ENRICHED CEREAL

SHOCKING TRUTH ABOUT CEREAL EXPOSED

What you will see in this video is a scientific experiment performed live on camera. This is proof that corporations are pumping you full of deadly material, and that they are fully aware of doing so. 

The experiment done in this video is great for home-school projects.  Let the children learn.....we owe them that!

Blessings to ALL,

vickie

FAMILY APPEALS COURT

Decision questions validity of “constellation of injuries,” need for parents to admit guilt

An Illinois family fighting for custody of their children has received a refreshing decision from a state appeals court, which reviewed testimony from both the child-protection team and the family’s experts and concluded:

As vexing as this case appears, after a thorough, painstaking examination of the entire record, and in particular a detailed analysis of the expert testimony, we conclude that the trial judge’s finding of abuse and neglect cannot stand, and K. S. and Teresa G. have been thrust into a nightmare by well-intentioned, but misguided doctors and child protection specialists.

Like so many of these cases, this story started with a difficult birth:  The infant Y. entered the world precipitously, with the umbilical cord wrapped around his neck, on May 1, 2011. He was immediately whisked off for six hours of stabilization before being returned to his parents’ care.
Y.’s father took the month off work to be home with the family after Y’s birth. Both parents noticed that their son’s behavior was much different from that of his older sister two years earlier: He occasionally gave out “yelps” that lasted for several seconds, and he exhibited unusual facial expressions. From the court opinion:

On May 9, [the father's] sister came to stay with the family for a week. She too observed Y.’s unusual expressions, where he would look dazed with his eyes rolling up and side-to-side, which the family referred to as “drunk old man expression” or “dazed and confused.”

The parents reported their concerns at Y.’s well-baby appointment three weeks after his birth, and were advised to give him gripe water to fight indigestion.
When the child began vomiting during feedings at the age of four-and-half weeks, his mother called their doctor’s office, and at the advice of the on-call physician, she made an appointment for the following morning. The parents kept a close eye on him that afternoon, and they noticed slight twitching of his left hand and leg during a nap.
The twitching recurred the next day in the doctor’s office, where it was identified as seizure activity. The doctor sent the child and his parents by ambulance to the local children’s hospital, where his admission examinations reported no bruising, contusions, or other external injuries. All of his extremities showed a full range of motion, with no apparent pain.
A CT scan and MRI of the boy’s brain, however, revealed subdural hematoma and possible subarachnoid bleeding, as well as evidence of “restricted diffusion,” possibly reflecting a shortage of oxygen to the brain. A skeletal exam noted an abnormality on his left femur, near the knee, that might represent a healing fracture, for which the parents had no explanation.
During 9 days of hospitalization, Y. had a number of retinal examinations, with conflicting reports. For example:

On June 14, CMH resident Dr. Grace Wu examined Y. and found his retina to be attached and flat, with scattered retinal hemorrhages bilaterally and one small preretinal hemorrhage to his right eye. Dr. Wu also noted that the hemorrhages were greater in Y.’s right eye than his left. Supervising attending physician Dr. Yoon examined Y. immediately after Dr. Wu and noted bilateral, multilayer, retinal hemorrhages. Dr. Yoon noted the hemorrhages were too many to count and greater in the left eye than the right.

None of the ophthalmologists recorded either diagrams or photographs of Y.’s retinas, ordinarily a standard practice, making reconciliation of the different reports especially difficult.
Based on Y.’s “constellation of injuries,” the hospital contacted child protective services, who placed restrictions on the parents’ access to both children. Convinced that their son had an underlying medical condition, the parents arranged blood tests in July that measured the mother’s Vitamin D levels as “insufficient” (25 on a reference range of 30 to 100) and Y.’s levels as “deficient” (13 on a reference range of 30 to 100). Not only is Vitamin D essential for the formation of healthy bones, but lack of Vitamin D can also lead to clotting disorders:  The deficiency could explain both the bone abnormality and the subdural hematoma. These findings had no impact on the custody situation, however, or on the opinions of the doctors from the children’s hospital.
The parents brought in Stanford University neuroradiologist Dr. Patrick Barnes, who concluded from Y.’s imaging that his skeleton showed signs of rickets, the weakening of bones most often caused by a lack of Vitamin D. He also noted that Y. had more space than usual between his brain and his skull, a condition known as “benign external hydrocephalus” (BEH), which is commonly believed to make subdural bleeding more likely.
A second outside expert, neurosurgeon Dr. David M. Frim from the University of Chicago, concluded that both the subdural bleeding and the retinal hemorrhages could have resulted from the BEH:

After reviewing Y.’s brain images and medical records, Dr. Frim opined that Y. was born with BEH, that he likely sustained a hemorrhage during birth that caused him to be even more susceptible to additional hemorrhages and that these hemorrhages caused the seizures he exhibited when he was admitted to [the children's hospital] on June 6, 2011. Dr. Frim explained that blood from the subarachnoid space surrounding the brain can travel to the retinas causing retinal hemorrhaging.

Based on the opinion of the child protection team, however, the state pursued its efforts to strip the parents of custody. The Public Guardian’s office, appointed to represent the children, asked for a judicial declaration of abuse and neglect of both Y. and his older sister.
At the evidentiary hearing, Dr. Kristine Fortin, one of the first pediatricians in the country to pass the new “child protection” specialty exam, rejected the rickets diagnosis and said that low Vitamin D levels do not necessarily lead to rickets. She accepted the BEH diagnosis but not its relevance:

Dr. Fortin acknowledged that Dr. Frim diagnosed Y. with BEH, but opined that even though some of the medical community believes BEH predisposes children to subdural hemorrhages, BEH could not account for all of Y.’s injuries.

