- The Facts:
A news article published in 2017 reported that, according to the latest data, a staggering 12.7 percent of all US citizens over the age of 12 were taking antidepressants.
- Reflect On:
With so many studies, information and evidence that there is such a big problem here, why are many doctors and parents still allowing children to take this kind of medication?
This article was written by Christina England for Greenmedinfo.com. This work is reproduced and distributed here with the permission. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here.
“For many, antidepressants have been a long-term course of medication: 68 percent of people in the most recent survey said they’d been taking them for two or more years, and 25 percent had been taking them for more than a decade.” (source)
In reality, more children are being prescribed these drugs than the public are aware of. This fact was highlighted by the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) in their film, Psychiatry: an Industry of Death. They stated that currently around 20 million school children are being prescribed stimulants and psychotropic drugs.
This information is extremely worrying, especially when you consider that professionals worldwide have been linking the use of antidepressants to suicide, suicidal thoughts, and attempted suicide, for many years. Studies Prove that Antidepressants Can Lead Patients to Die by Suicide
In 2016, in her article titled 7 Facts About Depression That Will Blow You Away, holistic women’s health psychiatrist, Kelly Brogan, M.D., stated that:
Despite what you’ve been led to believe, antidepressants have repeatedly been shown in long-term scientific studies to worsen the course of mental illness—to say nothing of the risks of liver damage, bleeding, weight gain, sexual dysfunction, and reduced cognitive function they entail. The dirtiest little secret of all is the fact that antidepressants are among the most difficult drugs to taper from, more so than alcohol and opiates. While you might call it “going through withdrawal,” we medical professionals have been instructed to call it “discontinuation syndrome,” which can be characterized by fiercely debilitating physical and psychological reactions. Moreover,antidepressants have a well-established history of causing violent side effects, including suicide and homicide. In fact, five of the top 10 most violence-inducing drugs have been found to be antidepressants.” (Emphasis added)
Worryingly, Brogan highlighted the fact that the majority of prescriptions being written for antidepressants were actually being written by general practitioners and not psychiatrists, as one would expect. She wrote that:
Seven percent of all visits to a primary care doctor end with an antidepressant and almost three-quarters of the prescriptions are written without a specific diagnosis. What’s more, when the Department of Mental Health at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health did its own examination into the prevalence of mental disorders, it found that most people who take antidepressants never meet the medical criteria for a bona fide diagnosis of major depression, and many who are given antidepressants for things like OCD, panic disorder, social p
Many different physical conditions create psychiatric symptoms but aren’t themselves “psychiatric.” Two prime examples: dysfunctioning thyroid and blood sugar chaos. We think (because our doctors think) that we need to “cure” the brain, but in reality we need to look at the whole body’s ecosystem: intestinal health, hormonal interactions, the immune system and autoimmune disorders, blood sugar balance, and toxicant exposure.” (Emphasis added)
hobia, and anxiety also don’t qualify as actually having these conditions.” (Emphasis added)
In fact, according to Brogan, many individuals suffering with a physical condition can also display symptoms similar to those suffered by those patients with psychiatric disorders. If this is correct, then young children may be diagnosed with mental illness when they are not mentally ill but physically sick.
She stated that:
Brogan concluded that:
Depression is a message and an opportunity
It’s a sign for us to stop and figure out what’s causing our imbalance rather than just masking, suppressing, or rerouting the symptoms. It’s a chance to choose a new story, to engage in radical transformation, to say yes to a different life experience.”
If she is correct, then her paper is extremely worrying, as, according to research, children as young as one-year-old are being prescribed antidepressants.
One-Year-Old Prescribed Antidepressants
In 2016, it was reported that the Scottish National Health Service (NHS) had been prescribing antidepressants to children for many years.
In a report written by Harry Cockburn, published by the Independent in 2016, Cockburn stated that between January and May, the Tayside and Dundee National Health Service (NHS), prescribed antidepressants to approximately 450 children under the age of 18.
Furthermore, he continued with the extremely worrying statement that:
In 2014, the trust prescribed antidepressants to a one-year-old boy, according to figures obtained by the Dundee Evening Telegraph.” (Emphasis added)
Cockburn also stated that:
A spokesperson for NHS Tayside told the Evening Telegraph the drugs could be used to treat a number of different conditions beyond their most common use as a treatment for clinical depression.”
