From the monthly archives: "March 2008"

Older Americans are wealthier and living longer than ever before. So says the National Institute on Aging’s report titled, Older Americans 2008. According to the report, the number of older people in the U.S. living in poverty has gone down, education has increased, and life expectancy has increased.

Americans today are living on average to 84 years old–that’s seven years older than the generation that turned 65 in 1900. Despite this, some problems exist. For instance, obesity has risen significantly in the last 10-15 years. In the 2005-2006 study period, 37 percent of women aged 65 to 74 were obese, and 24 percent of women age 75+ were obese. This is up from the 1988-1994 study period, when 27 percent of women age 65 to 74 and 19 percent of women age 75 and over were obese.

Despite evidence showing exercise to improve and prolong life, older Americans are just not jumping on the bandwagon. Only 25% of people 65 and over are exercising or participating in leisure-time physical activity on a regular basis. No bueno. And no surprise that health care costs rise significantly every year following peoples’ 65th birthday

So some good news and some not so great news about areas that can definitely use improvement. Overall though, I think quality of life is improving for people as they get older, and I think as health and wellness becomes more ingrained into the public consciousness, these numbers will only get better.

Never thought you’d see it, did you? But the planet has it’s first pregnant man. Well…sort of. Thomas Beatie of Oregon is a transgender male. For those of you who don’t know what that is, he was born with the biological equipment of a woman.

He is married to a woman, his wife Nancy. Apparently Nancy could not have children–hysterectomy due to endometriosis. So what was the next best thing? adoption? foster children? Nope, nope–Thomas got off the testosterone and within four months was inseminated (without fertility drugs) with anonymous donor sperm. Today he’s healthy, happy…and pregnant.

Ah, isn’t modern technology wondrous? Looking forward to the updated story in a couple of decades…of his manopause. Snicker

Well, I never thought I’d say this, but, science is becoming a sham. Yup, you heard me right: the “study of truth” is becoming an oxymoron. Hard to swallow since it’s the world in which I’ve been trained, as well as the world that I love.

Sad but true. Science, like most things that are marketable, is becoming controlled by economics. And whenever money is involved, big money that is, corruption inevitably follows. I’ve already reported in an earlier post of the practice of selective publishing by the antidepressant pharmaceutical industry, but check out the latest scandal: A recent report has disclosed hidden financing from the tobacco industry in a study that showed lung scans to help save smokers from cancer. Yikes! According to the report, this finding, “has shocked the research community and raised fresh concern about industry influence in important science.”

Although researchers insist that the funding from the parent company of a big tobacco firm had “no control or influence over the research”, most experts agree that public trust is compromised when hidden research money has industry ties. No kidding. It may be true that the tobacco company had no influence or control over the results, but when a group is at least partially responsible for researchers paychecks, it might be just a little tempting to make results look favorable, both for extending the study (means longer pay period) and for future funding (security). Further, money paid to researchers by tobacco companies often lead to their testimonies against screening in class action lawsuits which favor the tobacco companies. According to Dr. John Niederhuber, director of the National Cancer Institute (NCI), scientists must maintain the trust of patients in research studies, and “any breach of that trust is not simply disappointing but, I believe, unacceptable.”

The original study, published in the medical journal JAMA, was also partially financed by the National Cancer Institute. Both groups spoke out against the financial relationship between the study and the tobacco company. According to NCI chief medical officer, Dr. Otis Brawley, the society would not have contributed to the study if it knew “Big Tobacco” was co-funding the work. And Dr. Catherine DeAngelis, editor in chief of JAMA, stated that she would not have published the paper had she known of the relationship.

Well, as I stated at the beginning, science backed by big business has a vested interest to veer from the truth. Whether or not CT lung scans actually save lives is not the point here. It’s that if we are to learn the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, in matters of the universe, it’s much better to secure financing from institutions that have no vested interest in the outcomes. Unfortunately, that’s just not the world we live in.

If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a million times, omega 3 fatty acids are absolutely essential to good health. They’re important for adults and they’re important for children, and darn it, they’re even necessary for developing babies brains–before birth. You heard me right, pregnant mamas need to supplement with omega 3 fatty acids right away, but especially during the later stages of pregnancy.

According to a new study published in the Journal of Pediatrics, expecting mothers who eat their fair share of omega 3 fatty acids (300 mg/day is recommended) can actually give their babies a brain-power boost. Concentrations of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) were measured in the blood of umbilical cords of newborns. The concentration in the cord blood was closely correlated to the concentration in the mother’s blood at the time of delivery. The babies were then given standard visual and memory tests at 6 months old, and the researchers found that the babies with the highest levels of DHA in their cord blood had the highest performance scores.