The “proponents” in the case (the state’s attorney and the Public Guardians) called a total of seven medical witnesses, including a pediatric neurologist, a pediatric radiologist, a pediatric neuroradiologist, a pediatric ophthalmologist, a hematologist, and a pediatric orthopedist, all of whom attributed Y’s injuries to abuse. While conceding that no one at the hospital had considered the BEH diagnosis, one doctor said he had never diagnosed a case in his career, and another disputed Frim’s definition of the condition. One of the two doctors who rejected the rickets diagnosis had seen only the initial set of x-rays, which were of poor quality.
Dr. Barnes and Dr. Frim testified for the parents, repeating their earlier diagnoses of BEH and rickets. Pediatric orthopedic surgeon Dr. Christopher Sullivan also testified, saying that the abnormality on Y.’s left leg was “a classic finding for irregular calcification of normal bone growth, or rickets,” and adding that an actual fracture would have caused the child pain, which should have been noticeable to the treating physicians.
The parents also called a number of lay witnesses who testified that the two of them had been responsible, loving parents to both children.
The trial judge in 2012 reached a hybrid conclusion, declaring the parents to be “fit, willing, and able to care for their children” but also finding that abuse had occurred. The court held that “to conclude that all three of these infrequent to rare conditions came together at the same time to explain the minor’s condition was not reasonable.”
Despite the abuse finding, the court returned the children to their parents, but the Public Guardian’s office appealed the decision. Then the parents cross appealed, which resulted in last week’s ruling.
The appellate court’s decision includes two promising points:  A challenge to the “constellation of injuries” theory, and an objection to the requirement by social services that the parents admit to abuse before the family could be reunited.
Regarding the constellation of injuries, the court wrote:

¶ 146 The expert witnesses called by the proponents testified that each of Y.’s injuries could occur from trauma. Instead of evaluating and weighing the evidence and expert testimony as to each alleged injury, the trial court allowed the proponents to elude their burden of proof by claiming that the “constellation” of Y.’s injuries created a preponderance of evidence that he was abused. This “constellation” of injuries theory allowed the trial court to conclude that Y. had been abused even though not one of his individual injuries within the constellation had been proven to be by abuse and where highly experienced and credentialed, nationally recognized doctors provided well-reasoned medical explanations, albeit rare ones, to explain each of his injuries.
¶ 147 The proponents offered no evidence that an injury is more likely to be caused by abuse merely because a second injury is alleged to exist, particularly where there are reasonable nonabuse explanations offered for each of the individual conditions. Not only did the proponents fail to provide authority supporting their “constellation” of injuries theory, but they failed to identify any specific facts showing it should apply to Y. The “constellation” theory invited the proponents’ experts to improperly rely on assumptions about injuries outside their respective specialties to rule out nonabuse explanations for the injury under their direct evaluation. In contrast, the parents offered nonabuse medical explanations supported by expert testimony from nationally recognized, highly qualified doctors in specific fields of expertise to explain the individual conditions suffered by Y. Accordingly, the trial court erred in disregarding the parents’ medical experts’ diagnoses because a single, uniform medical condition could not explain every medical finding Y. presented.

And on the subject of admitting to the abuse:

¶ 153 The proponents fail to present any persuasive evidence supporting their conclusion that “meaningful therapy” cannot and did not occur in light of the parents’ unwavering claims of innocence of the abuse allegations. The proponents offer no support for their suggestion that an acknowledgment of abuse is a per se requirement for therapy to be considered meaningful. To require that the parents must “acknowledge” the truth of a trial court’s nonfinal findings of fact to be deemed to have had “meaningful therapy” has no precedent. Instead, we find the support offered for the proponents’ position to be a misreading of case law in which parents failed to make actual progress in therapy and, thus, were deemed unable to care for their children as a result of having not participated in meaningful therapy, a significantly different factual scenario from the one presented here. We completely reject any notion that parents should be declared unable to care for their children merely because they persist in their own belief of innocence of wrongdoing, particularly here where their insistence is supported by the evidence.

The family in this case had the resources to bring in their own experts and hire a private attorney for the initial trial. The appeal was handled by the Family Defense Center (FDC), a non-profit organization based in Chicago that advocates for families in the child welfare system. FDC Executive Director Diane Redleaf credited both trial attorney Ellen Domph and lead appellate attorney Melissa Staas with “outstanding lawyering” in this case, noting, “While we are delighted by the results in this case and hope it will serve as a strong precedent for other families, we realize that many wrongly accused parents do not have the same access to the resources necessary to demonstrate their innocence.”
For the full appellate court opinion: In re Yohan K. & Marika K., 2013 IL App (1st) 123472 (June 19, 2013)

SOURCE:  http://onsbs.com/2013/06/24/a-family-appeals-court-gets-it-right/

SOIL

Symphony of the Soil Trailer 

 Symphony of the Soil is a 104-minute documentary feature film that explores the complexity and mystery of soil. Filmed on four continents and sharing the voices of some of the world's most esteemed soil scientists, farmers and activists, the film portrays soil as a protagonist of our planetary story. Using a captivating mix of art and science, the film shows that soil is a complex living organism, the foundation of life on earth. Yet most people are soil-blind and "treat soil like dirt." 

Through the knowledge and wisdom revealed in this film, we can come to respect, even revere, this miraculous substance, and appreciate that treating the soil right can help solve some of our most pressing environmental problems. In addition to the feature film, there are several short films, Sonatas of the Soil, that delve deeply into soil-related topics, and several short clips, Grace Notes, that are available to stream on the film's website.

Produced and Directed by Deborah Koons Garcia

LOGLINE: Symphony of the Soil explores the evolution and importance of soil in today's world.

TAGLINE: Discover the life beneath your feet.

http://www.symphonyofthesoil.com
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2229399/?...

ALLAN SAVORY

Allan Savory: How to green the world's deserts and reverse climate change

"Desertification is a fancy word for land that is turning to desert," begins Allan Savory in this quietly powerful talk. And terrifyingly, it's happening to about two-thirds of the world's grasslands, accelerating climate change and causing traditional grazing societies to descend into social chaos. Savory has devoted his life to stopping it. He now believes -- and his work so far shows -- that a surprising factor can protect grasslands and even reclaim degraded land that was once desert.

Following Video: Question & Answer Session following Allan Savory's presentation on January 25th, 2013 at the Fletcher School, Tufts University. Students, environmentalists, and concerned citizens peppered posed questions for the co-founder of The Savory Institute. Event sponsored by The Center for International Environment and Resource Policy (CIERP) at the Fletcher School at Tufts University, the The Friedman School of Nutrition at Tufts University, and Planet-TECH Associates of Somerville, MA."

FOR MORE INFORMATION VISIT: 

http://www.savoryinstitute.com/

contact@savoryinstitute.com

637-B South Broadway St.
Suite 124
Boulder, CO 80305

FDA FRAUD

FDA FRAUD

"The thing that bugs me is that people think the FDA is protecting them. It isn't.
What the FDA is doing and what the public thinks it's doing are as different as night and day.”
  Dr. Herbert Ley, Commissioner of the FDA. (San Francisco Chronicle, 1-2-70).
The Food and Drug Administration, FDA, has the legal responsibility for protecting Americans from dangerous substances in our food or medicine. During the 1960’s they got the added responsibility, for drugs, of assuring that the medicines are not only safe, but also effective.

Part of this responsibility has moved into the area of protecting us from false advertising about the health value or safety of food or drugs.

It’s rather tough for the FDA to say that butter is dangerous to your health. After all, butter has been around for thousands of years.

 It would also be hard for some margarine maker to make a health claim for margarine if the FDA were doing its job properly.

