bad brains cause bad behavior, it only follows that good brains must cause good behavior. In other words, brains that work correctly, brains that are structurally and functionally healthy, cause good and admirable behaviors.
While psychiatrists try to excuse bad behaviors by ultimately blaming bad brains, they inadvertently (or perhaps intentionally) are removing personal responsibility for the good things that people do. When someone commits a heroic deed, for example, shows courage, compassion, and care for others at great personal expense and with great risk of danger, the person is then not choosing to do what is clearly important to do.
The brain, according to this way of thinking, is causing the person to do this good thing, in the same way that a bad brain causes someone to prey on others. There is no need to praise someone for his altruism, heroism, and courage, his brain made him do it.
Some psychiatrists have equated human behavior with seizure activity: An alcoholic reaching for that drink too many is having an epileptic seizure. So is the mother sacrificing her own life for the life of her child.
What is left of the person, if this is so? What is left of the person if brains cause bad and good behavior? What is that represented by the pronoun “I?” What happens to moral agency?
Nothing. From this way of thinking, human beings are reduced to the category of things. Things do not choose, they are caused. Things do not feel. Things are not alive. Things have no conscience, no values, no morality, no ethics. And most important, things do not care, for self or others.
This is the legacy of psychiatry and neuroscience today, when it comes to entertaining biological explanations for behavior. Mind is equated with brain, behavior with disease, good with bad, morality with medicine, and ethics with mechanics. In other words, there is no soul. That which we consider uniquely human is destroyed by psychiatry and neuroscience.
How does this fit into law? Through a simple equation. Liberty and responsibility are two sides of the same coin. If we increase one, we increase the other. If we decrease one, we decrease the other. The more free man is, the more responsible he must be. The more responsible man is, the more he is captain of his own ship.
What institutional psychiatry as an extension of the state would have us believe is this: The more we decrease responsibility, the more we increase freedom. In other words, the more you allow us to be in charge of your life, the more you abdicate responsibility, the more you embrace the paternalism we say is good for you, the more you will be free. For obedience to authority is the greatest political virtue.
What then must we do? Szasz has done his job, what is ours? I believe our job is this: We get psychiatry out of the courthouse. We do not need to destroy psychiatry. It will destroy itself if we sever its invisible umbilical cord to the mother-state. Once psychiatry is available to people by choice only, it will die a natural death. Very few people will seek out psychiatrists if they cannot hire and fire them at will.
Psychiatrists know this. That is why they are so afraid of Thomas Szasz.
And that is why they are so afraid of those who understand what I am saying here. As I tell my students every semester, “don’t believe a word I say. Just think about it and come to your own conclusion.” That kind of independence and autonomy scares institutional psychiatrists and those who run the therapeutic state.
It should.
Jeffrey A. Schaler is an assistant professor of justice, law, and society at American University’s School of Public Affairs in Washington, D.C. Professor Schaler’s work is focused on the “therapeutic state”—the union of medicine and state. He completed his doctoral and master’s degrees in human development at the University of Maryland College Park, where the major emphasis of his research was addiction and social policy. Dr. Schaler is particularly interested in how research in the behavioral sciences is interpreted and applied in public, social, and legal policy arenas. He writes and speaks extensively on the relationship between liberty and responsibility.
Dr. Thomas Szasz is a Professor of Psychiatry Emeritus, State University of New York. He is a well known critic of the moral and scientific foundations of psychiatry and has authored more than 30 books on the subject including the Manufacture of Madness, The Myth of Mental Illness and The Therapeutic State. He is the co-founder of the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) and has said of the organization, “We should all honor CCHR because it is really the organization that for the first time in human history has organized a politically, socially, internationally significant voice to combat psychiatry. This has never been done in human history before.”
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.
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.
Wildflowers' Movement 
