Natural Solutions Foundation

November 10, 2007

Several months ago, while I was on the road, someone found my “mute button.” That may be good news for some, but having laryngitis is not a whole lot of fun for someone who is trying to educate Congress and national decision makers! I could not make a sound above a whisper and had a hacking, painful cough to boot. I was out of the natural remedies I depend upon and was pretty miserable.

The Magic of Magnets Up Close and Personal

At that point, serendipity brought me a gift. My friend, Peter Kulish, chief scientists at the the Foundation for Magnetic Science had sent me a BiomagScience™ Wellness Kit which arrived right then! At the hotel where we were staying for a couple days.

Here’s the letter I wrote to him two days later:

——————

Dear Peter:

I had been suffering from profound laryngitis and a hacking, paroxysmal cough which disturbed my sleep and left me unable to breathe 12 to 15 times per hour for about 4 days. Nothing seemed to help the symptoms or the distress despite mega doses of vitamins; my herbal remedies were not available.

When my Biomag Wellness Kit arrived, I put two of the smallest magnets in a Power Stack (2 magnets, green side toward my skin) over my sternum. Within 15 minutes the coughing was virtually gone and my voice had returned. I went to bed without the magnets and was up most of the night with the same hacking, breathless coughing and my voice was absent once again in the morning.

I got up and put the magnets back on my sternum: the same almost magical relief took place in the same short time. But when I showered and got dressed again, forgetting the magnets (since I am not used to using them), the cough and laryngitis started plaguing me once again. Remembering the Power Stack, I clipped them to my clothes and, as if by the magic of magnetic therapy, my cough was gone and my voice came back!

I am still little hoarse but I can be heard over the phone and my voice is getting stronger by the hour. Unless I take the magnets off, my symptoms have gone from disabling to minor and resolving.

These two days have taught me the astonishing power of magnets in a highly personal way. Since I am never (well, hardly ever!) sick or in pain, I have not had the opportunity to experience the power of magnet therapy personally. Now I have and I am deeply impressed by the technology. I can strongly recommend Biomag Science and its excellent products.

Thanks for the magnets and thanks for the lesson,

Dr. Rima

——————

Peter is a far-sighted natural health leader with decades of research and involvement in the science and application of magnets, as his magnetic fluid conditioning patents show. He understands that health freedom is vitally important to us all and has made an offer that turns win-win into heal-heal.

He has pledged to donate $10 to the Natural Solutions Foundation for each Wellness Kit sale generated through this emailing! WHAT A WONDERFUL OPPORTUNITY TO HELP NATURAL SOLUTIONS WHILE EXPERIENCING THE BENEFITS OF MAGNETS… AND ALSO, JUST THE PERFECT GIFT OF HEALTH FOR THIS HOLIDAY SEASON!

Please help support Natural Solutions through this link and learn why BiomagScience is important in our lives: http://www.biomagscience.com/cmd.php?af=591011

The remarkable Wellness Kit contains the therapy book “Conquering Pain, the Art of Healing with Biomagnetism” with its A-Z therapies, a bottle of Liquid Oxygen for those in need, the three sizes of medical grade Rare Earth Biomagnets, a set of Water Jar Energizers for your drinking water [shown by research to be beneficial to your health and according to many – very tasty to drink], and a pictorial guide of the advanced therapy circuits BiomagScience has developed for supporting increased vitality and resolution of painful aches, sprains, acute, chronic or degenerative conditions.

My recent experience makes it clear that everyone should have a BiomagScience Wellness Kit in their medicine cabinet for any emergencies that arise.

Please give the Foundation’s message your close attention. It is clear to me that the proper use of magnets can have remarkable benefits for your health and well-being. Because of Peter’s involvement with health freedom, you can purchase exceptional magnets at an exceptional price AND support the Natural Solutions Foundation at the same time.