Yet, you’ve been told, over and over, by your doctor and the media that saturated fats [butter] are dangerous. The cottonseed people have their puppets making this false claim.

Yet, you’ve been bombarded with ads, for decades, saying that some brand of margarine is low on those dangerous saturated fats -- you’ll even see ads for margarine that let you know how healthy margarine is, compared with saturated fats. They hardly ever go so far as to say that the margarine is better for your heart than butter -- but that message is out there -- very plain!

How did this all come to pass?

 The FDA has had a hand in this. For instance, "In 1971 the general counsel for the FDA -- the man in charge of prosecuting any violations of FDA regulations (including those of mislabeled polyunsaturated products) -- left the FDA to become president of the Institute of Shortenings and Edible Oils (the primary public relations group for polyunsaturates). At the same time the man who had been the legal representative of the edible oils companies suddenly became the general counsel of the FDA --- the government lawyer now in charge of regulating and disciplining the activities of his former clients."

But, there is more! This goes on all the time, with researchers leaving universities, going to government agencies, and then leaving there for executive positions in business where they cash in on all the contacts they’ve made during the earlier years. It isn’t even considered unethical. (See the footnote on page *.)

Here is a story backed up with more evidence than you have ever seen in any other publication.

Back in 1946 Americans consumed about 60% of their fat from animal sources and only 40% from vegetable oils.

By 1963, when the dirty work had been pretty much accomplished, animal fat (saturated fat) accounted for only 40% of American fat intake, while vegetable oil had risen to about 60%. This very dramatic change was engineered and you are about to read the truth about that manipulation.

 Somewhere, behind the scenes, about 1946, some small group of faceless businessmen decided to change the American attitude about butter, get the people fearful of butter and preferring margarine.

These businessmen mostly worked for large drug companies, vegetable oil firms and for certain chemical companies. Some of them were doctors high up in the AMA even though the AMA, itself, did not officially become part of this particular master plan at this early date. It was busy on other conspiracies.

These men formed a front group, called the American Health Foundation about 1970.

. . . the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the American Health Foundation, David J. Mahoney, is also the President of Norton Simon, Inc., the leading producer of cottonseed oil (Wesson Oil), which is pointedly advertised as polyunsaturated.

This front group then obtained $6 million from the Federal Government for the purpose of educating the American public about the dangers of eating saturated fats [butter]!

From now on I’m going to refer to these unethical businessmen as master planners! Their real purpose was not just selling their vegetable oil, but removing a natural and healthy product (butter) from the market and substituting a chemically created product (margarine). This helped set the stage to make people more and more dependent on all sorts of drugs -- from crops raised with artificial fertilizers, to medical drugs and finally, through the help of psychiatrists, street drugs.

In July, 1972, the National Cancer Institute (a totally tax-supported organization) awarded this commercial foundation $2 million of tax money to further a program to prevent cancer and to assist in the construction of a new Health Research Institute.

In August of the same year, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [NHLBI] (another thoroughly tax-supported organization) awarded the foundation $3.3 million of our tax money to research lowering elevated blood cholesterol. The thesis being tested was that increased polyunsaturate [margarine] intake would lower serum cholesterol and by so doing reduce the risk of heart attack.

In 1975, the NHLBI granted $1.1 million to the Mr. Fit Program. It is interesting to note that the advisory steering committee for the Mr. Fit Programincludes two representatives from the American Health Foundation, Drs. Peter Peacock and Lloyd Shewchuk

The Mr. Fit Program dealt with men with high risk of heart disease. They finally selected 12,866 for the final tests. Half continued to get whatever care they were getting from their regular doctors.

The other half was called the "Special Intervention Group" because their lives were intruded upon greatly! The program was mostly psychiatric manipulation -- aimed at getting these high risk heart people to stop smoking, improve their diet and otherwise change their life styles.

The first objective was a lowering of blood cholesterol by massive changes in diet. As far as behavior modification is concerned, the tests were very successful. Those being tested reduced their dietary cholesterol by a massive 42%! Saturated fat consumption dropped by 28%. Total calories dropped by 21%.

What didn’t change was the amount of cholesterol in their blood!

Of course. This had been the earlier findings of dozens of other studies. This Mr. Fit Program was supposed to come up with different results.

Originally the goal of the Program was to reduce blood cholesterol by a very modest 10%. Depending on how you measured it, they achieved either a 5% or 6.7% reduction.

The researchers worked hard, with their psychiatric tricks, to stop these guys from smoking. About 50% actually quit smoking. But the ones who quit were the light smokers. The heaviest smokers were least likely to stop. So, the psychiatric tricks didn’t actually work much.

The researchers also wanted to achieve a lowering of blood pressure with these diet and life style changes. They did reach a good success on that -- which suggests that diet and life style DO affect blood pressure even if they don’t affect blood cholesterol. I, personally, believe that excess weight is the number one factor in predicting disease of all kinds, and that proper diet is the number one solution for excess weight.

The bottom line for all this research was to be the reduction in death rates among the people whose lives were intruded upon! They expected to reduce heart disease deaths by 25% in the group being tested.

The tests failed completely!

There was no significant difference in heart disease deaths when comparing the two groups! Actually, there were more heart deaths in the intervention group, although the difference was not statistically significant.

More surprises? The group that got no special treatment? Their cholesterol levels dropped just as much as the group getting the $115 million intervention. Could it be that factors not even being examined were causing both groups to have a lower blood cholesterol?

Twenty nine percent of the group that got no psychiatric treatments stopped smoking.

Even the blood pressure of the untreated group came down, without the special intervention.

All in all, the Mr. Fit Program was a complete failure.

Yet, when you read references to it, today, you’ll hear how it "proves" that cholesterol in your food is bad for you, and causes heart disease.

It’s another example of the master planners finding something to be white, and calling it black. When they spend billions of dollars on promotion, you might believe it is black! Certainly your doctor believes it!

What Did You Miss?

By now you are wondering, What am I missing? Who said that margarine was safe and butter dangerous? Why should the government try to eliminate butter from the marketplace? You can see, above, that the government is helping the cottonseed people promote the value of their margarine against butter, on the basis of some sort of danger in butter.

What was the scientific basis for such claims?

Now, you have to go back in time to 1948 when the master planners secretly got some very early government money to start proving that butter was dangerous and margarine was safe and good for you. This very desirable conclusion, from their point of view, required two earlier inconvenient facts to be proven false:

First, it had been well established that cholesterol in the blood stream did not cause death from heart disease. If the master planners were to sell their oil they would have to reverse this truth.

Second, it had been well established that cholesterol in your diet did not cause cholesterol in your blood stream. It the master planners were to sell their oil they would have to reverse this truth.

