Top ten violence-inducing prescription drugs

Natural News
January 16, 2011

The Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) recently published a study in the journal PLoS One highlighting the worst prescription drug offenders that cause patients to become violent. Among the top-ten most dangerous are the antidepressants Pristiq (desvenlafaxine), Paxil (paroxetine) and Prozac (fluoxetine).

Concerns about the extreme negative side effects of many popular antidepressant and antipsychotic drugs have been on the rise, as these drugs not only cause severe health problems to users, but also pose a significant threat to society. The ISMP report indicates that, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System, many popular drugs are linked even to homicides.

Most of the drugs in the top ten most dangerous are antidepressants, but also included are an insomnia medication, an attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) drug, a malaria drug and an anti-smoking medication.

As reported in Time, the top ten list is as follows:

10. Desvenlafaxine (Pristiq) – An antidepressant that affects serotonin and noradrenaline. The drug is 7.9 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.

9. Venlafaxine (Effexor) – An antidepressant that treats anxiety disorders. The drug is 8.3 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.

8. Fluvoxamine (Luvox) – A selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) drug that is 8.4 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.

7. Triazolam (Halcion) – A benzodiazepine drug for insomnia that is 8.7 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.

6. Atomoxetine (Strattera) – An ADHD drug that is 9 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.

5. Mefoquine (Lariam) – A malaria drug that is 9.5 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.

4. Amphetamines – This general class of ADHD drug is 9.6 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.

3. Paroxetine (Paxil) – An SSRI antidepressant drug that is 10.3 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs. It is also linked to severe withdrawal symptoms and birth defects.

2. Fluoxetine (Prozac) – A popular SSRI antidepressant drug that is 10.9 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.

1. Varenicline (Chantix) – An anti-smoking drug that is a shocking 18 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.

More than 25 percent of U.S Children on Medications

NaturalNews.com

The rate of prescription drug use among children and teens continues to rise, with a new report from Medco Health Solutions Inc. saying that at least a quarter of all U.S. children are now regularly taking pharmaceutical drugs. And according to the report, many of these drugs were originally intended for adults, and carry with them unknown side effects for long-term use in young people.

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reports that in addition to taking drugs for conditions like attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and asthma, children are now taking things like sleeping pills, diabetes drugs and even statin drugs, which are typically only prescribed for adults. The report cites an eight-year-old boy, for example, who has been taking blood pressure medications since he was a baby.

Dr. Danny Benjamin, a professor of pediatrics at Duke University, admitted to the WSJ that prescribing chronic medications to children is a serious problem. “We know we’re making errors in dosing and safety,” he said, noting also that parents must do more to question the safety of medicines their doctors prescribe.

Experts worry that the increasing prevalence of children on prescription drugs is causing these young people serious harm, and that parents should instead seek out dietary and lifestyle changes for their children. But because many doctors continue to dole out the drugs like candy, despite known dangers, many parents just accept them for their children without giving it a second thought.

And the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has done little, if anything, to warn the public about the dangers of using chronic prescription drugs, especially in small children. Safety studies in young people are not necessarily required in order for doctors to prescribe adult medications to children, as long as the drug is already FDA-approved.

Bisphenol-A now linked to male infertility

BPA is used widely to make plastic harder and watertight tin cans. It is found in most food and drink cans – including tins of infant formula milk – plastic food containers, and the casings of mobile phones, and other electronic goods.

UK Telegraph

Bisphenol-A (BPA), known as the “gender bending” chemical because of its connection to male impotence, has now been shown to decrease sperm mobility and quality.

The findings are likely to increase pressure on governments around the world to follow Canada and ban the substance from our shelves.

BPA is used widely to make plastic harder and watertight tin cans.

It is found in most food and drink cans – including tins of infant formula milk – plastic food containers, and the casings of mobile phones, and other electronic goods.

It is also used in baby bottles though this is slowly being phased out.

BPA has been the subject of intense research as it is a known endocrine disruptor which in large quantities interferes with the release of hormones.

Earlier studies have linked it to low sex drive, impotence and DNA damage in sperm.