Omega 3s are found abundantly in fish like salmon and tuna, but also in fish liver oils, which are the most common form found in supplements. I personally take 6 capsules of omega 3s every day, and as I’ve disclosed in an earlier post, my blood panel–especially my cholesterol, HDLs, and HDL/total cholesterol ratio were stellar.

During the third trimester of pregnancy, when fetal brain development accelerates, omega 3s–most importantly DHA–are crucial to the growth and development of the brain and eyes. Unfortunately, western diets are notoriously deficient in omega 3 fatty acids.

But that doesn’t have to be you. Pick up a jar of omega 3 fatty acids today. I promise you, it’ll be one of the most powerful health habits you’ll ever do–guaranteed.

Want to know what the next “big thing” in health will be? Brain-fitness games, software and other technology. You guys know that because you remember some of my earlier blogs, right? Of course you do. But if you don’t, let me refresh your memory.

Studies have shown that people who stay mentally fit have a significantly lower probability of developing dementia disorders like Alzheimer’s disease. How can people stay mentally sharp? I like the old tried and true, like studying calculus, or learning a new language, or memory puzzles (my favorite).

But a number of companies are producing brain stimulation programs, like the Cogmed Working Memory Training program (pictured left), which uses a sequence of flashing lights that need to be replicated by the player, much in the fashion of the old Simon game of my youth.

According to experts, the brain stimulation industry has more than doubled between 2005 and 2007 to $225 million in sales. I imagine it will continue to grow, as baby boomers seek out ways to beat mental decline. Cool, I like it. Technology will always try to improve upon what’s already available, and there are currently many ways to keep the mind fit. But, hey, I’m all for any outlet which stimulates the mind. We think, therefore we are…right? The brain-fitness industry is definitely taking a step in the right direction.

Something must be wrong with me–I love to see people squirm. Not just anybody, mind you, but mostly people who have lied, cheated, or acted hypocritically in one way or another. And I especially love to see it in people, or groups, that act arrogantly. C’mon, you know you love it too. We all get a sense of satisfaction when the chickens come home to roost, and these people have to squirm and lie some more to rationalize themselves. Pure comedy.

Take, for instance, the latest study to be published in the medical journal, The Lancet, which has reported that doctors routinely overprescribe antibiotics for viral infections. You don’t say? Really? Wow. Seems like that same idea was reported right here in this blog back in October. According to the study, 80% of sinusitis (inflammation of the sinuses) cases in the U.S. are prescribed antibiotics despite the fact that the majority are due to the common cold virus. And just like I said in my October post: Antibiotics don’t do diddly against viruses–they’re meant exclusively to fight bacterial infections.

OK, here’s the good part: The study’s authors then attempt to explain the inordinate amount of antibiotics prescriptions by stating that when the patient has had the symptoms for a long time, doctors assume it’s due to a bacterial infection….(Pause…silence)

Ah, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha….what a joke. Do any of you buy that baloney? Let me tell you the real deal (and this information comes straight from a medical doctor who taught me in chiropractic college): Doctors prescribes medications at nearly every doctor’s visit regardless of the situation because, and I quote, “the patient expects it”. That’s the truth in a nutshell: Doctors prescribe antibiotics full well knowing they’re useless against viral infections, precisely because the patient expects something, not because it’s the right thing to do, but because they know the patient wants it and will go somewhere else to get it. In other words, there ain’t much of a market for non-prescribing M.D.s, period.

The only reason this study has come out at all is because of the explosion of antibiotic resistant bacteria that have penetrated our world, otherwise, trust me, the practice would continue. Antibiotic resistant bacteria is a growing and severely dangerous phenomenon. There is no longer time to play around, so now the medical community is asking how. But, unfortunately, you’ll never get to the truth by hiding it, or in the case of these authors’ conclusions, by asking the wrong questions.

I’m going to end this by being as fair as I can to my medical brothers and sisters–it’s not totally their fault. Overprescribing antibiotics really is a consequence of what the public wants, and demands–like most things–and people really do yearn for a magic bullet. But what makes the medical clinician at least equally responsible is that they know better. It may be true that a medical business which doesn’t prescribe medicines will soon have to close its doors; however, it may be time to start pushing a more health-responsible agenda, which would be to teach patients that their bodies have everything necessary to fight the common cold virus, and that antibiotics are unnecessary, and useless, in these cases. Still–I just love to see them squirm.