The master planners concluded:

1. There needed to be research showing that high cholesterol in the blood caused death from heart disease.

The cholesterol myth started in 1913 when a Russian scientist, Dr. Nikolai Anitschkov, fed rabbits massive amounts of cholesterol -- the rabbits died of heart disease.

Later scientists, who had a point they wanted to prove, often quote these studies as the first proof that dietary cholesterol causes heart disease. It isn’t that these studies, in 1913, were so scientifically conducted, it was simply that they represent a historical foundation. If a scientist, today, wants to claim that dietary cholesterol causes high blood cholesterol and that that is the cause of heart disease, he will cite all sorts of studies, but in order to get some historical legitimacy he will often cite the 1913 study.

The 1913 study done by the Russian simply ignores the fact that rabbits are vegetarians and that they bodies cannot handle animal fat.

As my friend Dr. Mendelsohn would say, The Russian study proves conclusively that you should not feed butter to rabbits!

Today’s master planners will start off citing the rabbit study, but omit the fact that there were rabbits involved, or fail to mention that rabbits can’t use animal products in their diet -- they die! One of the most misleading of these is Dr. Kenneth H. Cooper:

With Anitschkow’s experiments, however, the connection between cholesterol-laden foods and hardening of the arteries began to be much clearer.

2. Then, there was need for research which would show that a diet which is high in cholesterol (eggs and butter) would cause high cholesterol levels in the blood.

This second research need would have seemed insurmountable to any honest researcher. There were, by 1970, literally dozens of well-done scientific studies which showed the exact opposite -- that cholesterol in the diet had no significant effect on cholesterol in the blood stream.

The master planners have succeeded, as you realize.

How did they do that?

Studies Of Large Groups

It is clear that for many decades most doctors and scientists had not the slightest clue as to the causes of heart disease.

Dr. Denham Harman described the theory which I think holds the most truth, way back in 1962. However, his theories did not promote the use of drugs, but rather the avoidance of drugs and junk foods. I’ve presented the modern application of his discovery in Chapter Six, starting on page *.

But, the master planners who wanted you to take more drugs ignored Dr. Harman’s reports and started off on what seems to be an honest type of research. This is research referred to as epidemiological. Such a big word surely needs some explanation.

Let’s say that you notice that the rate of death from cancer is higher in Chicago than it is in Los Angeles. This happens to be true, but why?

You then get more statistics and you discover that there is a batch of cities which have high rates of cancer death and another batch of cities which have low rates. Why?

Here are two groups of cities where the cancer rates are very different.

High Cancer Rates

Chicago, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Cleveland, Washington, D.C., St. Louis, San Francisco, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh and Buffalo.

Low Cancer Rates

Los Angeles, Boston, New Orleans, Seattle, Cincinnati, Atlanta, Kansas City, Columbus, Newark and Portland, OR.

Now you start looking at other differences between the two groups of cities. If ALL of the high cancer rate cities were in cold climate areas, and ALL of the low cancer rate cities were in warm climate areas, you could begin to conclude that cancer had something to do with the climate.

This type of study can be extremely accurate because it deals with very large numbers of people and usually for these large groups there are all sorts of statistics gathered for that group. When the group is based on a geographical area, the quantity statistics tend to be enormous.

Thus, you can find out if ALL the high cancer cities have a different per capita number of telephones, dogs or any other factor you might wish to examine.

When this was done for these cities and cancer, the drug companies would never look for some difference relating to a drug as the cause, you can be sure. But, when Dr. John Yiamouylannis looked at these statistics he found something very obvious. He found that all the cities that had high cancer rates also fluoridated their drinking water, and that all the cities that had low cancer rates did NOT fluoridate their drinking water.

That is called an epidemiologic study because it studies large groups of people.

When the drug master planners started looking for the causes of heart disease, it was easy to find cities where death from heart disease was high, and other cities where it was low. They, of course, would then only look for causes that could be handled with drugs. I’ll come to their search in a moment.

When other researchers with other viewpoints looked at similar data, they often found problems that could be solved with non-drug solutions.

Back before the master planners were as powerful as they became by 1987, Dr. H. A. Schroeder discovered some interesting facts. He studied the death rates from heart disease in 163 different cities. He quickly found that there were significant differences in the death rates, depending on which city you lived in.

He then wrote a research report that actually got printed in the Journal of the American Medical Association, in April 1960, page 98. I suspect that such a report would NOT be published today, because the drug master planners have far more control now than they did in 1960.

His report was entitled the Relation Between Mortality From Cardiovascular Disease and Treated Water Supplies. It simply blew the whistle on the evils of treated water! Here was an epidemiological study that proved that people who drank treated (softened) water had higher rates of death from heart disease. How was water treated? With chemicals, of course. But the chemicals involved are nowhere near as profitable as the chemicals used in the heart pills you might be taking.

The cure for this, of course, is nothing more complicated than to quit treating the water. Such solutions seldom get much publicity, and you can guess why.

There were even studies that showed that two towns, using the same natural supply of hard water, had similar rates of death from heart disease. Then, when one of these towns, several miles distant from the first one, decided that they would enjoy soft water better than the hard stuff, they added chemicals to soften the water.

Well, they got softer water, but they also got more heart disease.

Now that you understand this type of research, let’s see what the master planners planed:

First, there were only discredible reports about cholesterol being a cause of heart disease. So, they decided to look at large groups of autopsy reports to see if the people who died from heart disease all had high levels of blood cholesterol. They didn’t find that to be true, so they abandoned that line of investigation.

They looked in other areas, and couldn’t find any cause and effect relationship for heart disease where the cure could possibly be a drug. They found other relationships, like diet and life style, but until later they also abandoned these because there didn’t seem to be a drug solution to diet or life style problems.

So, as it happened, they decided they just had to manufacture some evidence that the cause of heart disease was something, anything, that could be cured with drugs. You may think I put this too crudely, but when you examine all the evidence, the line in bold print, above, is true!

Why heart disease?

Because heart disease caused more death than all other forms of death combined and if you are going to look for a drug solution to some problem, you might as well find the problem where the solution would provide the largest possible boost to the sales of the drugs.

In other words, why study some rare disease, even if it could be cured with a drug, when a study of heart disease would produce far greater profits when the drug "cure" was found.

Even better would be a drug that didn’t cure, but only managed the problem. In other words, a drug that someone would have to take for the rest of his life, with no cure ever in sight, would be the ideal drug.

They have succeeded! Beyond YOUR wildest imagination!

The Origin Of The Cholesterol Myth

The actual identity of the master planners will probably never be known. It is certain that some of them started from deep inside the major drug companies, and some of those people were salted into various other organizations.

