THE MONTHLY MOSQUITO

Big Pharma is contributing millions to close down medical marijuana, and drug companies are concerned because marijuana is an alternative to painkillers. The producers of the painkiller Fentanyl contributed $500,000 to oppose marijuana legalization in Arizona.

Fentanyl was linked to Prince’s passing. They’re not the only ones. Purdue Pharma (Oxycontin), Janssen (Nucynta), Reckitt Benckiser (Nurofen), also fund anti-marijuana activism. In fact, drug companies spent more than $880,000 million on fighting marijuana over the past decade.

In 2013, the 17 states with medical marijuana saw painkiller prescripts fall. It’s time for pharmaceutical corporations to take accountability for the opioid crisis. However, that’s America for you, where pharmaceutical corporations determine what is medicine whilst their citizens die for money.

Prescript medication that people are given by their doctor frequently has side effects that can have extremely unfavorable consequences on the patient, from being depressed to suicidal, and countless patients become simply a statistic.

It’s so sad that the millions these companies are getting aren’t going towards education, teaching, infrastructure and everything else that’s productive.

Big Pharma paid out a reported 880 million dollars to prevent legalization and no one finds that as proof that it’s a natural medication? When are people going to quit calling this a drug and start being honest with themselves?

Meanwhile, children die from alcohol poisoning every single day, and no one bats an eyelid. The only reason pharmaceutical organizations are fighting against marijuana is because they know that it is a natural cheap relief that has no negative effects on the body. These organizations are way to greedy.

How in the world did we all manage to live with pain 50 years ago before Pharmaceutical companies and doctors began elbowing their miracle pain relievers on anyone that said they hurt.

There has been an increase in the prescribing of drugs by outpatient doctors, motivated somewhat by the pharmaceutical corporations that market those drugs. Between 1999 and 2010, selling of these opioid analgesics, medications like Vicodin similar to (Codeine), Percocet similar to (Paracetamol), and OxyContin similar to (Morphine), quadrupled.

By 2010, the United States, with about five percent of the world’s inhabitants, was using ninety-nine percent of the world’s hydrocodone (the narcotic in Vicodin), along with eighty percent of the oxycodone (in Percocet and OxyContin), and sixty-five percent of the hydromorphone (in Dilaudid).

As narcotic prescripts grew, so did mortality from opioid analgesic overdoses, from around four thousand to about seventeen thousand. Investigations have revealed that patients who take narcotics for chronic illness are less inclined to improve function, and are less liable to go back to work.

The possible side effects of prescription narcotics include constipation, sexual dysfunction, cognitive impairment, dependence, and overdosing. When patients take narcotics for a long time, they can even become more susceptible to pain, a malady called hyperalgesia.

What’s more, no medication reliably reduces pain in all patients, and narcotics are no exception. Furthermore, there isn’t much data that the prescription of narcotics to manage chronic, non-cancer pain is productive over a long time, most studies of prescription drugs last just twelve to sixteen weeks.

The use of prescript narcotics and the difficulties associated with them are so pervasive that, the Food and Drug Administration suggested tightening regulations for how doctors prescribe some of the most regularly used narcotic painkillers.

How did doctors, who promise to do no wrong, let the management of prescription narcotics get so out of hand?

Not long ago, doctors in the United States prescribed narcotics principally for short-term pain, similar the kind that people encounter following surgery, or for pain associated with cancer or to the end of life.

Then came two small reports in medical publications that helped set the foundation for an increased capacity for prescript narcotics. The first, a hundred-word letter to the editor published in 1980 in the New England Journal of Medicine, stated that less than one percent of patients at Boston University Medical Center who took narcotics whilst hospitalized became addicted.

The second, a study issued in 1986 in the journal Pain, concluded that, for non-cancer pain, narcotics can be safely and effectively prescribed to selected patients with relatively little risk of producing the maladaptive behaviors which define opioid abuse.

The authors urged prudence and stated that the drugs should be utilized as an alternative therapy. They further asked for longer-term investigations of patients on narcotics, they are still waiting for these to be done.

At about the same time, the corporations that made these narcotics, including Purdue Pharma, Johnson & Johnson, and Endo Pharmaceuticals, started to aggressively sell their goods for long-term, non-cancer pain, including neck and back pain.

They sold their prescript narcotics to doctors through advertisements in very respected publications, and through continuing education courses for medical professionals. They further financed non-profits such as the American Academy of Pain Management and the American Pain Society, the latter previously overseen by Dr. Russell Portenoy, a co-author of the Pain study and a proselytizer for extended narcotics prescribing.

The American Pain Society issued guidelines that supported doctors to increase their control of prescript narcotics to reduce pain.

In 2005, a medical doctor in Wichita, Kansas, noticed a group of deaths that were very similar in character, in three years, sixteen men and women, amid the ages of twenty-two and fifty-two, had died in their sleep. In the hours before they lost consciousness, they had been inactive and dopey, fighting to stay conscious.

