Connect with us

Alternative News

Study “Confirms That The Full Degree of Harm of Antidepressants Is Not Reported”

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Multiple studies outlined in this article indicate a serious issue with the efficacy of anti-depressant drugs, and the lengths that pharmaceutical companies go to hide potential dangers.

  • Reflect On:

    How much science is there really behind the efficacy of anti-depressant drugs?

A study published in the British Medical Journal  by researchers at the Nordic Cochrane Center in Copenhagen showed that pharmaceutical companies were not disclosing all information regarding the results of their drug trials. Researchers looked at documents from 70 different double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRI) and found that the full extent of serious harm in clinical study reports went unreported. These are the reports sent to major health authorities like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

advertisement - learn more

Tarang Sharma, a PhD student at Cochrane and lead author of the study, said:

We found that a lot of the appendices were often only available upon request to the authorities, and the authorities had never requested them. I’m actually kind of scared about how bad the actual situation would be if we had the complete data. (source)

Due to problems with selective reporting, even within CSRs, raw data from clinical drug trials should be preferred when conducting systematic reviews, with CSRs being the next-best option. As SSRIs and SNRIs can have very serious detrimental effects on children and adolescents, far more than previously noted, their use in young people should be reconsidered. In fact, even when considering all ages, placebo seems to be a better pill than an antidepressant drug because the patients weigh the benefits against the harms when they decide whether to stay in a trial or to drop out. (source)

Joanna Moncrieff, a psychiatrist and researcher at University College London, elaborates:

This study confirms that the full degree of harm of antidepressants is not reported. They are not reported in the published literature, we know that – and it appears that they are not properly reported in clinical study reports that go to the regulators and from the basis of decisions about licensing. (source)

advertisement - learn more

Peter Gotzsche, a clinician researcher at Cochrane and the co-author of the study, actually tried to gain access to clinical trial reports almost a decade ago for anti-obesity pills. Unfortunately, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) denied them the reports:

They talked about commercial confidentiality although there was absolutely nothing in these reports that was commercially confidential. We explained that all this secrecy actually cost human lives, but they weren’t interested in that at all. (source)

It took years of requests and complaints for this to happen and, while Gotzsche is pleased they were able to achieve this breakthrough, he reminds us that similar progress has yet to made in the United States. He went on to state that researchers need better access to data from clinical trials to conduct assessments unimpeded by industry influence:

It’s deeply unethical when patients volunteer to benefit science and then we let drug companies decide that we cannot get access to the raw data. The testing of drugs should be a public enterprise. (source)

Moncrieff (quoted above) then goes on to express further concerns:

We really don’t have good enough evidence that antidepressants are effective and we have increasing evidence that they can be harmful. So we need to go into reverse and stop this increasing trend of prescribing [them]. (source)

One of the latest studies published on the subjects titled “Should antidepressants be used for major depressive disorder” published in the British Medical Journal states,

The benefits of antidepressants seem to be minimal and possibly without any importance to the average patient with major depressive disorder. Antidepressants should not be used for adults with major depressive disorder before valid evidence has shown that the potential beneficial effects outweigh the harmful effects.

Related Study: Suicidality and aggression during antidepressant treatment:systematic review and meta-analyses based on clinical study reports

Many Antidepressant Studies Found Tainted by Pharma Company Influence

A study published in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology revealed that a third of meta-analyses of antidepressant studies were written by pharma employees and that these were 22 times less likely than other meta-studies to include negative statements about the drug. That same month another research group reported that after reanalyzing the data from Study 329, a 2001 clinical trial of Paxil funded by GlaxoSmithKline, they uncovered exaggerated efficacy and undisclosed harm to adolescents.