It is even possible that some otherwise innocent researchers were looking for a "cure" to heart disease that would tie in with some drug they were manufacturing.

The discouraging factor was that every good study of the causes of heart disease seemed to show factors such as drinking water, diet and life style which didn’t lend themselves to drug solutions.

Now, whether someone actually planned, from the beginning, to falsify statistics I don’t know for sure. But, after false statistics had been publicized, it is plain that literally hundreds of sleazy scientists decided to reinforce these false statistics with more of the same.

One of the most famous of the early studies on heart disease was called the Framingham Study. It was based on the city of Framingham, Massachusetts. That town is near Boston, and physicians at the Boston University Medical School announced that they had decided to initiate this study.

The idea was to study a large number of people from one city -- to study them over a very long period of time and to spend so much money on the study that there would be every conceivable measurement included. This was more likely originated within a drug company which sold the idea to the National Institutes of Health, and its division, the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute [NHLBI]. The NHLBI offered the largest financial grant in their history to do the study. Somewhere in here the idea was firmly planted that if the results implicated dietary cholesterol as the cause of heart disease, there would be more government grants and great prestige for the scientists who made those discoveries.

This study was so thorough that even today it is cited as the source for much of what doctors talk about when they talk about the causes of heart disease. The study took a sample of 5,127 adults in Framingham and put them through all sorts of regular physical examinations.

They were asked if they smoked, what they ate, whether they were stressed or not and many more questions.

They were given all sorts of blood tests, particularly as to the levels of their blood cholesterol. The electrical activity of their hearts was measured.

These 5,127 people were watched more closely than any other large group ever. During the time of the study 404 of them died of heart disease and those were immediately studied all the more -- to see how they might be different from the others.

The study lasted an amazing 24 years! Actually, its offspring continue to live!

If you were a young scientist, on your way up the career ladder of working for a prestigious university hospital, expecting eventually to get one of those high paying jobs in one of the drug companies, what would YOU do when the research showed that there was no evidence that dietary cholesterol had any effect on blood cholesterol.

The fact of what was done was discovered by Thomas J. Moore, and recounted with great detail in his book, Heart Failure.

Here is the bombshell dropped by Mr. Moore’s book -- information which had never been public until he dug deeply into the final unpublished results of the Framingham studies:

Another surprise about cholesterol emerged from Framingham, although it was never published in a scientific journal. Buried deep in a typewritten report that is almost two feet thick is a study titled "Diet and the regulation of serum cholesterol." The Framingham researchers assumed they knew exactly why some people had higher blood cholesterol levels than others: It was their diet. To measure this link they selected 912 men and women and compared the cholesterol in their diets to the cholesterol levels in their blood. To their surprise there was no relationship. The researchers studied the intake of saturated fats, dietary cholesterol, and overall calories. None had an effect. They considered the possibility that other factors -- such as differences in physical activity -- masked the effects of diet. It didn’t make any difference. "There is, in short, no suggestion of any relation between diet and the subsequent development of CHD [coronary heart disease] in the study group . . .," the researchers concluded. Furthermore, it was not lost on the Framingham team that people were already being advised to diet to lower their cholesterol, and that more elaborate campaigns were on the drawing board. They concluded with a fateful warning:

"There is a considerable range of serum cholesterol levels within the Framingham Study Group. Something explains this inter-individual variation, but it is not diet (as measured here). Clearly if there is to be an attempt to manipulate serum cholesterol level in a general population, it would be desirable to know what these powerful but unspecified forces are."

Yet when you read books by the master planners, and their dupes, you find time after time where the author makes reference to the Framingham Study as the authority for the "truth" that high dietary cholesterol causes blood cholesterol to be high.

How could the Framingham Study be used as proof of something which found, in fact, to be not true at all?

The first part of that answer is the fact that this finding was never published as any part of the thousands of pages of reports put out officially by the Framingham Study Group.

Why? I would say because they were paid off, but you can be more charitable if you wish!

But, even if that terrible truth had not been revealed, how is it that the Framingham Study could be used as the source for this false data?

What actually happened was that the master planners hired some dishonest technicians to infiltrate the Framingham Study Group and from their position inside that Group, to leak out so-called preliminary results from the research.

This is actually what happened.

Remember that this evil purpose was planned well before 1972, probably back as far as 1950. What was the atmosphere in government-financed public health in those days? During the early-1995 controversy over Clinton’s nomination of Dr. Foster as Surgeon General, the news repeated an old, and admitted expose:

In 1932 a group of scientists selected 400 black people in Alabama -- blacks who had syphilis. These 400 black men were told they had a medical problem but that the government health service would "help" them. These 400 black men could have easily been cured of syphilis, with drugs well-known at the time. Instead, the doctors who did the "treatments" gave these men placebo pills -- pills that had no effect whatsoever on the disease. Why? The purpose of the "research" was to see what would happen to these men if they went on, untreated.

What happened? Many of them went insane, others went blind, and many died -- all while the researchers were watching! As unbelievable as this might seem, the evil "research" continued for years, and only in 1972 was the "experiment" stopped!

If a public health service, run by your government, could do THAT, how much easier would it be for that same public health service to finance "research" to prove that heart disease was caused by eating too many eggs!

When I say that medical research is a corrupt institution, I speak with considerable understatement.

Long before the Framingham report officially concluded in 1970, that there was no link between dietary cholesterol and blood cholesterol, these infiltrators simply manufactured completely false data -- saying that the Framingham research showed that people whose diets were high in cholesterol tended to have high blood cholesterol.

This false data was released covertly -- you would find it difficult, now, to go back and trace the actual release of that false data. The people who did it will never be caught, unless one of them decides to confess!

The actual original false data was quickly spread to the second level of dishonest technicians. These are the researchers looking for fame and glory without doing any real research. They wrote articles because they were promised space in various scientific journals if they would report on this "preliminary" and "disturbing" information coming out of the Framingham study.

Those second level false reports were published, often with enough complicated language that the average layman couldn’t understand them.

These false reports were then immediately manipulated by the powerful machine which had sent the technicians into the Framingham Study Group. This powerful machine simply took the false data and multiplied it by millions of times. By the time this false news had been so broadly publicized, those who raised their voices in protest could not be heard.

Somewhere, inside some large drug company, a senior executive said to a bright and ambitious marketing person:

Watch for any scientific reports showing butter to be dangerous and margarine to be healthy. When and if you see any such, we’ll spend millions of dollars to spread that information.

The marketing man could be sincerely honest in doing his job! How would he know that the scientific research he was using was cooked!

And, there were many honest doctors who raised their voices in protest at the claims being made about dietary cholesterol.