For more information: http://www.biomagscience.com/cmd.php?af=591011

PS – For the few of our Natural Solutions supports who may not like receiving messages like this, when someone agrees to support foundation activities and we recommend their products… As you know from our www.organics4U.org web site (where you can also find the link to Biomag Science) we have endorsed a number of wholesome, natural products and services. We do this because we believe in the products – we only endorse products we have personally used and for which we have personally experienced the benefits – and because you will benefit from the products and/or special pricing… and because the marketers support Health Freedom… win, win, win… And for those who feel there should be no endorsements, please understand that running our campaigns cost money; trips to Codex meetings and DC meetings cost money; running our web site costs money every month. We are not rich enough to pay for it all ourselves – – nor should we have to. Regular small contributions will both strengthen us and keep us going… if you prefer not to purchase to help us, donations are gratefully accepted: http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?page_id=189 .

—————————————-

SPECIAL INFORMATION ABOUT MAGNETS AND WELLNESS

Note from Peter: Another Practitioner who has had encouraging results in many applications :

“I have had a wonderful adventure learning about your Biomagnets, they are everything you said they would be and much more! I enlisted as many people as possible to put the magnets to the test with their many different and varied complaints. The one constant was that all the people gained more energy and slept better at night.

Then there was the removal of pain and dysfunction from all sorts of different areas/problems: joint issues, glandular dysfunctions, digestive problems, TMJ, inflamed nerves, warts/root removal and pain relief from insect bites/stings. Everyone has been most pleased with the results and the fact that the book, pictures and magnets are so user friendly. The magnets are easy to use, do not wear out and can be used over and over again with the same degree of results each and every time. Thank You! The magnets are truly a blessing to all who use them! Cheers.” JF Oakville, CA

TORN MENISCUS RESOLVED

Pain from torn Meniscus (cartilage in te knee) goes away in a day with BiomagScience Knee Circuit Therapy.

“I’m a 62 year young dog walker in New York City and I suffered a torn meniscus in my right knee. The doctor prescribed narcotics for the pain and said that I needed surgery. A friend told me about your magnets and I decided to try anything because I did not want the surgery nor did I want to keep taking narcotics.

I got my magnets and instructions on Thursday and I put the magnetic circuit on right away and I went about my walking the dogs. Well I just can’t believe it, today Friday the pain is gone!!! You have given me hope again that I might not lose my livelihood nor need the surgery and I have stopped the pain killers. Thank you, thank you for your wonderful product and for your help.”

S. L. NYC

RELIEF FROM SCOLIOSIS AND SPINA BIFIDA PAIN

For years I had awful pain from scoliosis and spina bifida in my lower and upper back, especially when sitting. I tried everything including painful therapies: acupuncture two to three times a week; special Chinese massage which almost left me an invalid; Reiki energy healing which lessened the pain temporarily; physiotherapy; Ancient Mexican therapy; a very uncomfortable special brassiere brace; chiropractics for six months along with Swedish massage; Nikken Products; pain drugs which did nothing but cost money and made me sick; nothing worked and I believed I just had to live with the pain the rest of my life. Then I was introduced to the advanced back pain therapy from BiomagScience. For the first time in many years, I got relief. Since then, the therapy has helped my back heal as the pain does not occur as often. When it does, I put the advanced therapy on and it goes away instantly. T.K. North Wales, PA

BiomagScience through the Foundation for Magnetic Science offers specific therapies for over 170 health conditions. Based on nearly three decades of research in the development and application of specialized magnetic circuits, dramatic results have been achieved in supporting vitality and resolution of acute, chronic and degenerative conditions.