Now a new five year study claims to have found a link between levels of BPA in the blood and male fertility.

For their study of 514 workers in factories in China, researchers at Kaiser Permanente, a California-based research centre, found that men with higher urine BPA levels were two to four times more at risk of having poor semen quality, including low sperm concentration, low sperm vitality and mobility.

What is more the amount of the BPA in the blood seemed to be inversely proportional to sperm quality.

Even those with less than the national average BPA levels in America were effected, it was claimed.

“Compared with men without detectable urine BPA, those with detectable urine BPA had more than three times the risk of lowered sperm concentration and lower sperm vitality, more than four times the risk of a lower sperm count, and more than twice the risk of lower sperm motility,” said study lead author Dr De-Kun Li.

He claims the research, published in the journal Fertility and Sterility, was the first human study to report an adverse association between BPA and semen quality.

Previous studies found a negative link between BPA and male reproduction in mice and rats

It was also the third study in a series by Dr Li and his colleagues examining BPA’s effect on humans.

The first study, published in November 2009, found that exposure to high levels of BPA in the workplace increases men’s risk of reduced sexual function.

Increasing BPA levels urine are also associated with worsening male sexual function, according to the second study, published in May 2010.

The latest study, funded by the US National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, throws further doubt on the safety of BPA.

“The finding of the adverse BPA effect on semen quality illustrates two points: first, exposure to BPA now has been linked to changes in semen quality, an objective physiological measure,” Dr Li said.

“Second, this association shows BPA potential potency: it could lead to pathological changes of the male reproductive system in addition to the changes of sexual function.

“When you see this kind of association with semen you have to wonder what else BPA has an effect on,” said Dr Li.

As a precautionary principle, he said, “Everybody should avoid BPA as much as you can.”

The researchers noted that BPA may also affect female reproductive systems and have adverse effects on ailments such as cancer or metabolic diseases.

BPA has already been banned in Canada and three US states.

Bottles and cans containing the chemical have been linked to breast cancer, heart disease, obesity, hyperactivity and other disorders.

Most manufacturers of baby bottles have stopped putting it in their products but older stock containing the chemical is still on sale.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) supports its removal and has stated concerns regarding the impact of the chemical on babies and young children.

It can affect disorders associated with metabolism, fertility and neural development.

Salmón Transgénico entra en Cadena Alimenticia sin Identificación

Por Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
Septiembre 29, 2010

Esta nueva especie de salmón, literalmente, cultivado en un laboratorio, pondrá fin a la población natural de salmón en tan sólo unas pocas generaciones. Entre los genes que estos salmones contienen se encuentran anguila, insectos y arácnidos.

¿Le gustaría comer un pescado con esta apariencia?

La FDA está a punto de aprobar salmón genéticamente modificado para el consumo público, lo cual crea preocupaciones lógicas pues este salmón no será etiquetado como transgénico. La inclusión de genes extraños en el salmón que se consume en miles de hogares alrededor del mundo, implica que todos los consumidores ingerirán productos contaminados con estos genes. El resultado según se ha mostrado, es que estos genes extraños interactuen con los humanos y causen cambios en la composición genética.

Sin embargo, la FDA insiste en que no se etiquete el salmón genéticamente modificado. Usted, el consumidor, sólo tiene que preguntarse: ¿Porqué no se nos permite saber lo que estamos comiendo realmente?

La industria biotecnológica tiene este absurdo pensamiento que el etiquetado de alimentos transgénicos “confundiría” a los consumidores. David Edwards, el director de biotecnología animal en la Biotechnology Industry Organization, lo explicó de esta manera: “Extra etiquetado sólo confunde al consumidor”, dice. “Se distinguen los productos que no son diferentes.”

El único problema es que SON diferentes. Si fueran realmente iguales, entonces la empresa AquAdvantage no estaría produciendolos. El salmón genéticamente modificado es criado con la hormona del crecimiento para hacerlos crecer más rápidamente. No sé de donde David Edwards está recibiendo su información, pero en el resto del mundo, cuando algo es diferente, eso significa que es diferente.