For instance, in 1953 there was a prominent research report that showed that when the equivalent cholesterol in 45 eggs was given to healthy men, along with a breakfast of scrambled eggs, the cholesterol in their blood rose within four hours, but returned to normal within 24 hours.

For instance, in 1964 one of America’s leading heart surgeons, Dr. Michael DeBakey, reported that his research of a group of 1,700 patients with heart disease showed no correlation between the level of cholesterol and the condition of heart disease.

After the Framingham Study was released in 1970, omitting the important conclusion that diet did NOT influence blood cholesterol, there were many more honest scientists who tore the Framingham report into shreds -- all while the powerful master planner machine continued to pump out false propaganda about the dangers of saturated fats.

For instance, Drs. Werko, Oster and Mr. Bauman, each tore into various aspects of this very flawed study.

The master planners, however, had already started another dishonest "study," called the National Pooling Project. Even though this flawed study did not, itself, claim that dietary cholesterol caused heart disease, the various infiltrators connected with it made those claims anyway.

This is not unusual. A study is started. False data is "leaked" out from the study and manipulated into the popular truth. The fact that the actual study results don’t later justify the earlier leaks is lost in the small print on the last page.

The master planner machine has set the course for publicity on the "facts" as they want them to be known.

For instance, the American Heart Association has been a part of this master plan for some time. In the 1960’s they were calling for a reduction of fats and cholesterol in the diets of all Americans.

As critical as I usually am of the American Medical Association, the AMA, in 1962, issued a press release which said:

The anti-fat, anti-cholesterol fad is not just foolish and futile . . . it also carries some risk

Scientific reports linking cholesterol and heart attacks have touched off a new food fad among do-it-yourself Americans. But dieters who believe they can cut down on their blood cholesterol without medical supervision are in for a rude awakening. It could even be dangerous to try."

Just a few years later, in 1965, the AMA had still not been infiltrated by the master planners, at least by the cholesterol master planners. In 1965 the AMA’s Council on Foods and Nutrition said:

"It must be recalled that definitive proof that lowering serum cholesterol, or preventing a rise in serum cholesterol, will lower the morbidity [illness] and mortality associated with coronary heart disease, is still lacking."

The master planners, seeing that they had not infiltrated the AMA, went to work, and by 1989 that august group was finally repeating the lies about cholesterol.

The master planners HAD gotten their infiltrators into another group called the American Society for the Study of Arteriosclerosis. In 1958 that group announced:

"High blood cholesterol was a definite cause of coronary-artery disease."

Here are more warnings from fake experts, planted by the master planners:

"There is convincing evidence that blood cholesterol levels are definitely related both to the presence . . . and the development . . of coronary heart disease."

Take a look at Time Magazine, the issue dated March 26, 1984. Look at the front cover and tell me if you don’t think that Time is an active part of the master plan. That front cover shows a plate with two fried eggs and a strip of bacon. Above that picture is the single word: cholesterol. The article inside would scare your pants off if you were still eating eggs. Time has a lengthy history of selling false information to the American public -- its promotion of false data about cholesterol is just another, among many, of its terrible deceptions on the American public.

The truthful, but contrary reports, far outnumbered the fake and false reports, but these truthful reports just didn’t get much publicity. Who controlled the publicity? The rich master planners, with billions of drug company profits at their call, and the national media always ready to bow down to money offered for advertising -- these were the people, behind the scenes, who made sure that you never heard about the large number of research studies that showed no relationship between diet and blood cholesterol, nor any link between high blood cholesterol and heart disease.

Not to worry, the master planners had thousands of puppets, with millions in their budgets for publicity.

During the 1970’s and into the 1980’s, you began to see so much publicity against eggs and butter that there are literally millions of Americans today, and many thousands of doctors, who still believe that eggs and butter cause heart disease. I actually detailed some of that publicity earlier in this Chapter, starting on page 43.

This publicity campaign finally reached its height in about 1986 when the master planners were ready to launch their final attack on American society.

One of the most persistent and serious attacks on society that has ever existed is the continuous, usually covert, attempt to get more and more drugs into mankind.

Margarine is just another drug -- driving a natural and healthy food product, butter, off the market. Carlton Fredericks said it well, I think:

Nature didn’t invent cholesterol to provide cardiologists with an annuity.

Worse, this particular drug campaign was aimed at forcing many millions of Americans onto a daily diet of a dangerous heart medication. There are more details on this below.

You should realize that when the Surgeon General of the United States officially announces that dietary cholesterol causes blood cholesterol and that high blood cholesterol causes heart disease, that gentlemen has become the final effect of a very lengthy and powerful process which started decades before.

The Surgeon General simply reflects the highest political reality in Washington at the time. The Surgeon General in 1994 was Dr. Joycelyn Elders, chosen, then later fired by President Clinton. What she has to say about heart disease probably tells you how President Clinton feels;

She was asked by a reporter why the United States spends more on AIDS research (#9 killer) than on heart disease and cancer (#1 and #2). Her reply:

The full quote:  ON AIDS VICTIMS vs. ELDERLY?: "We know that AIDS is a ravaging disease in our country that is destroying our bright, young people...I feel that if we do not find a vaccine, do not find a good drug...we are going to lose our entire society...Most of the people who die with heart disease and cancer are our elderly population, you know, and we all will probably die with something sooner or later."  (SOURCE)

If that attitude about heart disease gives you the chills, just consider this one. Dr. Elders was asked about making street drugs free for addicts:

When we say "legalize," I’m really talking about control. We [could] have doctors or clinics set up where addicts can get their drugs free or pay one dollar.

This doctor is quite a woman, and you may feel that her views on medical issues are quite bad enough. But, she also feels that several social issues are in her field, too. She appeared on a news television show where the subject of birth control came up. It actually came up in connection with providing free birth control assistance to prostitutes. Then, the question came up as to whether a woman would have to stop being a prostitute before she could get government assistance with birth control. Dr. Elders speaks for the government, apparently, when she says:

I would hope that we would provide them [drug-abusing prostitutes] Norplant [a birth control device], so they could still use sex if they must to buy their drugs.

Can you be comfortable with a government speaking with this official voice, in charge of the research into the number one killer -- heart disease?

The main point here, however, is simply that the person holding the position of Surgeon General of the United States has generally always been put there to be a puppet for big drug company propaganda.

Copyright © July 27, 2002 04:37 PM by Vibrant Life, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Permission is granted for non-commercial downloading, copying, distribution or redistribution on two conditions: One, that some form of copyright notice is included in every copy distributed or copied, showing the copyright belonging to Vibrant Life, Burbank, CA, at www.oralchelation.com .The second condition is that the material is not to be used for any purpose contrary to the purposes and objectives of this site. This permission does not extend to materials on this site which are copyrighted by others. 