These specialized magnetic fields have been designed for simple, proper placement for increasing the electromotive vitality (Zeta potential) of the cells resulting in such issues as:

1. After 25 years of chronic illness from low energy, stuck cells, nutritional transfer increased within an hour of CVS therapy – after one year of therapy, playing competitive tennis: http://www.biomagscience.com/mother_s_life_returned_after_25_years

2. 50-year old woman awoken from a terminal [acute pancreatitis] coma with advanced Meridian Energizing Therapy and Super BioMagnet therapy on pancreas. http://www.biomagscience.com/woken_from_coma_pancreatitis_is_able_to_heal

3. Acute pain, nausea, vomiting, blurred vision, and insomnia from whiplash resolved with BiomagScience advanced neck circuits.
http://www.biomagscience.com/live_cell_microscopy_test_results_by_fms

4. 72year old man with lifetime loss of mobility and feeling from knee down regains mobility and feeling from Regeneration of nerves, tendons, muscles using advanced knee circuit @ YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3sGAGOpgwI

5. 22-year Arthritic knee resolved http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORkfRyKvsjA

6. Extremely painful TMJ/Lockjaw resolved http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORkfRyKvsjA

7. See testimonials http://www.biomagscience.com/user_testimonials

BiomagScience.com offers white papers [and FAQs] giving simple scientific explanations about the proper applications and what must be addressed to support advanced healing and what should not be done to prevent harm (electromotive stress).

Did you know that one side of the limb is positive and the other is negative?

Did you know that each hemisphere (right-left side) is the opposite polarity?

Did you know that the same magnetic polarity placed on the proper polarity supports rapid healing, but if placed incorrectly – often causes pain because of short circuiting by the wrong voltage.

Did you know that positive energy promotes acidity and can activate pre-cancerous cells and negative energy promotes alkalinity which increases oxygenation and according to testing [on Medline] reduces cancerous growth.

Learn more: http://www.biomagscience.com/cmd.php?af=591011

Also available, Before and After Case Studies Research of:

1. Cellular photo microscopy of rouleau blood cell patterns changing into healthy positioning in less than an hour;

2. Cellular voltage increases in less than hour which would normally take months of supplementation – tests with FDA certified BIA (Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis) instrument;

3. Photomicrographs of before and after oxidative stress tissue showing neutralization of free radical sites, supportive healing and immediate reduction of inflammation within an hour.

BiomagScience has broken through many boundaries in establishing carefully designed, electromotive energies, that when properly placed, support and amplify the body’s natural healing energies which provide rapid pain relief, increased immune functions, and support re-constructive and/or regeneration of all tissue.

BiomagScience is very pleased to submit the results from our advanced, yet simple to use Circuit therapies – Meridian Energy, Overnight MET, Daytime, Nightime, CVS, Organ Group Energizing Therapy, advanced knee and back circuits, etc.

After reviewing the results and research, it is easily realized why BiomagScience protocols are used and taught worldwide.

Respectfully submitted by:
Peter Kulish, Senior Science Adviser
Foundation for Magnetic Science

Learn more: http://www.biomagscience.com/cmd.php?af=591011

If you catch the fever of advanced energy therapy and want to spread the word, you can become a BiomagScience Affiliate and Earn 25% Commissions and Overrides! Just click: http://www.biomagscience.com/cmd.php?af=591011 and go to the affiliate sign up link toward the bottom of the left hand menu.

Disclaimer: The use of magnetism or any of the products offered herein are intended as therapy to benefit normal structure and function and such use is not prescribed as treatment for medical or psychological conditions, nor intended for diagnosis, care, treatment or rehabilitation of individuals, nor to apply medical, mental health or human development principles. The statements herein have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. These products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. Not intended to support or sustain human life, or to prevent impairment of human health; for self-education and research purposes only. Testimonial results are not typical.