Si no es diferente, ¿por qué tantos procesos de producción de salmones transgénicos son patentados? Si no es diferente, no habría nada que patentar. Todo el propósito de una patente es hacer una reclamación legal que se “inventó algo diferente”.

La industria del salmón transgénico no puede tener las dos cosas, ya ves. Ellos no pueden pretender que es tan único que sus tecnologías y los animales deben ser de propiedad solo de ellos o patentados, sin embargo, cuando se trata de etiquetarlos, dicen que no hay diferencias. Es bien diferente o no lo es, y en el caso de los salmones transgénicos, sólo un mentiroso absoluto lo miraría a los ojos y le diría que el salmón transgénico es idéntico al salmón natural.

La FDA insiste en mantener a la gente en la oscuridad

La FDA, afirma que sería contra la ley exigir el etiquetado de los alimentos transgénicos. Esta agencia afirma que, dado que el salmón es idéntico al salmón natural (“no es diferente”, dicen), no pueden exigir que se etiqueten de forma diferente.

El código genético del salmón transgénico es diferente, y ese código genético está impreso en cada célula de la carne del pescado, los consumidores están comprando los peces modificados genéticamente con un código genético diferente cuyo único objetivo es alterar la bioquímica del pescado para que crezcan con mayor rapidez. Por lo tanto, la expresión física del salmón transgénico es, por definición, diferente de la expresión física de salmón regular.  Cuando usted come salmón modificado genéticamente, está comiendo algo que es diferente al natural.

Jugando a Engañar con Palabras

Lo que la FDA y la industria biotecnológica están haciendo con el tema del salmón transgénico es haciendo juegos de palabras, tratando de confundir a los consumidores con frases intencionalmente diseñadas para engañar y desinformar. Ya han decidido que quieren aprobar el salmón transgénico y no quieren que sea etiquetado como tal. En esencia, quieren engañar a los consumidores para que compren salmón transgénico, haciéndoles pensar que son salmones naturales.

El problema con esta charlatanería de la FDA es que la gente no es tan estúpida como la FDA piensa, y no van a ser engañados por este salmón modificado genéticamente. Eso es así porque inmediatamente después que la FDA apruebe el presente Frankenfish, una larga lista de personas informadas al respecto, alertarán al mundo entero sobre el asunto:

Verdad # 1) Salmón transgénico es diferente del salmón regular.

Verdad # 2) La FDA está haciendo todo lo posible para que el salmón no sea etiquetado.

Se trata de un producto nocivo y el público va a estar indignado que la FDA introduzca un pez genéticamente modificado en el suministro de alimentos, sin que sea precisa la etiqueta! Vamos a estar viendo este tema de cerca, a la espera de la decisión final de la FDA. Si la FDA decide traicionar una vez más al público sobre este asunto, no se sorprenda en lo absoluto. Pero vamos a estar vigilantes y vamos a pedir su ayuda para difundir la información y tomar medidas para exigir que el salmón genéticamente modificado sea etiquetado de manera clara de modo que los consumidores sepan qué están comprando realmente.

El problema se magnificará, pues el no etiquetado del salmón se tornará una política a adoptar por productores y vendedores alrededor del mundo.  Con esto, más y más consumidores estarán consumiendo salmón transgénico sin darse cuenta.  Muchas de estas determinaciones (las de no etiquetar productos transgénicos) son incluidas en los tratados de libre comercio que se firman entre países desarrollados y otros en desarrollo, por lo que los países que participan en estos acuerdos no tienen, de entrada, ningún argumento legal para rechazar el no etiquetado de cualquier producto.  La única solución es la de declarar esos tratados de libre comercio inconstitucionales y abandonar sus políticas.

No sé usted, pero yo no quiero comer salmón modificado genéticamente. Y no quiero que la FDA o el gobierno lo empujen en mi boca, haciéndome tratar de adivinar si el salmón es real o de ingeniería artificial. Este juego debe terminar!