Almost 80 percent of meta-analyses in the review had some sort of industry tie, either through sponsorship, which the authors defined as direct industry funding of the study, or conflicts of interest, defined as any situation in which one or more authors were either industry employees or independent researchers receiving any type of industry support (including speaking fees and research grants). Especially troubling, the study showed about 7 percent of researchers had undisclosed conflicts of interest. “There’s a certain pecking order of papers,” says Erick Turner, a professor of psychiatry at Oregon Health & Science University who was not associated with the research. “Meta-analyses are at the top of the evidence pyramid.” Turner was “very concerned” by the results but did not find them surprising. “Industry influence is just massive. What’s really new is the level of attention people are now paying to it.” (source)

Related CE Article: Depression: It’s Not Your Serotonin

The Takeaway

This corporate domination is exactly why, in 2014, the current Editor-in-Chief of The Lancet stated that “the case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.” (source) It’s why Arnold Symour Relman emphasized that the “medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research.” He thought it was  “disgraceful” that the academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry.” (source)

This isn’t a secret, but it’s quite odd how substances like opioids get approved by our federal health regulatory agencies, which have clearly been compromised as well.

 

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

You can stream conscious media 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, and documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media that you won't see anywhere else.

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

Forget Nursing Homes! Welcome Co-Housing, Communal Homes For Our Beloved Aging Friends

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Many seniors are living in isolation in nursing and retirement homes nationwide. This often leads to loneliness and depression.

  • Reflect On:

    There must be a better way! There is, imagine growing old with purpose, passion and community. Not only for yourself, but for your parents, grandparents and aging friends as well.

When I came across this topic and decided to write about it, I was blown away that this isn’t already more of a “thing” and it isn’t very common for seniors to shack up together and live in communities. This is especially shocking as many elders are living in complete isolation, which has been shown to cause anxiety and depression. 

If you are thinking, isn’t that what nursing homes are for? So they don’t have to live alone, in isolation? — well, contrary to popular belief, nursing homes can be very lonely places for elderly people. In fact, it is not uncommon for elderly people to experience social isolation, leading to depression and loneliness right inside these homes. Many believe that a nursing home would alleviate these issues, but these feelings of depression don’t go away and in many cases, they only worsen.

In the Western world, a nursing home is the most common place for seniors to go once they reach a certain age. It seems this is symptomatic of our culture because in many other countries the elderly people live with their adult children and grandchildren and are taken care of  in their old age. They would never dream of dropping their parents off at a retirement home just because their parents have reached a certain point in their lives where it is difficult for them to care for themselves.

Is It Finally Time To Revamp Retirement Homes?

The concept of community housing for our retired and aging friends has recently come into awareness, and really, I couldn’t think of a more brilliant solution to a system that is not really working for millions of seniors across the country–well, entire western world more likely.

How Does This Work?

However you wish! Some seniors prefer to have their own space within a community setting with communal spaces to share and socialize in. A tiny home community could work well for this type of setting. Others prefer having a large house and having other seniors as roommates, encouraging more connection on a regular basis. Also, some options include having seniors live with other families with children in communities. It’s really up to the specific individual, as we all have different needs, including seniors. Often the nursing homes have a sort of one-size-fits-all approach, and they often cost a small fortune to boot.

Buying a piece of land and parking tiny homes on it or pooling some finances together to purchase a larger house would undoubtedly be cheaper than the combined cost of staying in a nursing home. They can also cook together and share meals together, which would be much more cost effective than the food offered in a nursing home.

advertisement - learn more

Benefits Of Senior Community Homes

The seniors themselves get to decide exactly what they want to create, as the co-housing communities are founded and run by the members. Instead of the high-priced care from nursing homes, the members of the communities agree to take care of one another. If it’s too much, they could likely afford to have a nurse come to the home at scheduled times with the money they’ve saved. Ideally, they would look out for one another and keep a schedule so that everyone stays on track with important dates. Maybe they even have some animals to bring them joy and affection, gardens to get them outside in the sun, and plenty of hobbies and activities to work on together. Really, the benefits are endless here, as long as they are able to cooperate and get along with the other residents of the community, it would work out well.

Children of these seniors would feel better knowing that their parents are enjoying their final years accompanied by friends and fun.