Ah to breastfeed or to not breastfeed…is that still a question? I’m always amazed when I hear people speak out against breastfeeding. Honestly, I thought everybody did it; I thought it was as natural as, well…breastfeeding. But I guess I should have figured when I first noticed Family Feud giving away a year’s supplies of Similac that not everybody is deft of breast. And since breastfeeding requires an exposed bosom (although my wife is a pretty nifty nipple-hider when she needs to be), I guess some people feel uncomfortable around the practice. I never did understand uneasiness around bare breasts, but hey, that’s just me.

Well, there’s plenty of evidence showing breastfeeding to be the best bet for a healthy baby, and the benefits extend far into adolescence. Take, for example, the latest study out of the University of South Carolina, Columbia that showed breastfed babies to be less likely to develop type 2 diabetes. The study looked at approximately 250 people aged 10-21–80 with type 2 diabetes, and 167 without–and recorded whether they were breastfed as babies or not. The breastfed group had significantly lower incidences of type 2 diabetes regardless of race.

With type 2 diabetes on the rise and reaching epidemic proportions in American children, adolescents and young adults, it would seem to me that breastfeeding as a prophylactic practice would be advisable. Throw in breast milk’s high nutritional value and immune boosting properties, and really, it can’t be beat. But no matter the evidence to support breastfeeding, there will always be those who act squeamish around a breastfeeding mother and child. Oh well, you can’t please everyone, so…please your baby first.

You’ve probably read my earlier post on vitamin D and therefore know how important I think it is to the overall health of an adult. But new findings show that supplementing vitamin D early on is also very healthy for children. According to a British study, giving infants extra vitamin D (that is, above and beyond what they are getting from milk and sunlight) reduced the risk of children developing Type 1 diabetes by almost 30%.

Type 1 diabetes is a chronic condition in which the body is unable to produce enough insulin to bring sugar into the cells. As a result, sugar builds up in the blood and damages various tissues and organs. Along with regular tobacco and alcohol use, high blood sugar is one of the most damaging conditions known to man–it leads to many diseases and disorders including amputations, blindness, kidney failure, and the list goes on and on and on…

Once a person develops Type 1 diabetes, they have it for life, and they’ll have to give themselves insulin shots forever. Isn’t it comforting to know that by just supplementing with a little vitamin D, your child stands a greater chance of warding off this dreaded disease? It does to me. So guess whose little angel is getting daily vitamin D supplements?

Just another step in the wrong direction this week. Officials in Belgium report that two sets of parents were given prison sentences for not having their children vaccinated against polio–a mandated inoculation in this western European nation. I believe it’s only a matter of time before we see the same punishments meted out in the good ol’ US of A.

According to a recent report, the parents were given five month jail sentences and fined $8,000 each couple for violating a mandatory Belgian law that requires all its citizens to vaccinate their children against polio. Wow! That’s serious. Apparently in Belgium, you’d better do what Big Brother says…or else. And you thought I was just being alarmist in my previous post.

As it stands, some governments feel that it’s a serious public health issue to reject any required vaccination. What’s next? Jail terms for cancer patients who reject chemo? The guillotine for families that pull the plug on a brain-dead loved one. Do we really need government to tell us what to do with our own bodies?

What makes this especially scary is that we still don’t know the full implications of many drugs (can you say Vioxx or Thalidomide, anyone), let alone every vaccine. Take for instance the Centers of Disease Control’s (CDC) latest retraction of its preference for American children to get the quad-combined mumps, measles, rubella (German measles), and varicella (chicken pox*) vaccine after it has learned of an increased risk of seizure in children getting the shot. Oops–we didn’t figure on that one. Let’s release the irresponsible parents we’ve jailed. Just a matter of time, people, I’m tellin’ ya.

But it won’t happen if concerned parents and citizens stay informed (like you guys who read this blog every week!). Keep your eyes and ears open, and demand our right to do with our bodies what we will. Like I always say, there will be plenty of people who opt for the vaccine. Great! They should have it if they want it–that’s the advantage of having modern medicine. But to force it upon people who aren’t sure is a crime against our liberties. Stay tuned–it ain’t over yet.

*Writer’s note: Who the hell hasn’t had the chicken pox? Probably every adult in this country has caught it, and we’re still kickin’ it healthy and strong. Sometimes modern public health policy baffles me.