Several had complained of chest pain, and that they couldn’t get their breath. All of them had taken painkillers prescribed by a family practice called the Schneider Medical Clinic. The clinic was in Haysville, a working-class neighborhood of Wichita. The principal enterprises in the area were aircraft and plastics, neither of which was doing well.

A mile south of the clinic, there was little except wheat fields. The principal doctor was Stephen Schneider, a fifty-one-year-old osteopath with sandy hair and dimples. He attended the county commissioner and the chief of police, gave examinations to the boys at the Haysville high school, and did rounds at district nursing homes.

One of his patients, Jeffrey Peters, said that Schneider reminded him of the kind of family doctor we had forty years ago when he was growing up, a doctor who will sit down and listen to you and joke around and make you feel comfortable.

On September 13, 2005, Schneider arrived at work to discover the clinic cordoned off with police ribbon. He called his wife, Linda Atterbury, a blond, peppy forty-seven-year-old nurse, who was at home with their two youthful daughters, and told her to come to work.

Agents from the Kansas Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration led Schneider into one of the clinic’s fourteen exam quarters and questioned him as to why he had been prescribing so many opioid painkillers.

He replied that sixty percent of his patients experienced persistent pain, and few other doctors in the district would attend them. The agents recorded, that he tries to believe his patients when they describe their health problems and he will believe them until they prove themselves wrong.

When questioned how many of his patients had died, Schneider stated that he didn’t know. After the raid, fifty patients endorsed a petition that stated, “We stand united in support of Dr. Schneider.”

A receptionist hovered an emblem on the exterior of the clinic, and patients scribbled friendly notes on it. The Schneiders further received many letters from patients. One wrote, “I believe that you have saved my life many times. Sometimes just by listening.” A woman with a connective-tissue disease revealed, “If you have never lived with chronic pain, you have absolutely nothing to say. . . . Chronic pain changes who you are. Without the medications I am on I have no life left!”

Schneider hadn’t considered of becoming a doctor until 1979, when his three-year-old daughter, Leigh Anne, caught pneumonia. She was restricted to an oxygen tent for a month. He believed the hospital was a neat and fantastic atmosphere.

At the time, he was next in line to become the handler of the meat department at Dillons, a local grocery shop. He had imagined working there with his first wife, who was a cashier, for the rest of his life.

However, once his daughter improved, he enlisted at Wichita State University and, in 1983, became the first person in his family to graduate from college.

Following his first wife leaving him, Schneider married Atterbury, who was drawn to what she described his animal heart, his kindness to pets, children, and the elderly. She inspired him to apply to medical school, even though she worried that a professional that high up he may get a big head.

At the University of Health Sciences, a school of osteopathy in Kansas City, Schneider felt antagonized by what he called the Dr. God feeling. He found some of his attending physicians demanding and demeaning to patients and nurses. His daughter, Leigh Anne, who is now a doctor, said that her father was never comfortable with the level of status that came with the position.

After Schneider had worked for the clinic for thirteen years, Riverside was purchased by a bigger hospital operation, and he and his new employer couldn’t agree on a contract. In 2001, he set up a temporary office at an optometry clinic. It was so tiny that people would bring lawn chairs and wait for their appointments in the parking lot.

He was at the optometry clinic for only a few months before he and his wife took out a two-million-dollar loan to establish a bigger medical center. Atterbury, who would run the office, stated that she obtained an architect to build her dream for her husband.

The clinic, which had its own X-ray room and blood lab, was designed in the Pueblo Revival manner, with tan stucco walls, two fountains, and a sky dome. Schneider requested a Catholic minister to bless the property and sprinkle the area with holy water.

He envisioned an alternative to the emergency room, the clinic would be accessible seven days a week, and all patients could be seen the day they called. He obtained three physician assistants and a family doctor, as well as a cardiologist and a spine surgeon, who would attend the clinic once a week.

The Haysville Times highlighted a photo of the mayor of Haysville, the chief of police, and Schneider, in white construction helmets, standing in front of a billboard that said, “Future Site of Dr. Schneider.”

Schneider was one of the rare doctors in the region to willingly accept Medicaid, which, he stated, compensated less than a fifth of the cost of his appointments, and he immediately drew in a huge group of patients who were on disability.

Many suffered from lower-back pain following years employed constructing aircraft machinery. In medical school, Schneider had been shown that opioids were so addictive that patients should not be prescribed them except if they were dying, however, the thought in the profession had unfolded.

Doctors started using opioids more liberally in the seventies, following the appearance of the palliative-care movement, the first branch of medicine to make the change of the suffering it’s main aim.