This being said, should antidepressants be given to children under the age of 18 at all? Cockburn continued his article by revealing that:
In January this year, the largest ever review of clinical study reports compiled by drug companies found teenagers were twice as likely to commit suicide if they were taking antidepressants.”
Concerned by what we had discovered, we decided to ask leading child psychiatrist Dr. Sami Timimi what he believed was happening to our children.
Dr. Timimi is a Consultant Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist and Director of Medical Education in the National Health Service in Lincolnshire, Training Programme Director for East Midlands Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and a Visiting Professor of Child Psychiatry and Mental Health Improvement at the University of Lincoln, UK.
In an exclusive interview, we asked Dr. Timimi whether or not he believed that young children should be prescribed antidepressants.
I believe that they should not. Doctors prescribe them because they can and we deal with difficult situations, but this leads to massive overprescribing and creation of long-term patients on medications that, according to the research, have little to no advantage over a sugar pill (placebo) but come with a range of side effects and withdrawal problems.”
Given his reply, we asked him whether or not there was a known link between antidepressants and suicide?
He told us that:
You are about twice as likely to experience suicidal impulses and behaviours if you are prescribed an ‘antidepressants’ compared to placebo in under 18s.”
We asked him if, over the years, he had noticed a rise in the number of children being labelled as mentally ill.
Yes, and it has accelerated in the last ten years or so (possibly in connection with post financial crash austerity putting greater pressures on families and schools and therefore young people).”
We asked him if he believed that too many children were being labelled as mentally ill.
I reject the notion that what they have is a mental illness/disorder, as most of what we call this is simply understandable reactions to life events and family circumstances. No one has demonstrated that any neurological or genetic abnormalities are connected with any of the so-called diagnoses we make. I think this is an unhelpful way of thinking about distress or behavioural difference, as it assumes something is wrong with the internal working of the child, and often, by accident, leads to creating more long-term patients. To make progress in how we help those who experience mental distress/behavioural difference as youngsters, we must first dispense with unscientific notions such as psychiatric diagnosis/disorders.”
Finally, we asked him what he believed were the alternatives to prescription drugs.
He replied that:
Everything else you can think of, from the variety of therapies (family, group, systemic, individual) to lifestyle (diet, exercise etc.), to focus on routines and social functioning, to everyday stuff like hobbies and spending more time with friends, etc.”
Given the fact that, according to Dr. Timimi and many others, there are many alternative therapies that professionals could be offering their patients before prescribing them antidepressants. We need to ask ourselves why so many young children are being prescribed these drugs in the first place, especially since research indicates that they can cause some children to have suicidal thoughts.
Latest Research Once Again Links Antidepressants to Suicide
In 2018, S.Stübner et al, conducted a study carefully analysing paperwork collected from 81 psychiatric hospitals during the period from 1993 – 2014. The team documented all single cases of suicidal ideations or behavior that had been judged as adverse drug reactions to antidepressant drugs.
They stated that:
Among 219,635 adult hospitalized patients taking antidepressant drugs under surveillance, 83 cases of suicidal adverse drug reactions occurred (0.04%): 44 cases of suicidal ideation, 34 attempted suicides, and 5 committed suicides were documented. Restlessness was present in 42 patients, ego-dystonic intrusive suicidal thoughts or urges in 39 patients, impulsiveness in 22 patients, and psychosis in 7 patients. Almost all adverse drug reactions occurred shortly after beginning antidepressant drug medication or increasing the dosage. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors caused a higher incidence of suicidal ideation and suicidal behavior as adverse drug reactions than noradrenergic and specific serotonergic antidepressants or tricyclic antidepressants, as did monotherapy consisting of one antidepressant drug, compared to combination treatments.”
Although their statistics could be seen by many to be somewhat limited, the team concluded that “their findings supported the view that antidepressant drugs can, in rare cases trigger suicidal ideation and suicidal behaviour.”
The team stated that:
… Special clinical features (restlessness, ego-dystonic thoughts or urges, impulsiveness) may be considered as possible warning signs. A combination therapy might be preferable to antidepressant drug monotherapy when beginning treatment.”
We believe that these statistics are extremely worrying, especially when you consider the fact that children as young one are being prescribed antidepressants.