The 20th century could definitely be called the Pharmaceutical Age; it was teeming with breakthroughs–vaccines, life-saving surgical procedures…Viagra! Advancement seemed to have no bounds. Heart disease? Take this. High blood pressure? Take that. Sniffle? Have an antibiotic. There’s a pill for every ill.

Then came the 21st century and pharmaceutical innovation leapt into new territory. Normal physiology acting up?–have a statin. How about an H2 blocker? Or tranquilizer? We do physiology better than the human body does. Yes, progress.

Then, of course, came performance enhancing drugs–steroids for athletes, steroids for cattle, Ritalin for medical students. Woohoo! Top of the world, Ma!

According to IMS Health, U.S. prescriptions have risen 12% to 3.7 billion over the last five years. 3.7 billion? With prescription drug use skyrocketing, is it any wonder that an AP investigation this week found a vast array of pharmaceutical drugs contaminating the drinking water of 24 major metropolitan areas? It isn’t to me. Check it out: 41 million Americans are drinking water laced with antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers and sex hormones, as well as a load of over-the-counter pain medications like acetaminophen and ibuprofen. And here’s the best part of it all: The drugs are remnants of non-metabolized pharmaceuticals passed through the urine of our over-medicated countrymen. Pretty gross, eh?

Now to be fair, the concentrations of said drugs are minuscule; however, many experts admit that we do not fully know the health implications of the widespread contamination yet. And to make matters worse, evidence shows that chlorine, a commonly added chemical used to treat water, can react with many pharmaceuticals making them more toxic.

Here’s what stands out the most for me regarding this frightening story. We have become a society so obsessed with quick fixes, especially pharmaceutical drug treatments that I can’t imagine any other scenario than this one happening. Duh! Medications aren’t fully absorbed by the body (thank goodness!) and so they’ve got to go somewhere. We’re taking pharmaceutical drugs by the boatloads–their concentrations in our water supply only reflect our consumption habits. That should speak loudly about what we’re doing to ourselves. Truth is, if you’re a medication junkie, this story probably doesn’t phase you–that would seem rather contradictory. But if you’re not, and you actually care about what goes into your body, then this story has got to creep you out a little; it sure did me.

Anyway, on the lighter side: The report did list some drug concentrations of various city water supplies, and I couldn’t help but see the comedy in it all. Check it out and chuckle:

  • New York, the city that never sleeps–tranquilizers
  • Philly, home of the cheesesteak–cholesterol drugs
  • L.A., where narcissism & cocaine share the spotlight–anti anxiety drugs
  • San Francisco, no explanation necessary–sex hormones

I guess our drinking water says a lot about our culture.

Guess which drugs twenty percent of all college students are taking with frightening regularity? Cocaine? Nope. Heroin? Nope. Marijuana? Uh…no. Give up? Prescription painkillers, stimulants, sedatives, and sleeping pills–booyah!

According to a recent study out of the University of Michigan, about one-fifth of U.S. college students are taking prescription pills to get high. And getting them is easy, much easier than getting other illicit “street drugs”. The research findings come from a survey that was conducted looking at over 3,600 college students with an average age of 20 or younger. Students were asked if they took any of the four types of prescription drugs: opioids; stimulants; sleeping pills; and sedative or anti-anxiety pills. 60% admitted to taking these drugs for medical reasons, while a whopping 20% admitted to taking the drugs non-medically.

The students were also asked whether they had done anything illegal to get drugs, whether they had blackouts due to drug use, felt guilty about drug use, or felt sick after stopping taking the drugs. A “yes” answer to three or more of these questions classified them as having a drug abuse problem. Apparently getting the drugs was as simple as going to the dentist for wisdom teeth extractions and getting thirty Vicodin along with one refill. Add a little alcohol and what have you got? A potential habit on your hands.

With the use of ADHD stimulant drug Ritalin on the rise among all teens and this becomes a very scary notion. The problem is that many people see these drugs as OK, since they come from a medical doctor. And if the MD prescribes it, it’s got to be OK, right? Well these drugs are all controlled substances–that is, you can’t buy them over the counter; you need a scrip to get ‘em. They’re controlled substances for a reason: They have a high potential for abuse and they can be dangerous if taken improperly.

