Are we turning our ADHD kids into “speed” addicts?


Just how dangerous are the amphetamine stimulant drugs prescribed for children with so-called ADHD? According to scientific research funded by the FDA and the National Institute of Mental Health, drugs such as Ritalin increase the risk of sudden death by five hundred percent among children and teens.

In these cases of sudden death, the child suddenly collapses and dies, only to be discovered later by parents or siblings. That’s what happened to Matthew Hohmann in 2004 ands more and more children at a rate that’s 500 percent higher than would be considered typical for children of a similar age and health status.

ADHD drugs like Ritalin are, of course, amphetamine stimulants. They used to be sold on the street as “speed,” but now they’re prescribed by psychiatrists to children after a subjective diagnosis of a fictitious disease: ADHD — a “disorder” which has no measurable biological symptoms whatsoever.

Interestingly, the FDA banned ephedra, an herbal stimulant, after a handful of consumers died from consuming huge amounts of the herb in a desperate effort to lose weight. In that case, in banning the herb, the FDA announced “the risks outweigh the benefits,” declaring that “ephedra is not safe at any dose.” However vaccines are considered perfectly safe even though there are no double blind studies done on their safety or their efficacy. Look at my previous article on “Toxic Story’ about mercury.

In great contrast to that, even as children are literally dropping dead after taking ADHD drugs, the FDA is now insisting “the benefits are worth the risks.”

But what benefits, exactly, are they talking about? There are no trusted scientific studies whatsoever showing ADHD drugs like Ritalin have any long-term positive effect on children. In fact, the available studies show that ADHD drugs stunt the physical growth of children while impairing brain development. Children who take these drugs, in other words, are not merely at a 500 percent increased risk of sudden death; they are almost assured to be stunted in their brain and body growth by this dangerous amphetamine stimulant drug.

The only real benefits to ADHD drugs, it turns out, are the financial benefits to the drug companies. With hundreds of millions of doses of ADHD drugs sold around the world each year, Big Pharma is raking in the profits while children are dropping dead in their own homes. So when the FDA says “the benefits are worth the risks,” what they mean is that the financial benefits to the drug companies are worth the risks to the lives of children.When parents take their children to psychiatrists and are told to put them on drugs like Ritalin, most parents believe what the doctors say. They believe the FDA wouldn’t approve a drug so dangerous that it could kill their child without warning. And they believe the drug companies would never sell products that harm people.

But those beliefs are foolish. In reality, the FDA, the drug companies and the psychiatrists are all working in collusion, knowingly pushing dangerous, deadly drugs onto families for the sole purpose of generating profits. While children suffer and die, they cash in on the ADHD delusion, first by promoting a fictitious disease and then later through high-profit pharmaceutical quackery.

Be well

Dr Sundardas

Advertisements

SUGAR BLUES 2


Sugar and monosodium glutamate have one thing in common. People are more likely to buy products containing them if they are called something else. Consumers trying to avoid sugar have started reading food labels. Many have begun to think that sugar by another name is not really sugar. Manufacturers know that calling sugar evaporated cane juice for instance, fools people into thinking there is less sugar in the product. Many label readers have caught on to the fact that ingredients have to be listed in order, from the largest amount contained down to the smallest. By using different names for sugar, manufacturers can split the content among the different names, putting the idea of sugar further down on the label without actually reducing the amount of sugar in the product.

Once upon a time health food stores did not carry products containing sugar. Today what we think of as a “health food store” is often a type of hybrid resulting from the cross breeding of true health food stores with traditional grocery retailers. These new stores are trying to capitalize on having a healthy image, while their shelves are stocked with products containing processed sugar, often listed by one of its other names.

However, both evaporated cane juice and white sugar are both sucrose, and both contain 400 calories in 100 grams. Both evaporated cane juice and white cane sugar have been heavily processed to remove the molasses content. During this processing the vitamins, minerals, fiber, amino acids, and trace elements that make molasses nutritious have been striped away, leaving one of the purest chemicals ever manufactured. Only tiny amounts of vitamin A and calcium remain in evaporated cane juice. Following processing, evaporated cane juice is 99.5 percent sucrose, and white sugar is 99.9 percent sucrose. Turbinado sugar  is 99 percent sucrose.

Whether sugar is eaten in the form of white sugar, evaporated cane juice, turbinado, or any of the other names for it, its effect on the body is the same. When eaten in large amounts, or eaten without fat or protein, each of them will produce the same sort of insulin spike, weight gain, immune system suppression, and increased chance for diabetes. It has been implicated in Syndrome X and heart disease as well.

The big difference between evaporated cane juice and granulated sugar is the price, which runs about 8 to 10 dollars a pound for evaporated cane juice compared to about 1 to 3 dollars a pound for white sugar. If manufacturers are willing to spend the extra money to put the words evaporated cane juice on their labels, it means they know the public is seriously trying to avoid eating sugar and needs to be tricked into eating it anyway.

Our collective sweet tooth goes back to the days when we lived in caves and life was a physical event rather than a mental one, as it is now. We needed to eat foods high in nutrients in order to have energy to get through the physical challenges of the typical day. Sweets eaten back then were primarily berries and other fruits that contained beneficial nutrients, enzymes and many phytochemicals to keep us going strong. Back then, a sweet tooth was not a bad thing. But sugar craving still exists for the purpose of compelling people to seek high energy nutrition. Until that nutrition is obtained, sugar craving continues, leaving today’s people in that vicious circle where more nutrient depleted sweets are eaten, and more sugar craving signals are sent. For many people, sugar has almost completely replaced nutrient dense foods, with obesity and health issues as the results. Next time you want something sweet, eat some fruit.

Be well

Dr Sundardas