© 2007

Here are the Findings listed at the beginning of HR 2387, introduced on May 17, 2007 into the House of Representatives by Congressman Ron Paul:
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds as follows:
(1) The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued findings and recommendations against screening for suicide that corroborate those of the Canadian Preventive Services Task Force. `USPSTF found no evidence that screening for suicide risk reduces suicide attempts or mortality. There is limited evidence on the accuracy of screening tools to identify suicide risk in the primary care setting, including tools to identify those at high risk.’.
(2) The 1999 Surgeon General’s report on mental health admitted the serious conflicts in the medical literature regarding the definitions of mental health and mental illness when it said, `In other words, what it means to be mentally healthy is subject to many different interpretations that are rooted in value judgments that may vary across cultures. The challenge of defining mental health has stalled the development of programs to foster mental health (Secker, 1998). . . .’.
(3) A 2005 report by the National Center for Infant and Early Childhood Health Policy admitted, with respect to the psychiatric screening of children from birth to age 5, the following: `We have mentioned a number of the problems for the new field of IMH [Infant Mental Health] throughout this paper, and many of them complicate examining outcomes.’. Briefly, such problems include:
(A) Lack of baseline
(B) Lack of agreement about diagnosis.
(C) Criteria for referrals or acceptance into services are not always well defined.
(D) Lack of longitudinal outcome studies.
(E) Appropriate assessment and treatment requires multiple informants involved with the young child: parents, clinicians, child care staff, preschool staff, medical personnel, and other service providers.
(F) Broad parameters for determining socioemotional outcomes are not clearly defined, although much attention is now being given to school readiness.
(4) Authors of the bible of psychiatric diagnosis, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, admit that the diagnostic criteria for mental illness are vague, saying, `DSM-IV criteria remain a consensus without clear empirical data supporting the number of items required for the diagnosis. . . . Furthermore, the behavioral characteristics specified in DSM-IV, despite efforts to standardize them, remain subjective. . . .’ (American Psychiatric Association Committee on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV 1994), pp. 1162-1163).
(5) Because of the subjectivity of psychiatric diagnosis, it is all too easy for a psychiatrist to label a person’s disagreement with the psychiatrist’s political beliefs a mental disorder.
(6) Efforts are underway to add a diagnosis of `extreme intolerance’ to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. Prisoners in the California State penal system judged to have this extreme intolerance based on race or sexual orientation are considered to be delusional and are being medicated with anti-psychotic drugs. (Washington Post 12/10/05)
(7) At least one federally-funded school violence prevention program has suggested that a child who shares his or her parent’s traditional values may be likely to instigate school violence.
(8) Despite many statements in the popular press and by groups promoting the psychiatric labeling and medication of children, that ADD/ADHD is due to a chemical imbalance in the brain, the 1998 National Institutes of Health Consensus Conference said, `. . . further research is necessary to firmly establish ADHD as a brain disorder. This is not unique to ADHD, but applies as well to most psychiatric disorders, including disabling diseases such as schizophrenia. . . . Although an independent diagnostic test for ADHD does not exist. . . . Finally, after years of clinical research and experience with ADHD, our knowledge about the cause or causes of ADHD remains speculative.’.
(9) There has been a precipitous increase in the prescription rates of psychiatric drugs in children:
(A) The use of antipsychotic medication in children has increased nearly fivefold between 1995 and 2002 with more than 2.5 million children receiving these medications, the youngest being 18 months old. (Vanderbilt University, 2006)
(B) More than 2.2 million children are receiving more than one psychotropic drug at one time with no scientific evidence of safety or effectiveness. (Medco Health Solutions, 2006)
(C) More money was spent on psychiatric drugs for children than on antibiotics or asthma medication in 2003. (Medco Trends, 2004)