Someone needs to design a website that can assist the connection of like-minded seniors within certain cities or states, so they can make profiles discussing their likes, interests and hobbies and find friends with similar passions. Like tinder, but a whole lot more innocent. 😉

What do you think of this idea? Would you like to live in a co-housing community when you reach old age rather than be alone for your final years? Let us know what you think in the comments!

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

You can stream conscious media 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, and documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media that you won't see anywhere else.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Washington States Creates A Bill To Stop Companies From Bottling Their Water

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Washington is looking to become the first state to ban bottled water operations in an effort to protect its natural aquifers.

  • Reflect On:

    Should we not be protecting the natural water sources in an effort to counteract the absurdity of bottling a natural resource to begin with? Consider the resources needed to obtain, bottle and distribute it across the country.

There was a time, not that long ago, when the thought of bottling water was just as comical as the idea of bottling air is to us today–even thought that’s becoming more of a thing. Over the course of just a few decades, the bottled water industry has blown up and total worldwide sales are expected to reach $344 Billion by 2023. Clearly, consumers are creating that number as they have the purchasing power, but at what cost to our planet? As a concern for environmental sustainability continues to grow, it becomes more untenable to allow such practices. Recently, the state of Washington, known for it’s beautiful mountains and abundant fresh water sources, has passed a new bill through the senate that will ban new water permits.

Washington State is abundant with glacier-fed springs and lush rainforests and will become the first state in the country to put a total ban on any new water-bottling operations that are seeking to rape the state’s natural resources. This proposal is one of a few that are currently in progress in Washington aiming to protect the local groundwater and to fend off the rapidly growing bottled water industry.

The Bill

Once signed into law this bill will retroactively go into effect and apply to any new permits filed after Jan. 1, 2019. The Guardian reports,

“Washington State is carving the path towards a groundbreaking solution,” said Mary Grant, the director of Food & Water Action’s public water for all campaign, in a statement, as The Guardian reported. “This legislation … would ban one of the worst corporate water abuses – the extraction of local water supplies in plastic bottles shipped out of watersheds and around the country.”

Activists have been trying to raise awareness about the consequences of these massive water-bottling companies effectively stealing water from natural sources nationwide, bottling it, then shipping it elsewhere leaving local aquifers depleted. This is so backwards on so many levels. Consider the resources to obtain the water, to transport it, to store it, then to produce the plastic water bottles, bottle it then ship it out across the country. If our actions were harmonious with our planet, we would all get our water from the sources that are closest to us.

Shouldn’t There Already Be Laws Banning This?

Washington State Senator Reuven Carlyle, who supported this bill, explained this outrageous situation well by saying,

advertisement - learn more

I was jolted to the core to realize the depth and breadth and magnitude of how they have lawyered up in these small towns to take advantage of water rights. The fact that we have incredibly loose, if virtually nonexistent, policy guidelines around this is shocking and a categorical failure.

Leaked emails revealed some seriously shocking intentions by bottling company Crystal Geyser, who had planned to open up a bottling plant near Mount Rainier. Locals of this area were concerned that pumping 400 gallons per minute could lead to dry wells. The emails revealed that Crystal Geyser had begun a legal campaign attempting to sue the local subdivision that was opposing the bottling facility. They were also planning on starting an underground public relations campaign in order to garner support for their proposal. According to Tribune News Service,

“Pumping water out of the ground, putting it in plastic bottles and exporting it out of the state of Washington is not in the public interest,” said Craig Jasmer, a leader of the Lewis County Water Alliance, the group that sprung up to oppose the Randle plant and has pushed for the statewide ban.

This company in particular doesn’t have the best track record in regards to concern for environmental welfare. In January of this year, the company pleaded guilty to storing wastewater laden with arsenic in Eastern California and then delivering it to water treatment plants without informing authorities of its toxicity. The Center for Environmental Law & Policy had this to say:

Washington’s waters belong to the people of Washington. There has been an increasing number of proposals to locate commercial water bottling plants in Washington. These plants would allow Washington’s water to be taken for the benefit of corporations and users outside of the local area, perhaps out-of-state.