Genetically Engineered Salmon Will Hit Food Chain Unlabeled

This new species of Salmon, literally grown in a lab, will end the natural population in just a few generations. Eel, insect and other genes are contained in the new franken-fish

Natural News

As the FDA stands poised to approve genetically modified (GM) salmon safe for public consumption, the next logical question concerns how GM salmon would be labeled. Would the fish come with a large red warning that says, “Genetically modified salmon”?

As it turns out, no. In fact, the FDA has already gone on the record stating it will not require any special labeling of genetically modified salmon. You, the consumer, just have to take a wild guess because you’re not allowed to know what you’re really eating.

Does this look like something you want to eat?

The biotech industry takes this absurdity one step further by claiming that labeling GM foods would just “confuse” consumers. David Edwards, the director of animal biotechnology at the Biotechnology Industry Organization, explained it in this way: “Extra labeling only confuses the consumer,” he says. “It differentiates products that are not different.”

Except that they are different. If they were really no different, then AquAdvantage company wouldn’t be growing them. The whole point of genetically modified salmon is that they are modified with extra growth hormone genes to make them grow more quickly. I don’t know where David Edwards is getting his information, but in the rest of the world, when something is different, that means it’s different.

If it’s no different, then why are so many GM salmon processes patented? If it’s no different, there would be nothing to patent. The entire purpose of a patent is to make a legal claim that “we invented something different” and we own the monopoly rights to it.

The GM salmon industry can’t have it both ways, you see. They can’t claim it’s so unique that their technologies and animals should be proprietary or patented, yet when it comes to food labeling, they claim there are no differences. It’s either different or it isn’t, and in the case of GM salmon, only an outright liar would look you in the eye and claim GM salmon is identical to regular farmed salmon or wild-caught salmon.

FDA insists on keeping people in the dark

The FDA, for its sad part in this saga, claims that it would be against the law to require the honest labeling of GM foods. This agency claims that since GM salmon is identical to regular salmon (it’s “no different” once again, they say), they can’t require it to be labeled any differently.

Except, of course, it is different. The genetic code of GM salmon is provably different, and since that genetic code is imprinted in every cell of the fish flesh, consumers are buying genetically modified fish with a different genetic code whose sole purpose was to alter the biochemistry of that fish so that it would grow larger more quickly. Thus, the physical expression of GM salmon is, by definition, different from the physical expression of regular salmon.

When you eat genetically modified salmon, you are eating something that’s different from regular (natural) salmon.

Word game trickery

What the FDA and biotech industries are doing with the GM salmon issue is playing word games, trying to confuse consumers with sleight-of-mouth language intentionally designed to mislead and misinform. They’ve already decided they want to approve GM salmon and they don’t want it to be accurately labeled. In essence, they want to trick consumers into buying GM salmon by making them think it’s natural salmon.

The trouble with this FDA hucksterism is that the people aren’t as stupid as the FDA thinks, and they aren’t going to be fooled by this genetically engineered salmon. That’s because the minute the FDA approves this Frankenfish, NaturalNews.com and a long list of other websites are going to alert the whole world to the simple truths of the matter:

Truth #1) Genetically engineered salmon is different from regular salmon.

Truth #2) The FDA is going out of its way to make sure GM salmon isn’t accurately labeled.

This is a Frankenfood cover-up, pure and simple, and the public is going to be outraged that the FDA would introduce a genetically engineered fish into the food supply without even requiring it to be accurately labeled!We’ll be watching this issue very closely, waiting for the FDA’s final decision. If the FDA decides to yet again betray the American public over this issue, we won’t be at all surprised. But we will be vigilant, and we will ask for your help to spread the word and take action to demand that genetically modified salmon be accurately labeled so that consumers know what they’re actually buying.

Gee, you would think the FDA might be interested in food labeling honesty. But of course, the more you learn about the FDA, the more you realize every decision the agency makes is a political decision that betrays the rights and safety of the American people.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to eat genetically modified salmon. And I don’t want the FDA shoving this down my throat by making me try to guess which salmon is real versus artificially engineered. This Frankenfood shell game must end!

Related Links:

Togel178

Pedetogel

Sabatoto

Togel279

Togel158

Colok178

Novaslot88

Lain-Lain

Partner Links