However, according to evidence that we have uncovered, these links appear to have been known for many years, because, according to a special report published in 2006 by medical expert Dr. Peter R. Breggin, the FDA now require the manufacturers of antidepressants to highlight the potential risk of increased suicidality in children on their labels. He stated that:
As of 2005, the FDA now require the drug manufacturers to place elaborate warnings on their labels concerning the potential of these drugs to cause stimulating effects, including agitation, anxiety, irritability, emotional lability, aggression, hostility, and mania. The labels must also include a warning about increased suicidality in children.”
Furthermore, in his report, which highlights the lengths that drug companies can go to conceal crucial evidence from the public, Breggin explained in detail how, after being asked to give evidence in a trial concerning the widely used antidepressant Paxil, he was “empowered by the court to examine hundreds of cartons of drug company files contained in GlaxoSmith Klines’s sealed record room.” He wrote:
These files included Food and Drug Administration (FDA) correspondence and all of the company’s worldwide clinical trials and adverse drug reports for Paxil.
On July 21, 2001, my report in the form of an affidavit was sent to the judicial arbitrator in the case. It addressed GSK’s practices in the development and marketing of Paxil, and in particular its alleged withholding or manipulation of information about the drug’s dangerousness. Based on GSK’s proprietary files that have to this day never been made public, my report examined many factors, including (a) how quickly after the first dose can Paxil cause severe adverse reactions; (b) the actual rates of akathisia; (c) the actual risk of overstimulation causing agitation, irritability, and manic-like symptoms; (d) the actual rates of suicidality in adults; and (e) promotional claims made for the drug.”
He stated that:
The case against GSK was eventually “resolved” to the satisfaction of GSK and the Lacuzong family. GSK denied and continues to deny all of the allegations of negligence in developing and marketing Paxil. My impression is that a substantial amount of money was involved in the resolution of the case, although the amount was not disclosed. GSK at that time refused to unseal its records or to allow me to make public my findings, regardless of their significance for the FDA, medical profession, and public health.” (Emphasis added)
He concluded his report by adding several sections of his full report, which he has stated, can be found on his website. He stated that the sections that he had added to this report focused largely on Paxil-induced suicidality in adults.
Having read this report and his evidence, plus the evidence that we have highlighted in this article, leads us to conclude that too many young children are being prescribed dangerous, mind-altering drugs before their problems have been fully investigated.
For further research please read:
Psychiatric Drug Facts by Peter R. Breggin M.D. https://breggin.com/
CCHR: Exposing the Dangers of Antidepressants and Other Psychotropic Drugs—
Despite FDA/Psychiatric- Pharmaceutical Cover-Ups
Vested Interests Inventing “Chemical Imbalance” Theory to Sell Drugs https://files.ondemandhosting.info/data/www.cchr.org/files/Exposing_the_Dangers_of_Antidepressants_Despite_Cover-Ups.pdf
The Dangers of 5G to Children’s Health
Mobile and wireless technologies are a ubiquitous feature of modern life. Most U.S. adults own smartphones, a growing proportion are “smartphone-only” Internet users and over a fourth report being online “almost constantly.” As for children, a 2014 survey of high-income nations reported that almost seven in ten children used a mobile phone, and two-thirds of those had a smartphone, usually by age 10. As described by Nielsen, it is now as common to see “a kid with a smartphone in their hand” as it was to see “a kid playing with a yo-yo in the years before the digital age.”
The enthusiasm with which the public has embraced each new mobile and wireless technology—most of which have never undergone any appropriate safety testing or standards development—suggests that consumers rarely stop to consider the health implications of the infrastructure shoring up their ability to browse, stream and download anytime and “on the go.” Consumers are not entirely to blame for their lack of awareness—it is not easy to disentangle the technologies’ health risks in the face of the telecommunications industry’s steady and calculated disinformation efforts and a captured Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that “follows the script of fabulously wealthy, bullying, billion-dollar beneficiaries of wireless.”
…powerful 5g (fifth generation) networks and technology are about to subject everyone, on a continuous basis, to unprecedented forms and amounts of mandatory irradiation – without prior study of the potential health impact or any assurance of safety
Now, however, a global 5G “frenzy” is upon us and is coming into full force. The rollout of “blazing fast” 5G technology will “dramatically increase the number of transmitters sending signals to cellphones and a host of new Internet-enabled devices.” The time is ripe for greater grassroots awareness of the undisclosed tradeoffs between convenience and 5G’s potentially catastrophic health effects. Far from a simple “next-gen” upgrade, powerful 5G (fifth-generation) networks and technology are about to subject everyone, on a continuous basis, to unprecedented forms and amounts of what retired U.S. government physicist Dr. Ronald Powell calls “mandatory irradiation”—without “prior study of the potential health impact” or any assurance of safety. Considering that young people (with their smaller body mass and developing brains) are particularly vulnerable to radiation, the Environmental Health Trust has termed 5G “the next great unknown experiment on our children”—and the entire human population.