What Can You Do?

The answer is so simple, and yet if adopted on a global level could completely eradicate this problem… STOP BUYING BOTTLED WATER! Water is a natural resource that is free for every other species on this planet, and contrary to popular belief, we do not HAVE to pay for it. As rumor has it, the first bottled water company, Evian, hides a telling message about those who choose to purchase bottled water in its name. Evian is “Naïve” spelled backwards, indicating the nature of consumers who fall for this marketing gimmick.

Sure, there are several reasons to validate buying bottled water:

  • to avoid contaminants in the municipal water supply such as fluoride and chlorine (Be advised however, that these chemicals are often still contained in water that is bottled)
  • for added vitamins and minerals
  • if you are on the go and want to stay hydrated
  • you like the taste
  • you are traveling in a foreign country and are concerned of any pathogens in the water

Solutions

There are solutions to all of these above issues, however, that could ensure you never have to buy another plastic bottle of water again:

  • If you don’t like your tap water or want to avoid the added chemicals, you can install a good filtration system at home if you can afford it. Or you can purchase Reverse Osmosis water from many grocery stores and you simply bring a big 5 gallon jug to refill every time. There is also the option of finding a local spring, you can do so here at findaspring.com and bottle your own
  • In regards to vitamins and minerals, just add your own vitamin drops to your own water source
  • Reusable water bottles, ideally good quality ones that are durable and made to last, are a great option and over a short time they will save you money as well. I don’t leave my house without filling up my water bottle to take with me
  • If you prefer the taste of bottled water, I would again recommend purchasing 5 gallon Reverse Osmosis water
  • If you are traveling, this is the only instance in my opinion that justifies the purchase of bottled water. However, there are still many options you can take with you to sterilize the water. I’ve used a portable UV light before that works very well. If you have the means you can also boil the water before drinking it.

We don’t have to be perfect, but if everyone just put in a little bit of effort, we could drastically reduce one of our extremely unnecessary environmental footprints, save money, and save our natural resources. And as an added perk, we would keep our hard-earned dollars out of the hands of massive corporations that don’t have the best interest of the planet or its inhabitants at heart.

Can you do it for the planet?

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

You can stream conscious media 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, and documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media that you won't see anywhere else.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Is Brexit The First Domino To Fall In The Liberation Of The Planet?

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Brexit has been in effect for almost a month and the sky has not yet fallen in.

  • Reflect On:

    Does this mark the end of globalism and the embracing of a multipolar world?

The monumental withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union at 00:00:01 am on February 1st, 2020 finally allowed us to witness whether prognostications from the prophets of doom would come true. Amidst fears being pushed right up until the end that this move would result in absolute chaos and the weeping and gnashing of teeth, this event yielded the same results that other such events have produced: the realization that there was never anything to fear.

Of course those prophets of doom will never recant, they will just press forward with future predictions of how Brexiters will eventually rue the day they left the European Union, with some form of quasi-threat that the UK will never be able to establish the favorable economic ties they had with the rest of Europe under the ‘Union.’

Time will ultimately tell all, of course, but logic would dictate that if a nation is fully independent and free to accept or reject any terms offered, they are in a much better bargaining position than if they are already hamstrung by the rules and regulations dictated by their would-be trading partner.

If we can look at a particular geopolitical pattern of power unification that has long been rising and now has started to fall, we may view Brexit as not only a boon to the UK’s economic outlook, but indeed as the beginning of the end of a long sought-after endeavor to enslave humanity within a rigid centralized economic system.

The New World Order

The phrase ‘New World Order’ is often associated with the Latin phrase ‘Novus Ordo Seclorum’ which has adorned the American dollar bill the past 85 years, in terms of the plans of a global elite conspiring to create a totalitarian world government hidden in plain sight. While this link remains somewhat speculative, one thing that is true is that more than one president has employed the phrase in an attempt to inspire countries of the world to come together fully under a centralized economy and system of governance.