Source:  http://www.advancedhealthplan.com/fdafraud.html

 

HOME PROJECT - VIDEO

We are living in exceptional times. Scientists tell us that we have 10 years to change the way we live, avert the depletion of natural resources and the catastrophic evolution of the Earth's climate.

The stakes are high for us and our children. Everyone should take part in the effort, and HOME has been conceived to take a message of mobilization out to every human being.

CLICK HERE For
FULL VERSION of HOME
For this purpose, HOME needs to be free. A patron, the PPR Group, made this possible. EuropaCorp, the distributor, also pledged not to make any profit because Home is a non-profit film.

HOME has been made for you : share it! And act for the planet.

ASH & AID COORDINATION

IMPORTANT NOTICE

Live this day

Do not merely hope to live, someday, somehow. Open yourself to the beauty and goodness of this moment, and live this day. Let go of worries and fantasies about what might or might not be. Focus the full energy of your spirit on what is real and what is now, and live this day.

Put your most treasured dreams and values into action right now. Here is where you can really do what you've always been longing to do.

Now is when you can let yourself feel the way you truly wish to feel. See that there is nothing standing in the way of you filling the world with your own special joy.

This is the day that belongs to you. This is the time when you can do anything, and make a real difference.

A lifetime of experience has perfectly prepared you for where you are right now. Live this day, and fulfill the possibilities of your own miraculous existence.     ~ Ralph Marston

 

AKATHISIA

 SSRI-Induced Akathisia

  
SSRI-Induced Akathisia's Link To Suicide and Violence

Washington, DC: Medical experts have long known that the side effect associated with the class of antidepressants known as the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors most likely to drive people to suicide or violence against others is "akathisia".

Akathisia is but one in a long list of side effects that SSRI makers were able to keep hidden, as they settled thousands of lawsuits out of court, by obtaining court orders to seal documents produced in litigation. For instance, a 1984 Eli Lilly document showed akathisia occurred in at least 1% of patients long before Prozac was approved.

In a paper entitled, "Suicides and Homicides in Patients Taking Paxil, Prozac, and Zoloft: Why They Keep Happening - And Why They Will Continue," Dr Jay Cohen points out that, as soon SSRI's arrived on the market in the late 1980s, reports of sudden, unexpected suicides and homicides by patients taking the drugs began to come in.

The DSM-IV acknowledges the association of akathisia with suicidality and states: "Akathisia may be associated with dysphoria, irritability, aggression, or suicide attempts."

According to Dr Cohen, SSRI's can create a combination of side effects that reduce impulse control and cause severe agitation or restlessness that may become intolerable. He says, impulsive behavior coupled with impaired cognitive functioning can be dangerous.

A 1998 article on akathisia associated with Prozac and its link to suicidal ideation in the Journal of Psychopharmacology, by Roger Lane, who was working for Pfizer at the time, states in part:

"It may be less of a question of patients experiencing fluoxetine-induced suicidal ideation than patients feeling that 'death is a welcome result' when the acutely discomforting symptoms of akathisia are experienced on top of already distressing disorders.

"Hamilton and Opler (1992) stated that the term 'suicidal ideation' to describe the apparent suicidality associated with akathisia was misleading, as the 'suicidal ideation' reported in patients receiving fluoxetine was a reaction to the side-effect of akathisia (i.e., unbearable discomfort and restlessness) and not true suicidal ideation as is typically described by depressed patients experiencing suicidal ideation."

Dr Joseph Glenmullen, author of "Prozac Backlash" and "The Antidepressant Solution," obtained a Lilly document dated November 13, 1990, from Claude Bouchy, a Lilly employee in Germany, to three executives at Lilly's Indianapolis headquarters, complaining about directions to change the identification of events as they are reported to doctors from "suicide attempt" to "overdose" and "suicidal ideation" to "depression".

"I do not think I could explain to the BGA, to a judge, to a reporter or even to my family," Mr Bouchy wrote, "why we would do this especially on the sensitive issue of suicide and suicide ideation."

Dr Glenmullen says akathisia makes people profoundly agitated, uncomfortable in their own skin and impulsive. It erodes judgment and can lower their threshold to become violent toward themselves or others, he states.

Dr Martin Teicher, an associate professor at Harvard Medical School and McLean Hospital researcher at the time, co-authored a paper with psychiatrist and psychopharmacologist Jonathan Cole on the link between Prozac and suicide back in 1990, which found that 3.5% of patients on Prozac either attempted or committed suicide due to severe agitation from akathisia.

In the paper, the authors discussed 6 cases of patients who became intensely preoccupied with suicide after taking Prozac. Dr Cole said, in an affidavit submitted in litigation on April 20, 2000, "Our purpose in writing this article was to alert the profession to an alarming, probable drug side effect which we had observed."

"There was a very clear association," he said, "not merely temporal, between the ingestion of Prozac and the patients' suicidality."

"I have also seen patients and reviewed cases," Dr Cole stated, "where an SSRI unmistakably precipitated a driven preoccupation with suicide."

"The SSRI drugs, as a class," he advised, "clearly have the potential to cause, and in reasonable medical probability or certainty do cause, akathisia in some patients."

"Although in 1997," Dr Cole notes, "practicing physicians undoubtedly varied in their level of sophistication and knowledge about the phenomenon, the potential to cause akathisia and its potential, in turn, to trigger suicidal behavior."

Additional evidence showing Lilly knew about the akathisia-induced suicide surfaced in an application for a patent for a second-generation Prozac pill which claimed that the new-and-improved Prozac would decrease the side effects of, "inner restlessness (akathisia), suicidal thoughts and self-mutilation."

Besides the concealment of this adverse effect by the drug companies, another major problem in getting the word out, according to Vince Boehm, who tracks all studies and research published on SSRI's, is that the FDA refuses to fully acknowledge the role of drug-induced akathisia in what he refers to as "this hideous equation."

"Akathisia is up to 6 times more likely to trigger a suicide," he states, "than any form of depression caused by life's circumstances alone."

"The minds inner turmoil is so intense that a person will do anything to escape it," he says.

"The Brits, the Aussies, Canada, and the European Union," he points out, "have all gone on record recognizing this phenomenon for all age groups."

Judging by internal FDA documents which have surfaced in litigation, Mr Boehm appears to be correct. For instance, in a September 11, 1990, memo, FDA scientist Dr David Graham found that Lilly's data on Prozac was insufficient to prove the drug was safe, stating: "Because of apparent large-scale underreporting, the firm's analysis cannot be considered as proving that fluoxetine and violent behavior are unrelated."