I think that the real warning here needs to go out to parents, and especially doctors. Parents can’t control everything their kids do, but a doctor can limit what goes out to these youngsters. The truth of the matter is that humans are incredibly resilient, so I’m not sure that 60 Vicodin are needed by many–if any–young tooth extraction patients. I had a cracked tooth and subsequent root canal myself back in January, and I survived on a weeks supply of Motrin (a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory [NSAID]). No chance to get high there, and the NSAID did the trick as far as getting me over the hump; so, 60 Vicodin?

I think it’s high time docs started discriminating a bit more before passing out scrips. There’s plenty of other stuff kids can get high on, so why add fuel to that fire. Prescription drugs are dangerous, just ask Heath Ledger and Anna Nicole Smith–oh wait, you can’t. Well, that’s just my humble opinion, anyway.

Want to know one simple habit that can reduce snacking, increase activity, and help you lose weight? Eating breakfast regularly is what: A study conducted at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health showed that teenagers who ate breakfast regularly had lower body mass index (BMI) relative to their breakfast-skipping peers. And they weighed about five pounds less on average too. Nice.

Although conducted on teens, I believe we can extrapolate the the research finding to adults as well; I mean, the conclusions make sense. According to Mark Pereira, lead author of the study, breakfast eaters probably have better control of their appetites throughout the day, and they are less likely to pick up sugary snacks, like doughnuts, muffins, or scones–items many of us grab on our run through Starbucks.

Think about this for a minute: Who’s more likely to gain weight–people who eat an early morning meal or people who skip it? Duh. It all has to do with blood sugar. Let yours get too low–easy to do if you don’t get fuel first thing in the morning–and your body will surely convert much of your first meal into fat. But guess what? It’ll be the least of your worries. That volatility in blood sugar concentration can lead to diabetes. Diabetes+weight gain/obesity=big problems.

Don’t do it to yourself: Eat a hearty breakfast. Skipping any meal, in my opinion, is a poor dietary practice; but breakfast, especially, should be eaten every day. If the risk of disrupting your blood sugar isn’t enough to get you noshing first thing in the morning, then the thought of packing on the pounds unnecessarily should. In a culture and society prosperous enough for us to even have this choice, we should never take our early morning meal for granted–breakfast truly is the most important meal of the day.

I get most of my health news off the news wires like Reuters or Associated Press. For anyone not familiar with these news outlets, they provide stories for use by newspapers, radio and television programs and other media outlets. It comes over as a “just-the-facts” piece that other writers can use to create a story, which essentially leaves the writer to choose how the story is told without losing its essential meaning and information.

So, as you can probably tell, I have a blast getting these facts-only stories and sending them back out with what I consider a more realistic twist. I know that nobody reading this believes for a second that the information we get over traditional outlets is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It’s not about being a born skeptic as much as it’s about having way too many experiences of being told one thing but seeing another that makes us question what we are told.

Take for example the latest news being reported in the Annals of Behavioral Medicine, which says that people who take a proactive approach to their health may, in fact, be better informed, but by no means are they necessarily more healthy. Now, when I see opening words of this sort, along with the headline, Involved” patients not always healthier, I get an immediate chuckle. I chuckle because I know that either, one: they are providing faulty information; or two: they are defining terms a little differently than I would. I know this because I read the health news every day. I know that studies pour out every week showing that a proactive approach of incorporating healthy lifestyle habits is, without a doubt, the number one beneficial thing people can do to ensure better health and a longer life. But, then, stories like this one come out and, well…they make me chuckle.

So, according to this study, 189 people with high blood pressure were observed: Those people who wanted a greater say in their health care tended to have higher blood pressure and cholesterol than the people who let their doctors have most of the control. Oy vey. And the conclusion of the research team was that, “merely being involved in health care decisions does not necessarily make patients healthier.”

Well no ship, Sherlock.

Here are the flaws with these conclusions: First, being proactive goes way beyond “being informed.” Could you imagine if we extrapolated that idea–that is, considering simply being informed the same as being proactive–to voting (I’m informed but I don’t vote), to our work life (I went to college but I prefer not to work), or to our finances (I know I should save, pay my taxes, and my bills…but I don’t). We can all appreciate that proactivity is taking action–in the realm of health it’s exercise, adopting a healthy diet, regular bodywork, getting enough sleep, and so on, and so forth.

The second flaw of this study is that they used high blood pressure–hardly a measure of health, and more accurately a measure of potential disease–as the health parameter. People who have high blood pressure are already on the verge of illness. Please. Aren’t they already doing something wrong or neglecting to do some things right? And these are the folks we should use as our reference point that “simply being informed doesn’t lead people to be healthier”? How amusing. I really could go on for hours about the absurdity of this notion.