(10) A September 2004 Food and Drug Administration hearing found that more than two-thirds of studies of antidepressants given to depressed children showed that they were no more effective than placebo, or sugar pills, and that only the positive trials were published by the pharmaceutical industry. The lack of effectiveness of antidepressants has been known by the Food and Drug Administration since at least 2000 when, according to the Food and Drug Administration Background Comments on Pediatric Depression, Robert Temple of the Food and Drug Administration Office of Drug Evaluation acknowledged the `preponderance of negative studies of antidepressants in pediatric populations’. The Surgeon General’s report said of stimulant medication like Ritalin, `However, psychostimulants do not appear to achieve long-term changes in outcomes such as peer relationships, social or academic skills, or school achievement.’.
(11) The Food and Drug Administration finally acknowledged by issuing its most severe Black Box Warnings in September 2004, that the newer antidepressants are related to suicidal thoughts and actions in children and that this data was hidden for years. A confirmatory review of that data published in 2006 by Columbia University’s department of psychiatry, which is also the originator of the TeenScreen instrument, found that `in children and adolescents (aged 6-18 years), antidepressant drug treatment was significantly associated with suicide attempts . . . and suicide deaths. . . . ‘. The Food and Drug Administration had over 2000 reports of completed suicides from 1987 to 1995 for the drug Prozac alone, which by the agency’s own calculations represent but a fraction of the suicides. Prozac is the only such drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in children.
(12) Other possible side effects of psychiatric medication used in children include mania, violence, dependence, weight gain, and insomnia from the newer antidepressants; cardiac toxicity including lethal arrhythmias from the older antidepressants; growth suppression, psychosis, and violence from stimulants; and diabetes from the newer anti-psychotic medications.
(13) Parents are already being coerced to put their children on psychiatric medications and some children are dying because of it. Universal or mandatory mental health screening and the accompanying treatments recommended by the President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health will only increase that problem. Across the country, Patricia Weathers, the Carroll Family, the Johnston Family, and the Salazar Family were all charged or threatened with child abuse charges for refusing or taking their children off of psychiatric medications.
(14) The United States Supreme Court in Pierce versus Society of Sisters (268 U.S. 510 (1925)) held that parents have a right to direct the education and upbringing of their children.
(15) Universal or mandatory mental health screening violates the right of parents to direct and control the upbringing of their children.
(16) Federal funds should never be used to support programs that could lead to the increased over-medication of children, the stigmatization of children and adults as mentally disturbed based on their political or other beliefs, or the violation of the liberty and privacy of Americans by subjecting them to invasive `mental health screening’ (the results of which are placed in medical records which are available to government officials and special interests without the patient’s consent).
SEC. 3. PROHIBITION AGAINST FEDERAL FUNDING OF UNIVERSAL OR MANDATORY MENTAL HEALTH SCREENING.
(a) Universal or Mandatory Mental Health Screening Program- No Federal funds may be used to establish or implement any universal or mandatory mental health, psychiatric, or socioemotional screening program.
(b) Refusal to Consent as Basis of a Charge of Child Abuse or Education Neglect- No Federal education funds may be paid to any local educational agency or other instrument of government that uses the refusal of a parent or legal guardian to provide express, written, voluntary, informed consent to mental health screening for his or her child as the basis of a charge of child abuse, child neglect, medical neglect, or education neglect until the agency or instrument demonstrates that it is no longer using such refusal as a basis of such a charge.
(c) Definition- For purposes of this Act, the term `universal or mandatory mental health, psychiatric, or socioemotional screening program’–
(1) means any mental health screening program in which a set of individuals (other than members of the Armed Forces or individuals serving a sentence resulting from conviction for a criminal offense) is automatically screened without regard to whether there was a prior indication of a need for mental health treatment; and
(2) includes–
(A) any program of State incentive grants for transformation to implement recommendations in the July 2003 report of the President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, the State Early Childhood Comprehensive System, grants for TeenScreen, and the Foundations for Learning Grants; and
(B) any student mental health screening program that allows mental health screening of individuals under 18 years of age without the express, written, voluntary, informed consent of the parent or legal guardian of the individual involved.