In the eighties, physicians managing patients who had cancer, whether or not it was terminal, prescribed opioids more unobstructedly. A 1989 report in the New England Journal of Medicine declared, “To allow a patient to experience unbearable pain or suffering is unethical medical practice.”

By the nineties, this ethos was being used in all varieties of pain. In 1995, the American Pain Society, an organization of health experts across disciplines, suggested that doctors examine pain the fifth vital sign, observing it as frequently as they measure pulse.

Schneider stated that, when he opened his own practice, pharmaceutical reps came in and told him that it was okay to treat persistent pain since there is no actual cure. They had all kinds of comparisons confirming that the long-acting medications were suitable.

In 2002, soon after the clinic began, a pharmaceutical agent from Purdue Pharma, which manufactures OxyContin, arranged for Schneider and Jon Parks, a pain doctor in Wichita, to have a meal at a steak house.

Parks described his practice and gave Schneider a copy of his pain management contract, which expected his patients to yield to urine tests. Schneider gave the agreement to his own patients and, with limited training, started treating chronic pain.

When a Wichita druggist asked Schneider if he would be prepared to take all the pain patients of a neighborhood family doctor who had recently died, Schneider replied, “Sure, just send them over.”

Similar to most doctors, Schneider asked his patients to measure their pain on a scale from one to ten (pain as bad as it can be). Several patients marked their pain a ten or ten-plus and complained that they felt crippled or incompetent, and frequently discouraged.

The aircraft business, like any trade, wears out its people. However, he did find himself questioning why his patients seemed to have become wimpier. They were no longer prepared to tolerate any pain, they wanted it immediately annihilated.

Schneider occasionally introduced them to physical therapists or anesthesiologists, but for the most part, he gave them the relief they asked for. In a letter of gratitude to Schneider, one patient wrote, “I call you the pick-up doctor, why? Because after these other doctors screw your life up from negligence in surgery (like the disc on my back), they do not want to bother with you anymore. So you get referred to Dr. Schneider.”

Pain is badly managed, especially amongst the underprivileged and the mentally ill, in part since there are lingering uncertainties about whether such a personal experience is equal or real.

The system is not well designed to manage patients. What you end up with is a primary-care doctor who is stuck desiring to do something for his patients but doesn’t have the means to do much of something but sign another prescription.

Although nearly a hundred million Americans experience constant pain, according to a report by the Institute of Medicine, medical schools dedicate, on average, just nine hours to pain, and barely around four thousand physicians are board-certified as pain experts.

There are few doctors in Wichita who were ready to accept all the hassle and uncertainty associated with chronic pain. Schneider was trying to do the right thing.

His patients’ numbers fell on the pain scale, however, their capacity to perform usually did, too, many left their employment, applying for disability with Schneider’s assistance. When family members challenged a number of opioids that their loved ones were taking, Schneider reassured them that everything would be fine.

A recent college grad who had accompanied his depressed mother to appointments stated that he frequently questioned if she should see a psychiatrist. Schneider told him, that the depression would wane with the pain, and that there was light at the end of the tunnel.

The patient finally killed herself. Her son stated that the difficulty wasn’t that Schneider was dishonest, it was that he was so flipping happy.

Almost a dozen sales delegates from pharmaceutical corporations came to Schneider’s office each day. They took him out for meals, sent him to seminars and conferences, and gave him generous samples and giveaways.

Schneider’s cluttered office included a Lexapro clock, Viagra pens, and a cup highlighting the logo for Nasonex nasal spray. The clinic never had to purchase its own tissues, since drug organizations provided boxes marked with their name.

Atterbury questioned how physicians could stay grounded when the pharmaceutical agents were forever glorifying them. They treat the doctors like they are above everybody else, attending to them, catering to them, dressing well for them, stating, ‘Where do you want to eat tonight?”

After hearing presentations by the group Cephalon, Schneider became one of the rare family doctors in Wichita to usually prescribe Actiq, a raspberry-flavored lollipop that contains fentanyl, which is eighty times more powerful than morphine.

The Food and Drug Administration has recommended Actiq just for severe cancer pain, but Cephalon’s pharmaceutical delegates, who called themselves pain care specialists, informed Schneider that it worked well for all kinds of pain, especially migraines.

While it’s legal for doctors to prescribe medications for treatments that have not been certified by the F.D.A., pharmaceutical corporations are banned from selling drugs for such purposes. According to whistleblower actions later filed upon the corporation, and settled, in 2008, for more than four hundred million dollars, the pain care specialists sought out doctors who did not treat cancer.

They were told to answer to issues about the off-label usage of the drugs by stating that they are designated for cancer pain, but wouldn’t you admit that pain is pain. The company sent Schneider’s physician assistant to New York for an Actiq consultants meeting, it paid for her to stay at the W hotel and to ride a boat on the Hudson.