In fact, the “giant uncontrolled experiment” on children and adults has already begun, despite an urgent international appeal by tens of thousands of scientists, doctors, environmental organizations and citizens calling for a halt to 5G deployment. In 2018, telecom carriers in the U.S. and Europe began rolling out 5G technology in dozens of cities. Focusing (for now) on “dense urban and high-traffic areas” in the U.S., AT&T began positioning its 5G infrastructure in major cities in eight states, and Verizon started offering 5G home broadband service in “select neighborhoods” in a handful of cities.
…health problems such as insomnia, miscarriage, memory problems and other neurological issues, and there are widespread reports of annihilation of insect and bird populations
For the most part, health concerns have ranked as a tiny footnote in the midst of the massive hoopla about 5G’s speed and capacity, although trade magazines admit that there may be “some objections” to 5G due to “concerns over potential health risks.” In both Europe and the U.S., however, individuals living and working in proximity to newly installed 5G towers and antennas are telling a different story. Many have immediately started experiencing health problems such as insomnia, miscarriage, memory problems and other neurological issues, and there are widespread reports of annihilation of insect and bird populations.
In response to complaints from fire fighters subjected to 5G antennas, the International Association of Fire Fighters has gone on record as opposing “the use of fire stations as base stations for towers and/or antennas for the conduction of cell phone transmissions until a study with the highest scientific merit and integrity…is conducted and it is proven that such sitings are not hazardous to the health of our members.”
A United Nations whistleblower recently drew attention to 5G’s dramatic impact on health in a widely circulated series of comments about 5G’s “seemingly overnight” rollout in Vienna, Austria. Describing 5G as a “silent war,” she commented:
“…Children are the most vulnerable to 5G depredation because of their little bodies. Friends and acquaintances and their children in Vienna are already reporting the classic symptoms of EMR [electromagnetic radiation] poisoning: nosebleeds, headaches, eye pains, chest pains, nausea, fatigue, vomiting, tinnitus, dizziness, flu-like symptoms, and cardiac pain. They also report a tight band around the head; pressure on the top of the head; short, stabbing pains around the body; and buzzing internal organs.”
Above and below
One of the novel dangers introduced by 5G technology is its reliance on high-frequency millimeter waves (MMWs), a bountiful and not previously commercialized portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. While 5G’s enthusiasts are quick to promise support for literally billions of devices, there is one catch—the shorter millimeter wavelengths cannot travel as far as the lower frequencies used for earlier generations of mobile technology. Thus, while there were about 300,000 wireless antennas on U.S. cell towers and buildings as of 2016 (a doubling since 2002), 5G will require “exponentially more”—millions of small cell towers every 500 feet “on every street corner.”
…Even in the home environment, 5G technology (will) blast through walls and cribs, making a mockery of the notion that ‘your home is your castle in which you are supposed to be safe
Organizations concerned about the health hazards of wireless radiation note that “Right now, you don’t have to live next to a cell tower….but once they have these [5G] cell antennas everywhere, you won’t be able to [move away].” Unfortunately, the “nowhere to hide” aspects of 5G are even more serious, because ground-based 5G systems will be supplemented by satellite-based systems. In March, 2018, the FCC approved the initial launch of over 4,400 low-Earth-orbit 5G communication satellites, to be followed by thousands more over the next two years—with the eventual result being 11 times more satellites orbiting the Earth than currently. The satellites will send “tightly focused beams of intense microwave radiation at each specific 5G device that is on the Earth,” while each device then sends “a beam of radiation back to the satellite.”
In practical terms, this means that in crowded locations such as airports, individuals’ bodies “will be penetrated by numerous beams of radiation as they walk or as other people walk around them with their 5G smartphones.” But even in the home environment, “5G technology [will] blast through walls and cribs,” making a mockery of “the notion that ‘your home is your castle’ in which you are supposed to be safe.”
More than skin-deep
Scientists, doctors and experts from around the world have issued repeated warnings about 5G’s risks, drawing on published research on MMWs as well as thousands of studies showing the harms caused by other mobile and wireless technologies.