Studies like this are an unfortunate relic of the old health paradigm that I am so proactively trying to get you to abandon. That paradigm says, health is a chance occurrence and is fleeting. In other words, illness is inevitable (I’ve got no argument there) and only through medical intervention can you hope to stand a chance of survival (this, however, is false). Obviously, that message is not presented so blatantly, but you’ll find it if you simply read between the lines.

And this is exactly how powerful institutions attempt to control you. Just ask any major religion outside of the Church of Medical Science and they’ll tell you: It all starts with brainwashing. You need us. We’ve saved hundreds of millions of lives, and we save millions more every year; we’re here to save you. This has been propagandized for years; nothing new there. But the next step is to tell you that you can’t make it without said religion. Don’t meddle when it comes to your health; we know what we’re doing; we know your health and your body better than you do, and we’re here to save you. That’s where we are now. The third step is mandating conformity. Mandatory treatments, mandatory inoculations, mandatory obedience. We’re just starting to get a glimpse of this practice now. Hang on, we should be seeing much more of this in the future.

Then the break occurs; the unfoldment of upheaval. It has happened in every major revolt in history, including the American Revolution. And now, we are in the midst of a health paradigm revolution. Damn, I feel like Thomas Paine!

Here’s the bottom line: people who take a proactive approach to their health and well-being stand an exceptionally high chance of having better health, period. Proactivity means, “acting in advance to deal with an expected difficulty.” Acting. Not just being informed. Big difference.

Although this study comes to one very true conclusion, that “studies have found that patients generally tend to do better when they agree with their doctors on how to manage their health problems.” This, however, is not the same thing as people taking a proactive approach to their health. For sure, it helps when doctor and patient are on the same page; however, I highly doubt that anyone sets out to deliberately challenge one’s doctor when one’s health is on the line. But in an era of medical mistakes, profiteering, and just plain incompetency, where 98,000 people a year die as a result of medical errors (not accidents, not natural acts, but mistakes)…then yeah, people will question. And that, in my opinion, is highly proactive.

Yes, it’s true: The mega best-selling pharmaceutical mental health panacea called antidepressants just don’t work. When speaking about antidepressant therapy I usually try to be fair and say, “antidepressants might work for some people,” but frankly, that’s a bunch of horse shot. Study after study after study comes out exposing these most over-prescribed meds for the frauds they actually are; so I just can’t bear to keep perpetuating the lie. Antidepressants don’t work! At least not for what they’re supposed to work for, that’s for sure.

Take this latest study out of Great Britain which looked at previously undisclosed data of 47 clinical trials conducted by the drug companies themselves. The data became available through the U.S. freedom of information laws. I pointed out in an earlier post that many drug companies hide relevant information to make their product appear beneficial. Lots of money is made as a result of this practice, even if the information only stays hidden for a brief time.

But what makes the antidepressant sham so shameful is that, as a treatment option for depression, it has been treated as the holy grail of the biochemical theory of mental illness. I discuss this fallacy in detail in my upcoming book, The Six Keys to Optimal Health. It is one of the most faulty scientific theories to ever be unleashed upon the public. And it has been heavily propagandized for one reason only: Antidepressant therapy brings big bucks.

Oh, don’t get me wrong: people who take antidepressants feel something. Most of these drugs simulate speed, so lots of people get high from them. But since it’s a medically prescribed substance, they wouldn’t call it high. Oh no, instead they might say evened-out; calm; or “balanced”. Yeah right, balanced. You’ve got to check out this article on parents requesting drugs to give their college kids an “edge”. Nice, Dad; hook Junior–he’s worth it.

Here’s the truth as stated by research team leader Professor Irving Kirsch of Hull University, in northern England, who conducted the study, “The difference in improvement between patients taking placebos and patients taking anti-depressants is not very great. This means that depressed people can improve without chemical treatments.”

He goes on to say, “Given these results, there seems little reason to prescribe antidepressant medication to any but the most severely depressed patients unless alternative treatments have failed to provide a benefit.” And I tell you, like me before him, he’s just being nice. It’s only a matter of time before the good professor gets fed up and proclaims the truth to the world as I have: Antidepressants don’t work! Time to give them up.

Copyright © 2013 Dr. Nick Campos - All Rights Reserved. Web Services by David Cosgrove Los Angeles Web Design