In 2003, Schneider was sent to an Actiq convention in New Orleans, advocated by Cephalon. He was told that he could stick multiple Actiq lollipops in his mouth and his butt and he still wouldn’t overdose, that it was clinically impossible.

Three years after his clinic started, Schneider visited the first conference of the Sedgwick County Pain Society, a collection of doctors and law-enforcement officers working to reduce the misuse of prescript drugs.

Schneider was one of the first people to talk, and he asked if anyone would be prepared to take some of his Medicaid pain patients since all the doctors in the district had taken the good insurance patients, and given him the unwanted ones. The ones with various illnesses and unreliable histories.

Marijuana is a drug. Nevertheless, apart from that, it is one of the most natural out there, and it’s an excellent medication. The reason man made prescriptions is to make us sick and addicted. Technically our bodies are only supposed to ingest natural medicines.

There are several types of tablets that some people require and we are not talking about painkillers or mood stabilizers like Xanax since marijuana can be a replacement for both. Marijuana is listed in the same class as heroin which is not accurate.

You can overdose on Fentanyl, as well as heroin. Marijuana isn’t a gateway drug, and Marijuana is considered to be very safe because of the lack of overdose risk. Whilst prescript painkillers generate thousands of overdose mortality each year, no one has ever died from a marijuana overdose.

However, is it even likely that anyone would overdose on Marijuana? The response is no, and here’s why, because cannabinoid receptors, unlike opioid receptors, are not found in the brainstem regions regulating respiration, fatal overdoses from Cannabis and cannabinoids do not happen.

In other words, marijuana and opioids influence different pathways of the body. Opioid pathways, further known as receptors, are present in regions of the brain that regulate breathing, and as a consequence, taking too many painkillers can induce a person to cease breathing.

Marijuana works on a totally separate set of pathways. These pathways are termed cannabinoid receptors and they do not alter respiration. Therefore, marijuana cannot induce somebody to stop breathing, no matter how much they ingest.

It may be impossible to die from a marijuana overdose, however, that doesn’t mean you can’t take too much of it, and huge doses of marijuana can lead to adverse manifestations, such as anxiety and paranoia.

This happens more frequently in amateur users who are unfamiliar with dosing. Taking marijuana in the form of edibles further poses a higher risk because the effects are delayed and therefore more difficult to predict.

However, with all that said, the adverse manifestations of a marijuana overdose are simply brief and should wear off in 24 hours. Unlike other drugs, taking too much marijuana won’t take your life.

How many people have died overdosing on marijuana? The short answer? No. Unsurprisingly to marijuana enthusiasts throughout the world, there has yet to be a single recorded mortality associated with a cannabis overdose. In fact, you would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times your normal dose isn’t marijuana to kill you. That would be about 1,500 pounds of marijuana in 15 minutes.

That’s not to say that taking 40,000 hits is the single way to risk death whilst under the influence of marijuana. Smoking 800 joints in one sitting would put you in danger of dying from carbon monoxide poisoning. However, that isn’t exactly the plant’s fault.

In their conclusions on overdose mortality, the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) revealed that drug deaths are on the increase in the United States. Most prominently, mortality induced by heroin and benzodiazepines, prescript anti-anxiety drugs such as Ativan or Xanax with 6 and 5-fold increases since 2001.

What’s missing from NIDA’s 2015 report? A single report of a deadly cannabis overdose.

Statistics on mortality from marijuana overdose are strangely missing from U.S. national drug reports.

However, the recent 2015 United Nations World Drug Report had a few remarks warning global citizens against the plant.

According to the report, a number of people are admitting themselves for treatment because cannabis use disorders are on the increase. The data implies that more drug users are suffering from cannabis use disorders and there is increasing proof that cannabis may be becoming more dangerous.

How can that even be feasible?

To maintain that marijuana is becoming more harmful speaks to the concern regarding high-THC strains in mainstream society and medical communities. The higher the THC content in the strain, the more inclined a person is to admit themselves into an emergency room or seek treatment for marijuana use.

Unlike its counterpart CBD, THC by itself raises anxiety and paranoia in some people. After a night, or maybe several nights of smoking some top-shelf herb, some users can find themselves feeling a little confused, anxious, or neurotic. This is what we’d describe as a real THC-overdose.

This sort of overdose might make some people uncomfortable for a little time. However, there is still no account of anybody ever dying after smoking some high-potency bud.

With all the confusion about the safety of the cannabis plant, the World Drug Report neglects to report any marijuana mortality. In fact, the report reveals that most drug-related mortality is due to opioids, including heroin and prescript drugs such as Morphine.

Opioid overdoses make up 40.8% of global drug deaths.

By now, the total lack of marijuana deaths should be an enormous neon sign when it comes to the politics of drug legalization. By contrast, 80,000 people die from alcohol-associated diseases periodically.