In this context, industry and government claims that 5G technology is safe are completely disingenuous. In fact, the health effects of MMWs are already quite familiar to the U.S. military and defense agencies around the world. The U.S. has at its disposal non-lethal crowd control weapon systems (euphemistically named Active Denial Systems) that use millimeter waves to penetrate the skin of targeted individuals, “instantly producing an intolerable heating sensation that causes them to flee.” In research commissioned by the U.S. Army “to find out why people ran away when the beam touched them,” they discovered that targets “feel like [their] body is on fire.” Researchers also have warned that “the same parts of the human skin that allow us to sweat also respond to 5G radiation much like an antenna that can receive signals.”
Moratorium urgently needed
When the FCC endorsed the transition to 5G in 2016, then-Chairman Tom Wheeler (a former telecom industry lobbyist) vowed “to allow new [5G] technologies and innovations to evolve and flourish without needlessly prescriptive regulations.” Thus, even though 5G represented a radical shift in technology, the FCC proposed no further safety studies, instead continuing to rely on its “outdated, excessively permissive, and thus widely criticized, radiation-exposure guidelines that…are based primarily on a 30-year-old analysis…many years before the emergence of most of the digital wireless technology in use today.” A recent government study by the National Toxicology Program—which determined that cell phone radiation causes cancer—deemed the three-decade-old guidelines “unprotective.”
…children who began using either cordless or mobile phones regularly before age 20 had more than a fourfold increased brain tumour risk.
5G poses risks to all life on the planet—people, animals, insects and plants. However, it is clear that fetuses and children are among the most vulnerable members of the human population. Even prior to 5G, Swedish researchers concluded that “children are indeed more susceptible to the effects of EMF exposure at microwave frequencies” and reported that children who began using “either cordless or mobile phones regularly before age 20” had more than a fourfold increased brain tumor risk. Describing brain cancer as “the proverbial ‘tip of the iceberg,’” the researchers also observed that “no other environmental carcinogen has produced evidence of an increased risk in just one decade.”
The UN whistleblower states, “People’s first reaction to the idea that 5G may be an existential threat to all life on Earth is usually disbelief and/or cognitive dissonance. Once they examine the facts, however, their second reaction is often terror. We need to transcend this in order to see 5G as an opportunity to empower ourselves, take responsibility and take action.” Some of the actions that people have taken include signing the International Appeal; learning about the multiple reasons to be concerned about 5G radiation and telling others; talking to legislators about why rushing legislation that streamlines the deployment of 5G small cells is a bad idea (and also raising the awareness of legislators and state utility commissions about the risks of smart meters); and changing their relationship to their devices, including using wired rather than wireless Internet connections (or turning off WiFi routers at night) and adopting other simple steps.
5G promises to create an even “denser soup of electrosmog,” with incalculable health effects. In fact, any sane person who examines the evidence must concur with the authors and over 40,000 signatories of the International Appeal to Stop 5G on Earth and in Space, who agree that the rush to blanket the planet with 5G “constitutes an experiment on humanity and the environment that is defined as a crime under international law.”
Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission.
Why The Celery Juice Movement Is Taking Over The World
- The Facts:
The 'Medical Medium,' has kickstarted a global celery juice movement that’s healing people of their chronic disease symptoms. It has even garnered attention from Hollywood, placing the green vegetable under scrutiny from critics and skeptics alike.
- Reflect On:
Any new health trend deserves some scrutiny and analysis, but shouldn't the only real question be: Does it work? In the case of celery juice, the proof falls in the thousands of people who are healing themselves with the protocol.
By now you’ve likely heard of the celery juice phenomenon that is sweeping the globe.
It’s being touted as the next ‘miracle elixir’ by many, with nearly 90,000 #celeryjuice hashtags on Instagram at the time of writing this article. The man behind the movement is Anthony William, better known as the “Medical Medium,” a Los Angeles-based health expert with a unique gift. Since childhood, William has communicated with ‘the spirit of compassion,’ a voice which has gifted him powerful (and sometimes controversial) information regarding health, nutrition and disease.
Today Anthony William has written four New York Times best-selling books on the aforementioned subjects, debunking popular theories around chronic disease and providing simple healing protocols for millions of people around the globe. But one of his protocols has especially caught fire, a shockingly simple and unsuspecting one–drinking straight celery juice on an empty stomach.