George H. W. Bush famously employed the phrase in a speech on September 11th, 1990, at a time when few people had suspicions about the true motives of global institutions like the United Nations or the perceived need for a new world political and economic order:

advertisement - learn more

We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order–a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful–and we will be–we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.’s founders. (source)

Perhaps the prospects for the implementation of this new world order reached its apex early in the presidency of Barack Obama, who was so eloquently able to couch the concept of an unelected, totalitarian government running the planet within ‘pillars’ such as peace and security, environmental preservation and economic opportunity, as he explains to the UN General Assembly below.

Since this time, however, some of the true ‘pillars’ of a totalitarian system of enslavement have begun to impact human consciousness, especially in the European Union: the breakdown of national sovereignty and identity, untenable refugee and immigration policies, and backbreaking economic austerity measures.

Protests like the Yellow Vests movement in France and elsewhere in Europe where austerity measures under the EU have been foisted upon a nation rage on. These movements have gotten little coverage in the mainstream, except on occasions where they can characterize these movements as violent. As time goes on, there is only an increase in the clear and present resistance to the global elite telling everyday citizens that their standard of living can no longer be what it used to be. And such resistance is powering the geopolitical winds of change.

The Multipolar Vision

Born out of this growing global environment of discontent and dissatisfaction, an important precedent to Brexit was the election of Donald Trump, who ran on a platform of nationalism (critics repeatedly called it ‘outdated protectionism’) with the promise to ‘Make America Great Again’ by bringing jobs back home that had been shipped overseas and cancelling U.S. involvement in global economic schemes like the Paris Accord, while renegotiating trade deals with other countries.

Philosophically, Trump has found an ally in Vladamir Putin. One of the reasons that Putin has been demonized by the West is that he has always been the most powerful opponent of American hegemony, and has fought tirelessly to promote a multipolar vision in global politics and economics. If we look at recent history, we see that Russia has shown little evidence of wanting to establish global domination in the way that the American Empire has done through wars, regime building and permanent military presence all over the world.

In a speech in December 2019, Putin stated flatly that the new world order (‘unipolar world’) was dead, and signs in global economic relations reflected his fervent belief that a multipolar world, in which there are several points of power and sovereignty, Russia being one of them, is essential for a secure and prosperous world.

It [the multipolar world] has been established, a unipolar world does not exist anymore. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was an illusion that this world is possible and could exist for a long time. However, it was just an illusion. I have always said that, and recent events serve as a testament to this. (source)

The ongoing push for Brexit, finally realized a year after Putin’s speech, is surely one of those signs. And as other countries in the European Union start to see the impact of leaving on the UK’s economy, and perhaps more importantly on their autonomy, it may not be long before Grexit, Frexit, Spexit and other such colloquial terms start to take hold and put the nail in the coffin of Europe’s contribution to the globalist agenda.

The Takeaway

Human beings have an innate desire for unity, and it is this very desire that globalists have long tried to manipulate in order to fulfill their plans for world domination. The fact is, though, if these leaders truly had the best interests of humanity at heart, and really wanted to bring the planet together, they would have long handled problems such as war, environmental destruction, starvation and slavery.

Our destiny is unity, but the process will require several waves of decentralization before the true unity of humanity can be achieved. We see the beginnings here with Brexit, where nations are beginning to reject the global centralization of power. From there, sovereign nations will need to cede power to their states and cities. Those in turn will have to cede power to their communities. And then, finally, the communities will need to restore the power and sovereignty of individuals by being fundamentally grounded in the principles of Natural Law, which protects the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of each individual.

When individuals become sovereign, through an awakening of their consciousness that enables them to become fully responsible for the state of their world, that is when the true unity of the planet becomes possible.

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

You can stream conscious media 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, and documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media that you won't see anywhere else.

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Pod

Elevate your inbox and get conscious articles sent directly to your inbox!

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!