A more recent study in the September 2006 journal Public Library of Science (PLoS) has further verified the warnings made by many other experts, when it reported that, in addition to self-harm, SSRI's cause some patients to become violent and homicidal.

Dr David Healy, described as "one of the three most eminent academic clinical psychiatrists in the UK," professor David Menkes, from Cardiff University in Britain, and Andrew Herxheimer, from the Cochrane Centre, did the study to determine the risk of violent behavior in people taking SSRI's.

As part of their investigation, the researchers reviewed all available clinical data on SSRI's and summarized a series of "medico-legal" court cases involving patients who had became violent on SSRI's.

One case discussed dated back to 2001, when Dr Healy testified at a wrongful death trial in Wyoming, after a 60-year-old man on Paxil shot and killed his wife, daughter and infant granddaughter before turning the gun on himself in 1998.

At trial, the jury returned a verdict for the man's son-in-law after Dr Healy presented the jury with a summary of an unpublished company study that found incidents of serious aggression in 80 patients on Paxil, including 25 that involved homicide, and proved that the drug maker knew about the violence and suicide risks before the 1998 shootings.

Dr Healy points out a rechallenge study by Rothschild and Locke in McLean Hospital where the authors found Prozac-induced emergent suicidality associated with akathisia in several patients. In order to test whether suicidality was coincidental or associated with Prozac, they withdrew Prozac, then re-administered it, and in all three cases, the patients experienced the exact same effect. "All three patients developed severe akathisia during treatment with fluoxetine and stated that the development of the akathisia made them feel suicidal and that it had precipitated their prior suicide attempts."

However, even more alarming, one set of patients who became suicidal on Prozac were described as follows: "[n]one had a history of significant suicidal behavior; all described their distress as an intense and novel somatic-emotional state; all reported an urge to pace that paralleled the intensity of the distress; all experienced suicidal thoughts at the peak of their restless agitation; and all experienced a remission of their agitation, restlessness, pacing urge, and suicidality after the fluoxetine was discontinued."

Source:  Lawyers and Settlements.com 

Akathisia, or acathisia, is a syndrome characterized by unpleasant sensations of inner restlessness that manifests itself with an inability to sit still or remain motionless (hence the word's origin in Ancient Greek: from καθίζειν - kathízein - "to sit" with a privative a as prefix expressing negation or absence; literally meaning inability to sit). It can be a side effect of medications, or it can, to a lesser extent, be caused by Parkinson's disease and related syndromes,^[1] and likely other neurological diseases. However, this may be due more to the drugs used in treatment such as sinemet (l-dopa) and less with the Parkinson's disease itself.^[2] Another major cause is withdrawal from almost any physical addiction, for example, in benzodiazepine withdrawal syndrome.^[3] It was discovered that akathisia involves increased levels of the neurotransmitter norepinephrine, which is associated with mechanisms that regulate aggression, alertness, and arousal.^[4] Though no further research has been done as of yet, it may also be involved with disrupted NMDA channels in the brain, which have both synergistic and regulatory effects on norepinephrine.

 Description

Akathisia may range in intensity from a sense of disquiet or anxiety, to severe discomfort, particularly in the knees. Patients typically pace for hours because the pressure on the knees reduces the discomfort somewhat; once their knees and legs become fatigued and they are unable to continue pacing, they sit or lie down, although this does not relieve the akathisia. At high doses or with potent drugs such as haloperidol (Haldol) or chlorpromazine (Thorazine/Largactil), the feeling can last all day from awakening to sleep. The anticholinergic procyclidine reduces neuroleptic-induced akathisia to a certain degree, in addition to preventing and sometimes eliminating the muscle stiffness that can occur alongside akathisia.

Some doctors report an anti-anxiety drug such as clonazepam helps to reduce the anxiety which occurs along with the akathisia.^{[citation needed]}. When misdiagnosis occurs in antipsychotic neuroleptic-induced akathisia, more antipsychotic neuroleptics may be prescribed, potentially worsening the symptoms.^[1] High-functioning patients have described the feeling as a sense of inner tension and torment or chemical torture. Many patients describe symptoms of neuropathic pain akin to fibromyalgia and restless legs syndrome.^[5] Although these side effects disappear quickly and remarkably when the medication is stopped, tardive, or late-persisting akathisia may go on long after the offending drug is discontinued, sometimes for a period of years—unlike the related tardive dyskinesia, which can be permanent. Considering that this is rare, it must also be noted that it is not unheard of that patients are medicated or given higher doses without their knowledge.

 Causes

Akathisia is most often seen as a side effect of antipsychotic medications, but has other causes as well:

• Antipsychotics^[13] such as haloperidol (Haldol), droperidol, pimozide, trifluoperazine, amisulpride, risperidone, aripiprazole (Abilify), ziprasidone and asenapine (Saphris). Less common in sedating antipsychotics such as zuclopenthixol (Cisordinol) or chlorpromazine where anticholinergic and antihistaminergic effects counteract akathisia to a degree.
• SSRIs, such as fluoxetine (Prozac).^[14] It has also been documented with the use of paroxetine (Paxil).^[11] Akathisia has been studied as the mechanism by which SSRI-induced suicidality occurs.^[14]
• Other antidepressants, such as venlafaxine (Effexor)^{[citation needed]}, the tricyclics and trazodone (Desyrel).
• Certain anti-emetic drugs, particularly the dopamine blockers, such as metoclopramide (Reglan), prochlorperazine (Compazine), and promethazine.
• Antihistamines, such as cyproheptadine or diphenhydramine.
• Opioid withdrawal.
• Barbiturates withdrawal.
• Cocaine withdrawal (Mostly in heavy and long-term users).
• Amphetamines^[15] and any stimulant (including coffee, tea, tobacco, etc.).
• Benzodiazepine, and alcohol withdrawal.
• GHB- gamma hydroxy butyric acid.
• Chondromalacia patellae, resulting in discomfort when knees are bent.
• Serotonin syndrome.

The 2006 UK study by Healy, Herxheimer, and Menkes observed that akathisia is often miscoded in antidepressant clinical trials as "agitation, emotional lability, and hyperkinesis (overactivity)".^[11] The study further points out that misdiagnosis of akathisia as simple motor restlessness occurs, but that this is more properly classed as dyskinesia. Healy, et al., further show links between antidepressant-induced akathisia and violence, including suicide, as akathisia can "exacerbate psychopathology." The study goes on to state that there is extensive clinical evidence correlating akathisia with SSRI use, showing that approximately ten times as many patients on SSRIs as those on placebos showed symptoms severe enough to drop out of a trial (5.0% compared to 0.5%).

Source and FULL Article at:  Wikipedia