Women Not Warned About SSRI-Related Lung Birth Defects

By Evelyn Pringle

October 2, 2007

A study of nearly 500,000 women by researchers at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, in the September 18, 2007, Annals of Internal Medicine, found that nearly 50% of women taking a prescription drug that could cause birth defects did not receive warnings to avoid pregnancy. The authors note that the pregnancy risks of a drug should be discussed with women before they begin taking it.
Experts say the seriousness of a life-threatening lung disorder found six times more often in infants born to mothers who take antidepressants during pregnancy is not being adequately conveyed to women while they are considering whether to use the drugs.

The disorder, persistent pulmonary hypertension (PPHN), occurs when a newborn does not adjust to breathing outside the womb. PPHN refers to high pressure in the lungs’ blood vessels which prevents the body’s oxygen-poor blood from entering the lungs to absorb oxygen, and leaves the infant with not enough oxygen into the bloodstream.

On July 19, 2006, the FDA ordered a PPHN warning for the labels of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants (SSRI’s), based on a February 9, 2006 study in the New England Journal of Medicine, and issued a Public Health Advisory that stated:

“A recently published case-control study has shown that infants born to mothers who took selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI’s) after the 20th week of pregnancy were 6 times more likely to have persistent pulmonary hypertension (PPHN) than infants born to mothers who did not take antidepressants during pregnancy.”

Two week later on August 1, 2006, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist issued a press release warning that the use of SSRI’s and selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRI’s) during pregnancy should be individualized based on their respective risks and benefits, and specifically warned that Paxil should be avoided due to the potential risk of fetal heart defects, PPHN and other negative effects.

SSRI’s sold in the US include Paxil marketed by GlaxoSmithKline, Prozac by Eli Lilly, Zoloft by Pfizer, and Celexa and Lexapro sold by Forest Laboratories, along with various generic versions of the drugs. The closely-related class of SNRI antidepressants also carry birth defects warnings and include Wyeth’s Effexor and Lilly’s Cymbalta.

In any given year in the US, at least eighty-thousand pregnant women are prescribed SSRI’s, according to a study in the May 2005, Journal of American Medical Association. The CDC recently reported that antidepressants were the most prescribed class of drugs in the country in 2005. The fact that the overall prescribing rate is higher than for any other drugs indicates that a large number of pregnant women may be taking antidepressants without knowledge of the risks to the unborn fetus.

Overall, respiratory failure affects nearly 80,000 newborns per year, and it is responsible for as many as half of all infant deaths. Nearly one-third of all newborns with respiratory failure are born at term or near-term, and are at risk for PPHN, according to the April 2007 article, “Pulmonary Hypertension, Persistent-Newborn,” by Dr Robin Steinhorn, head of the Division of Neonatology at Children’s Memorial Hospital in Chicago and Professor at Northwestern University Medical School, in eMedicine from WebMD.

Dr Steinhorn also notes that an increased incidence of PPHN is reported for mothers who use SSRI’s during the last half of their pregnancies.

As recently as 15 years ago, the reports says, the mortality rate for PPHN infants reached 40%, and the prevalence of major neurologic disability was 15-60%. However, the introduction of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and other new therapies has had a major effect on reducing the mortality rate, yet the prevalence of major neurologic disabilities among surviving newborns remains approximately 15-20%.

Dr Steinhorn reports that Glass and colleagues compared the neurodevelopmental outcome of 103 neonates following ECMO and 37 without ECMO at age 5 and states:

“Major disability, which was defined as mental disability, motor disability, sensorineural impairment, or seizure disorder, was present in 17 of children in whom ECMO had been used. The mean full-scale, verbal, and performance intelligence quotient (IQ) scores of children who received ECMO treatment were within the normal range; however, as a group, the scores were significantly lower than in children who had not had ECMO (96 vs 115).”

According to the report, infants who survive following ECMO have a higher rate of re-hospitalization for non-pulmonary and surgical conditions, and the rate of sensorineural disabilities in infants who survive averages 6% and developmental delay occurs in 9%.

Because the prevalence of hearing loss is high, the report recommends that an automated hearing test should be administered before discharging the baby and hearing should be reassessed when he or she is 6-months-old and again, as the results indicate.

Dr Steinhorn also notes that an increased frequency of social problems, academic difficulties at school age and higher rates of attention deficit disorder are reported in children who received ECMO.

Although the actual FDA warning about PPHN was not added to the antidepressant labels until August 2006, the drug makers were well aware of the risk of this birth defect for more than a decade, due to a long and steady line of studies that linked the drugs to serious respiratory problems in newborns dating back to 1996.