As William explains in his books and his blog, celery juice holds so many incredible benefits for the body. It’s teeming with anti-inflammatory properties, it’s a natural antiseptic that starves and flushes pathogens out of the body, it improves hydrochloric acid levels and digestion, it balances the electrical circuitry of the nervous system, it detoxifies the liver, kidneys, and blood, and so much more.
William has been recommending celery juice to his clients for decades, but only over the last year has its popularity grown to a ‘movement’ scale. Today, a quick search of celery juice on social media will present one with an endless stream of bright-eyed advocates holding the green elixir in hand, boasting how the simple juice helped to cure their chronic disease and symptoms such as Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, Lyme disease, migraines, vertigo, celiac disease, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), diabetes, psoriasis, eczema, acne, bloating, intestinal cramping, acid reflux, vertigo, constipation, restless leg syndrome, tingles, numbness, and the list goes on.
The Power of mineral salts
What exactly is it about celery juice that gives it its powerful healing abilities? The answer lies in what William calls mineral salts, something he says medical research has yet to discover.
Mineral salts act together as an antiseptic, breaking down the membrane structures of viruses such as Epstein-Barr, HHV-6, and shingles, bacteria such as Streptococcus, and other pathogens—troublemakers responsible for chronic illness—eventually killing and destroying them. Celery’s mineral salts also help stabilize blood pressure, bringing it down when it’s too high and up when it’s too low. Further, they won’t dehydrate your organs—instead, they cling to toxic, dangerous salts from poor-quality foods and help draw them out of your body while replacing them with undiscovered cluster salts.
Mineral salts are critical for our bodies to function optimally. They keep your kidneys and adrenals functioning and raise your gut’s hydrochloric acid so your body can break down and assimilate what you eat—while they balance your pH as well as cleanse and repair your stomach, the rest of your digestive tract, and, most importantly, your liver. They also allow information to travel throughout your body so it can keep itself in balance no matter what’s occurring.
The mineral salts specifically in celery are instrumental in the electricity that governs the body—they’re building blocks for neurotransmitter chemicals, they ignite electrical impulse activity, and they support neuron function. The electrolytes in celery hydrate on a deep cellular level, lessening your chances of suffering from migraines, anxiety, panic attacks, and more. Celery also stabilizes and supports the adrenal glands, offers stress assistance, and repairs damaged cells inside the liver.
For more information about the healing abilities of celery juice, read more HERE.
Celery juice takes root in Hollywood—backlash erupts
Even Hollywood has its eyes on celery juice, with celebrities such as Robert De Niro, Pharrell Williams, Debra Messing, and Gwyneth Paltrow endorsing its wide range of healing benefits. But while penetrating the commercial facade of Hollywood is an incredible feat, doing so has set the medium in the line of fire. Mainstream spotlight is a magnet for skeptics, especially in William’s case, a man with no formal education in the health realm who channels his information directly from ‘spirit.’
Already his tagline is rubbing health specialists the wrong way, as seen in article headlines such as “2019’s hot new health trend: Juice suggested by a ghost,” “The man who made celery juice a wellness craze says a voice told him to do it,” or “Experts are rolling their eyes at the celery juice diet craze.”
Abby Langer, a registered dietitian based in Toronto, told The Post, “there’s nothing remarkable about celery juice,” going on to say that it is high in vitamin K but nothing else worth getting hyped about. Shonali Soans, a registered dietitian, also told the post that the “celery juice craze” is nothing more than a testament to our desire for quick fixes. Granted, any new health trend deserves some level of scrutiny and analysis, as we’ve seen many health crazes come and go over the decades past, but shouldn’t the only real question be: Does it work?
Luckily in William’s case, celery juice does work. “The bottom line is people really are healing,” he said in an interview with Quartzy.
It should be noted that those who’ve shared about their healing journeys through the Medical Medium protocol are not only drinking celery juice every morning, but they are adopting a whole new lifestyle of eating fresh, whole foods, while cutting out dietary triggers such as corn, gluten, dairy, soy and processed meat. However, straight celery juice remains the foundation of how they are healing their body.
“When you hear a naysayer, which I’ve seen in some of these articles—which is unbelievable to me—say ‘no one is healing because science didn’t say so,’ what’s happening is that they’re basically spitting in the face of the chronically ill,” William told Quartzy.