Over 25,000 Americans died in 2014 alone because of drugs prescribed to them by their doctors. On top of that, over 18,000 Americans died from legally prescribed pain-killers.

With years worth of data on drug deaths, it would appear like common sense to step back and question if no one is dying from marijuana, why is it still banned? Sadly, we still appear to live in a society that’s a little more than stupid.

It’s banned not because the government can’t tax it because they can. It’s taxed in all the legal states, but because a lot of the money they get is from pharmaceutical corporations that make the medication.

If it was legal the government would lose a bunch of money, since marijuana is non-addictive, unlike all hardcore drugs like Xanax, Oxycontin, Morphine et cetera, which keeps the consumer coming back to get more and more, giving the government more money.

However, it’s not regulated yet, indicating that there is no way to calculate what the content in the blood is, therefore, there’s no way to determine how high somebody is to establish a legal limit.

There are some very narrow-minded people out there that believe that marijuana is bad for you, but that is complete rubbish if used with guidelines like you would do the same with prescription medication.

The only thing that would be dangerous is the tobacco that you roll with, however, you don’t have to be a genius to know that tobacco is harmful to your health, but then, so is breathing air.

Nevertheless, cannabis can be consumed in other ways, for example, ingested, using a bong, so you don’t have to smoke it.

The reasons for legalizing the drug entirely revoke the reasoning against it, and people are being extremely naive if they can’t see this. Firstly, marijuana is far less toxic and physically damaging than tobacco or alcohol, and it is inconceivable to overdose.

It has so many medical advantages which the governments disregard, and it isn’t physically addictive either, and for countless people using the drug recreationally and in moderation is actually quite propitious.

For numerous people getting high with their friends at the weekend is the safest and simplest way to unwind following a week of hard work and pressure without much consequence like a crippling hangover or offensive conduct which alcohol tends to cause.

For those that appear to be more open-minded, and know a lot more, perhaps the remainder of those people should go do some research?

 

A sick person is simply a person. Money, rank, nothing matters. Illness is the grand equalizer, and Israel’s public health care system is a type of real commonality among Arabs and Jews. It could easily be a model for other areas of life.

Of all government positions, Arabs achieve 6.8%, in the government healthcare scheme, they fill 12.4% of jobs, in nursing studies, including geriatric, 42% of students are Arab, pharmaceuticals has become recognized with the Arab population, 38% of druggists are Arab, at the Superpharm drugstore chain, 62% of the pharmacists are Arabs.

Furthermore, in medicine itself, the balance of Arabs is about similar to their dimension in the community. In 2015, 16% of all medical undergraduates were Arab, at the Technion medical school, Arabs were 38% of students and at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, 31%.

There are many reasons why medicine is a reachable career for Arabs, one being the continual call for doctors. Also, once you’re in, you’re in for life, while in technology, you’re considered old before your whiskers turn gray. Also, medicine is a reputable career.

Another reason Arabs select it is that the healthcare structure gives the chance to gain work exceeding the confines of Arab civilization, to become part of the Jewish community, which is usually out of bounds. In Arab culture, becoming a doctor is a trend and it’s an open profession, without a smidgen of security problems.

Somebody who studies electrical engineering or electronics, and wants to work in some organization that handles security matters, will have difficulty locating work. In Israel, doctors have no such difficulty. They are received with open arms.

What’s the intrigue of the healthcare structure? How do Arabs and Jews work side by side, including throughout wartime, without abrasion? One of the unwritten regulations is that politics is out of bounds, to the point of prohibition.

Burning matters of the day won’t be the subject of conversation over an operating table.

The instructions are straightforward. They are there, treating patients and saving lives, whoever comes, a soldier, civilian, or terrorist. Everyone is occupied saving lives. They clearly do not hearten political conversations at the hospitals.

Hospitals are not the place. And of course, you can’t control what other people speak about, so long as it’s just a couple of people just interchanging their beliefs, it’s a free country.

Although, in truth, as a structure, they do not permit it to affect conduct and treatment of patients. Although employees are not permitted expression of political beliefs.

One of the doctors wrote something, the doctor informed her, that he didn’t care about her political views, and that nobody did. She was a civil servant, and he required her to be a doctor and a human being with empathy, and that she should not have the pretension of being a judge.

She was told that if she did not remove it, then she was going into combat with the other doctor. She erased it and serves there to this day.

Another fact is that the structure of the hospital is shared, egalitarian, and promotion is founded on rank and skill, and everyone is treated equally, doctors and patients. Barricades descend. It isn’t that the Jew is the boss and the Arab is the cleaner, and everyone is equal when it comes to saving a life.

The sense of justness is the grounds for the good relationships between Arabs and Jews at the hospital. The nurses are all the same in salary, dignity, conditions and everything else. That’s not the case outside but it should be.