A study in the October 3, 1996, New England Journal of Medicine, lead by Dr Christina Chambers of the Department of Pediatrics at the University of California-San Diego, reported that PPHN developed in 2.7% of a group of infants whose mothers took Prozac throughout their pregnancy.

From 1989 through 1995, the California Teratogen Information Service and Clinical Research Program received approximately 1,500 calls requesting information on the potential teratogenic effects of Prozac (fluoxetine), and an estimated one-third of the calls were made by pregnant women who were currently taking Prozac.

For their study, the researchers selected 228 of these women. Because they hypothesized that birth size, gestational age, and neonatal adaptation were influenced by exposure to Prozac late in pregnancy, the women were divided into two groups.

One group was referred to as the exposed-early group because the women discontinued Prozac in the first or second trimester, and another group was referred to as the exposed-late group because the women continued to take Prozac in the third trimester.

A third group of 254 pregnant women who called the same California Information Program between 1989 through 1995, but with questions about other drugs and procedures that were not considered teratogenic, was enrolled as a control group.

The researchers determined that 73 infants in the exposed-late group had higher rates of premature delivery, admissions to special care nurseries, and poor neonatal adaptation, including respiratory difficulty, cyanosis on feeding and jitteriness. Birth weight was also lower and birth length shorter in the exposed-late infants, they found.

The study authors noted their concern over the 15.5% incidence of three or more minor anomalies in some infants exposed to Prozac in early pregnancy. “The combination of any three minor anomalies in a single child is an unusual finding,” they wrote.

The 15.5 percent incidence, they said, indicates that exposure during the first trimester has an effect on embryonic development. “This finding raises the possibility of an associated defect in the development of the central nervous system that may become evident when the infant is older,” the authors wrote.

In January 1998, a study in the international journal of medical science and practice, The Lancet, explained that the lungs act as a reservoir for antidepressants and this study suggests that SSRI’s could play a pivotal role in infant respiratory conditions, such as PPHN. Another study, in the April 2002 Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine, investigated the effects of SSRI’s on pulmonary circulation and found that SSRI’s affect the pulmonary smooth muscle cells and aggravate pulmonary hypertension.

In June 2004, a study in Prescrire International also reported that newborns exposed to SSRI’s toward the end of pregnancy showed signs of altered muscle tone, breathing and suction problems, and agitation, with an estimated 20% to 30% of the infants affected.

The next month, after receiving hundreds of adverse event reports over a decade, in July 2004, the FDA finally revised the labels for all SSRI’s and SNRI’s, warning that some newborns exposed to the drugs had developed problems requiring prolonged hospitalizations, respiratory support and tube feeding.

Less than a year later, a study in the May 2005 Journal of the American Medical Association reported that women who took SSRI’s or SNRI’s late in pregnancy were at a 3 times higher risk of giving birth to infants suffering from serious respiratory problems, jitteriness and irritability. Lead author, Dr Eydie Moses-Kolko, reported that serious respiratory problems developed in about one out of every 100 infants.

According to Dr David Healy, a leading expert on pharmacology and author of “The Antidepressant Era,” the doctors who prescribe SSRI’s are often not able to spend enough time with patients to discuss their emotional issues in depth. “For some doctors,” he notes, “SSRI’s may appear to provide a quick solution for patient problems arising from normal life events such as bereavement, work stress, or marital conflict.”

However, he says, a review of the actual SSRI studies shows that only one patient in 10 responds to these drugs, and he attributes the massive prescribing to successful marketing rather than benefits.

“Through educational and marketing campaigns,” Dr Healy says, “the SSRI makers have produced a situation where people who would never have been given an antidepressant in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, are now given one after cursory questioning by a physician.”

Another leading expert, Dr Peter Breggin, founder of The International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology (ICSPP), a nonprofit research and educational network, and the journal Ethical Human Sciences and Services, also says a thorough review of all the studies submitted to the FDA for the approval of the SSRI’s showed that, when taken as a whole, the drugs do not work.