And spitting in the face of the ill has been the name of the game for the medical establishment for decades. Mystery illness is pandemic, and for every disease label floating around today there are a myriad of incomplete theories that try to explain their cause, many of which still have an “incurable” prognosis attached. And let’s just be frank —people are tired of being sick and tired. We don’t want expensive treatments that hold us over until we croak, we want full-bodied healing, we want the truest form of vitality possible. As Anthony William has shown, sometimes that takes a different approach, albeit an approach that is painstakingly simple, one that reminds us to take our health back into our own hands, and that fruit, vegetables, and herbs are here to help us, so eat more of them.
FDA Admits That Government Is Recommending Untested, Unlicensed Vaccines for Pregnant Women
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. says, “As a nation, we can no longer pretend our trusted agencies are protecting our children. It is time to hold federal agencies accountable.”
WASHINGTON, D.C., Feb. 11, 2019—In response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, the FDA has admitted, for the first time, that government agencies, including the CDC, are recommending vaccines for pregnant women that have neither been licensed for pregnant mothers by FDA nor tested for safety in clinical trials. The lawsuit, filed by Children’s Health Defense (CHD) attorney, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. on behalf of Informed Consent Action Network(ICAN), a vaccine safety advocacy group, sought all clinical trial data used by FDA to approve influenza vaccines for pregnant women. The FDA’s terse reply: “We have no records responsive to your requests.”
The manufacturers of flu and Tdap vaccines warn against their use for pregnant mothers since their safety has never been established. Package inserts state that it is “not known” whether the vaccines “will harm an unborn baby” and there are “insufficient data” on use in pregnant women to inform vaccine-associated risks. FDA regulations strictly prohibit pharmaceutical companies from marketing products for “off-license” uses. Noncompliant companies are routinely prosecuted criminally and civilly, paying billions in lawsuits and settlements.
The CDC nevertheless has actively recommended influenza vaccination during any trimester of pregnancy since 2004 and has told pregnant women to get Tdap shots (for tetanus, diphtheria and pertussis) since 2011. The FDA is responsible for vaccine safety and licensing, but, in the just-released court documents, it admits that it has no safety data to back up the pregnancy recommendations. FDA’s website states that it has never formally approved any vaccines “specifically for use during pregnancy to protect the infant.”
Blanket recommendations for vaccination during pregnancy are a dangerous proposition due to vaccination’s ability to activate a maternal immune response that can damage the developing fetal brain—just as infections during pregnancy sometimes do. In 2008, neuroscientist Paul Patterson warned, “Even if it happens less than 1% of the time, vaccinating an entire population of pregnant women could affect thousands of children.”
Long-term safety studies have not been designed to detect vaccine-related fetal injuries, but a 2017 Kaiser study of over 45,000 women (published in JAMA Pediatrics) showed an elevated risk of birth defects and a 20% higher risk of autism in children whose mothers received a first-trimester flu shot. After the authors applied a statistical correction that lessened the significant association, renowned UCLA statistician Sander Greenland criticized the methodologically “inappropriate” decision, noting that pharmaceutical researchers use the technique when they don’t like a result and “want to see if they can get rid of it.”
CDC data show that women who received certain flu shots from 2010 to 2012 had a 7.7 times greater risk of miscarriage than women who did not receive those vaccines. CDC published the study in Vaccine but omitted those findings from its press release, leaving pregnant women ignorant of the vaccines’ true risks. CHD’s Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. notes that most flu shots given to pregnant women still contain a mercury-based preservative thimerosal. Thimerosal is acknowledged by Proposition 65 in California as a reproductive toxicant and exposure during pregnancy can cause learning and behavioral problems. Tdap contains aluminum, which FDA regulates as a toxin in parenteral nutrition but not in vaccines.
The FDA’s admission that CDC is recommending untested and unlicensed vaccines follows another disclosure forced by an ICAN/CHD lawsuit. HHS confessed that it has not once complied—in over 30 years—with statutory requirements for regular review of childhood vaccine safety, nor reported to Congress on measures to improve safety. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act established the requirements while essentially eliminating manufacturers’ legal liability for childhood vaccine injuries.
Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission.
Multiple Countries Ban Wifi & Cell Phones Around Schools, Young Children & Fetuses
There are thousands of peer-reviewed studies that have come out, and continue to come out, raising some alarming facts about...
New Study Reveals Many Cancer Patients Are Killed By Chemotherapy & Not The Cancer
Up until recently, chemotherapy and radiation have been the only two approved treatment methods for treating cancer by mainstream medicine,...