Doctors battle with life and death on an everyday basis. They fight together to protect life, not the other way round. That lofty common objective brings Arabs and Jews together in the profession. Perhaps we are a little naïve, but we would like to believe there is a special unity connected with the world of medicine.

They’re in the same camp, with a common adversary before their eyes, death, and disease, nevertheless, this suggests that the proportion of the issues they see on an everyday basis puts other things into proportion.

Fortunately, these relationships not only break stereotypes, they can extend beyond work. It’s a job they do daily without preconception, and in a growing society anything is feasible, there is no contempt or scorn when looking after patients that really require assistance.

If we can put our ideas and notions to one side when looking after the sick and dying, then that means there must be light at the end of the tunnel, which means that Jew’s and Arabs can exist as one, in a community, with each other in peace.

An ex-army officer who first came to lessons in uniform, with his firearm, now he takes breaks together with his counterparts, and now they go out to eat with each other. Arab doctors and nurses do not feel their cultural origin hampers promotion. They do not see a glass roof.

Clearly the system is an ambitious one, however, it doesn’t feel that the system attempts to trip anybody up, and the first female Bedouin doctor in Israel, says her being a Bedouin was less of a difficulty than her being a woman.

Still, this idyll at best lasts as long as they’re in uniform, and in the position of employment. At work, and in uniform, with a name tag, they are received as human beings, and nobody believes they’re up to no good just because they’re Arab.

Nevertheless, when they finish work and stroll down the street in a normal dress, they’re perceived differently, and it’s hard. In the hospital where they have some type of power. They can give something to people, and assist them.

In the street, people are worried. Perhaps they should saunter around with their uniforms on, or amble around conveying a sign saying that they don’t mean to do anything mean or bad to anybody.

It has been found that the bulk of schools in England aren’t putting the right policies in place to keep children with long-term medical conditions safe. Every school should have a policy in place to look after children with health conditions.

There are schools in the United Kingdom that don’t have those policies in place and parents are feeling so powerless. Some parents have terrible experiences in the schools because the schools don’t know what to do.

Numerous schools that don’t have a policy in place aren’t aware and what must happen is OFSTED must check these schools have got a policy in place, they must check the policies are working and the department for education must support these schools as well.

Keeping children safe in school should be the biggest priority. They should be safe, healthy and happy. Parents and families entrust their children to school each day, trusting the school to provide a safe environment in which their children will thrive.

There should always be a key qualified member of staff, appointed to manage first aid and there should always be somebody there who is qualified to give medication to children with health conditions.

If a child is in school that has a health condition, there should be somebody there to make certain that child has either somebody there to give the medicine or be with them whilst they take their medicine, for instance, if a child has diabetes and has to inject themselves with Insulin.

No child should have to suffer in silence because there is no proper structure. Children rely on their teachers to assist them when there is a need, and if there is nobody there to assist them, this could hinder their treatment which could make them sick.

We need to recognize that children do get ill, or they are already ill and require medicine. So, what happened to the school nurse that everyone shunned when you had to go for your inoculations, what happened to the nurse that came in and sorted through your hair to make sure you never had nits?

Taking away nurses from our schools is a stain on our school policy.

Every school in the country should have its own school nurse. Not only are nurses uniquely equipped to detect early warning indications of illness, but nurses are empowered to keep their communications with pupils private, and so the same child who visits frequently with a stomach ache may form a trustful bond with the nurse and feel able to open up to the nurse about their concerns, which may be separate to their stomach.

Nurses further have varying agendas, working conditions, and work-related requirements to teachers, and therefore may be better situated to get to know the children in the school in a completely caring function.

For teachers and school nurses to be able to perform their roles, the government must examine the wider remit of schools and know that staff members are only equipped to do so if they have enough time with each pupil to get to know them well and provide adequate care for school administrators.

Teachers and nurses deliver a diverse part in caring for their students, and a child’s well-being is of the most interest since if their health is not great, then they can’t study as well in the classroom.

Picture human head lice. Nasty little buggers weren’t they. However, how did we fight such an obnoxious adversary? This was a job for Nitty Nora, the Bug Explorer!

 

I am of course referring to the lady in the white lab jacket who came every so often to your school to check the hair of each child looking for head lice, or nits as they are more commonly known. Her name presumably wasn’t Nora, but her appearance struck fear into every kid’s soul.

Each school group took it in turns to line up before Nora, who would then check your hair by pulling it about checking for both nits and, more importantly, their eggs. This wasn’t normally too bad for boys, but for girls with long hair, it was much more of a task, as they usually had to have any plaits et cetera took out first, which meant that the younger girls were then walking about for the remainder of the day with tangled disordered hair.

The worst thing was she wouldn’t tell you that you had nits, if indeed you had. That was announced at the end of the day when an envelope was given to every kid with nits to take home to their Mum.