Dr Breggin also agrees that the high rate of prescribing to women indicates that women who may be experiencing minor symptoms of distress common with daily living are being convinced that they have a mental illness that requires drugs, most frequently an SSRI.

Proponents for the drug makers claim that depression itself poses a greater risk to the fetus than SSRI’s. “The problem with this claim is that there is no consideration for the health of the baby and the immense stress a mother has to endure when her baby is sick,” states Kate Gillespie, a Paxil injury lawyer from the Baum Hedlund law firm.

“Not to mention, the far greater stress that is created by having to constantly deal with life and death health issues, like the respiratory problems of an infant, that are caused by SSRI-induced PPHN,” she adds.

“For these women,” Ms Gillespie says, “it is clear that the risks far outweigh any benefit.”

An August 2006 study in the Archives of General Psychiatry compared babies born to depressed mothers treated with SSRI’s to those born to mothers who were not treated, and found a significantly greater incidence of respiratory distress, 13.9% vs 7.8%, and longer hospital stays for the infants exposed to SSRI’s.

Another study, in the August 2007 American Journal of Psychiatry, examined the effects of depression and antidepressant use on fetal age and the risk of preterm birth with 90 women and found the drugs, rather than depression, to be associated with lower fetal age and an increased risk of preterm birth. The researchers noted that the presence of depression per se during pregnancy did not adversely affect outcomes.

According to Dr Breggin, SSRI’s should never be used during pregnancy. “If pregnant women feel anxious or sad,” he says, “they should seek counseling or family therapy involving the child’s father, along with other sources of emotional support.”

Families seeking legal advice regarding SSRI-antidepressant birth defects can contact the Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman Law Firm at: (800) 827-0087 ; http://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/

(Written by Evelyn Pringle as part of the Antidepressant Birth Defect Litigation Monthly Round-Up, Sponsored by Baum Hedlund’s Pharmaceutical Antidepressant Litigation Department)
www.paxilbirthdefect.com/
www.pphnlawyers.com

(Evelyn Pringle is a regular columnist for OpEd News and investigative journalist focused on exposing corruption in government and corporate America)

This morning, tech giant Microsoft Corporation will tell America that health
technology CAN protect privacy and ensure informed consent when they announce
the launch of HealthVault, an electronic health record system. Patient
Privacy Rights founder, Dr. Deborah Peel, will be standing with Microsoft to
talk about HealthVault’s privacy protections.

Microsoft has sought advice from Patient Privacy Rights about building privacy
protections into HealthVault. Today, the bar for privacy in electronic health
records has been raised exponentially: guaranteeing informed consent is NOT a
nuisance or impossibility BUT a requirement. We challenge other technology
companies to also give patients real control of their personal health
information.

Why would Patient Privacy Rights support an electronic health record?

* HealthVault requires consumers to give informed consent before any use or
disclosure of personal health information. No one: not insurers, employers,
hospitals, application partners, advertisers, data miners, or even Microsoft
will be able to access consumers’ electronic health accounts without consent.
* Microsoft has committed to independent third party audits to verify their
pledge to protect privacy.
* Microsoft is the first major multinational technology corporation to
collaborate with Patient Privacy Rights and use the 2007 Privacy Principles
created by the bi-partisan Coalition for Patient Privacy as the basis for the
consumer controls of health data stored in HealthVault.
* Microsoft’s application partners are held to the same privacy standards as
HealthVault.
* Advertisers are contractually required to protect any data transferred from
HealthVault.
* HealthVault’s privacy policies are simple and easy to understand.
* Microsoft’s new health search engine is not data mined and allows people to
search for health information anonymously.

While Microsoft assured Patient Privacy Rights that HealthVault’s privacy
protections are solid, no one should feel pressured to use HealthVault, or any
other electronic health record. You and you alone should have the right to
decide whether you are comfortable storing and sharing your health information
To learn more you can read Patient Privacy Rights’ Press Release and explore
Microsoft’s HealthVault.

Source: Ashley Katz
Patient Privacy Rights.org