This was probably more embarrassing for each child in the class as saw you receive your envelope. It didn’t matter how much you complained that nits only lived in people with clean hair, you were then called a fleabag for the next week or so, and no other children wanted to play with you because their parents had ordered them to keep their distance, just in case.

If you did end up with one of the letters that made you a social fugitive, then it was time for a voyage to the chemist to purchase a bottle of that nasty smelling shampoo. It actually had a ghastly odor and it was made worse by the reality that it had to be applied and then left for ten minutes before it could be removed.

Following that, your Mum would go through your hair with an incredibly fine toothed comb to get out all the dead nits and most importantly the eggs.

Sadly, Nitty Nora has hung up her lab coat and no longer keeps the nation’s children head lice free. Apparently, she was removed since her role was considered to be an invasion of privacy and possibly even assault.

If this is the situation, then it is certainly yet another indication of a world going mad. So what if a few children had their hair pulled a little. At least they wouldn’t create an eruption of nits throughout the whole school.

There are also reports that nits have become immune to the many lotions and potions formulated to destroy them, so there’s, even more reason to get rid of them as soon as possible.

Nitty Nora is well and truly alive in the minds of so many and even though they are not normally positive thoughts, we should now call for a restoration of the odious Nitty Nora. But bring her back in what manner?.

If a chemical company has anything to do with it, she will be brought back as a bottle of medicated shampoo.

For too many teenagers and young adults, energy drinks have become necessary for getting through the day. However, they carry a dangerous chance of unexpected mortality. Energy drinks are the cause of numerous unexpected cardiac deaths in young, healthy people.

The chief interest is that these drinks can quickly increase underlying heart problems. Because of their large quantities of caffeine and sugar, serious arrhythmias can quickly grow in the hearts of young people who drink them.

Countless people now balk at the large quantities of identified caffeine on these drinks. The difficulty is that there are many additional sources of caffeine that are masked by the labeling.

Ingredients such as guarana, ginseng, and taurine have caffeine concentrations that are similar to, or greater than caffeine found in coffee. Ingesting large doses of any of these substances can be extremely bad.

About 31% of teenagers from ages 12 to 19 drink energy drinks on a daily basis. An even larger number of people use alternatives to these drinks, such as gums or inhalers. The large amounts of caffeine in all of these products are creating serious harm.

Of the 5,448 caffeine overdoses recorded in the United States in 2007, 46% of them happened in people below the age of 19. The problem is, how can we stop this trend of overconsumption by young people?

It is imperative that we prevent the consumption of these beverages because ultimately, we will have people coming into the emergency rooms of which are already congested and understaffed. Like alcohol there should be an age limit on these drinks of 21 or over that can buy these drinks, and like over the counter medications such as paracetamol, they should only be permitted to buy so many cans at one time.

This will not stop it altogether because they will get their mates to go and buy drinks for them, but it will considerably reduce the volume that adolescents can get their hands on.

One can (250 mL) of an energy drink per day is safe for most healthy adolescents. Energy drink consumption before or throughout sports training should be dodged, and teenagers with clinically associated underlying medical infirmities should consult cardiologists before drinking energy beverages. Extreme energy drink consumption concurrently with alcohol or other medications, or both, can lead to adverse outcomes, including mortality.

Warning physicians to the risks of energy drinks are very important.

It is essential for physicians to understand the absence of regulation in caffeine content and other ingredients of these high-energy drinks and education and information are essential to implementing safety for young people.

Actually, these drinks should be taken off the market for people’s protection but we know that’s never going to happen since these corporations that market energy drinks are extremely uncooperative, and they will lose too much money.

We presently see teeth having to be removed, gum disease, heart attacks, and total disabilities because of these pumped up sugar/caffeine beverages. Perhaps they should be banned clear and simple since any drink that offers the prospect of death really should not be allowed.

But then you would have to combine alcohol and tobacco in that prohibition as well because they are all life threatening. When a can of branded energy drink comprises 20 teaspoons of sugar, you have to question why they have not already been outlawed. The increase in the heart rate, the increased blood pressure, the inability of the liver to take the hit are all grounds enough to stop production and traffic of these suicide drinks.

No wonder there is an obesity dilemma.

Originally there was only one energy drink available and that was Lucozade, and that was only available in chemists. It’s way out of control now, and as far as heart conditions go, there are more aortic dissections now, and arrhythmia conditions, than there ever was.

Maybe it’s the unregulated distribution of energy drinks that’s the cause of the chemical contents activity which is similar to that of Viagra. It opens the arteries so that blood can flow faster, unrestricted, during vigorous exercise and it excites the heart in pumping harder and increases blood pressure to only the limit the arterial walls can endure, in a strong healthy body.

Any vulnerability, whether in the aorta or other important arterial membranes, is destined to crash causing immediate death or seriously endanger life-giving vessels exceeding their natural strength.

Drinking something which stimulates the heart and its role, the bodies biological and physical makeup, as in excess alcohol, it puts pressure on those blood vessels not intended for such an event and the result is catastrophic.

Same as everything else that is bad for us, for example, smoking and losing weight should be done slowly since cutting these things out completely can likewise be hazardous for our well-being and this includes caffeine based beverages as well. Stop them gradually, because cutting them out abruptly can be dangerous.

 

A Self-confessed womble picked up a gun he obtained in the street since he assumed it was an inoffensive BB gun, a court learned.
Michael Harding, 33, of no established residence, was detained in London Road, Basildon, following a stop check by police who were looking for a knifeman, just after 11.40pm on October 6.

Michael Harding is facing a compulsory prison punishment of up to five years after he admitted possession of a gun at a hearing in January. Judge John Lodge, at Basildon Crown Court, is presiding over exceptional circumstances hearing, into if the decision should be decreased.

The court learned that displaced Michael Harding found a red drawstring bag on the pavement bordering the Barge pub, in High Road, Vange, and kicked it. Noticing it was heavy, Michael Harding peered within and saw the handle of a gun, a t-shirt, gloves and an exhausted shotgun cartridge, which he believed was a Clipper lighter.

He put the bag within his own black holdall with the purpose of maybe selling it later, but he was stopped by police five minutes later because he resembled the description of a wanted man. Michael Harding was detained and originally maintained he had not looked inside the bag. A Stanley knife was found in his possession at the police station but he was not charged and he is not alleged to have been the man police were looking for.

Mark Savage, mitigating, asked Harding if he had ever been associated with selling items seen on the street and requested him to explain skipping. He replied it’s where you go round and look for discarded items in skips. They call it wombling.

Mr. Harding rejected knowing the gun was real and stated if he had made it home he would have called the police.

Cyrus Shroff, prosecuting, asked Harding why he picked up a bag that did not belong to him. Harding replied, why not? It was heavy so I picked it up. It was nobody’s bag, it was just on the path.

One should be more concerned on whose gun it was in the first place since obviously whoever it belonged to must have had the intention of using it in some sort of crime, and the police should be examining on where the gun came from in the first place, just in case this person that the gun belonged to has any other guns that they will use to perform a crime.

Obviously, it is an offense that Michael Harding committed, however, it’s not the crime of the century. Of course, Michael Harding should get some sort of non-custodial punishment, but his crime is not an atrocity, and he did not take the gun with the intention of shooting anyone, he just took it with the intention of selling it on.

Clearly, selling the gun on to somebody else could have had consequences, like a ripple effect, but Michael Harding did not think of that at the time, in fact, he did not think at all.

Michael Harding stated he was quite glad he chose to pick it up since it could have got into the wrong hands. He is certainly right, it could have got into the wrong hands, however, obviously his plans were to sell it on, therefore it could have got into the wrong hands anyhow.

Nevertheless, 5 years jail time for simply plucking up a bag from the street that he had no inkling what was in it, is a lengthy punishment, reflecting that his activities were simply an act of carelessness and ignorance.

Michael Harding’s testimony might be incredibly suspicious, and we know that he’s extending the truth to save his own skin, nevertheless, jail time isn’t invariably the answer, rehabilitation is. The case continues.

 

Four people were killed when Khalid Masood drove a hired SUV along the sidewalk, mowing down pedestrians and leaving three with deadly injuries. He later smashed into railings outside the Houses of Parliament, left the carrier and stabbed PC Keith Palmer to death as he stood on sentry.

Four days following the assault that shook London, women from diverse backgrounds came together in solidarity to denounce the horrific wrong and display solidarity in the face of fear. Several of those present were Muslim, wearing blue as a token of hope and peace.

As visible Muslim women, they understand that it’s necessary to display solidarity with the principles that they all hold dear, the principles of plurality, diversity and so on. When there is an assault in London, then it’s also an assault on them.

It’s an assault on all of them. They stated that Islam completely denounces brutality of any kind and that violence is offensive to them. The feeling of what occurred in London on Wednesday is very overwhelming.

They were thinking of the regular people who were in London and were mowed down, so being there, that was pretty powerful. People from a variety of backgrounds participated in the event, organized by Women’s March On London.

Ahmadiyya Muslims stated they needed to add to the reproach of the violent crimes and stand defiantly in the light of terrorism. They were there to present in a calm way that they will continue to go where they want and do what they want in London.

This is their city, and it’s a pretty small display but then the world is made up of small gestures, and at least their standing up. We stood up long ago, it is only now that we have a voice. They are also standing up because they also condemn the attack like everybody else, not to defend their faith since they have nothing to prove.

Myriads of Muslims from across the globe met in the United Kingdom for a gathering where they renounced extremism and brutality of terror organizations such as Isis. More than 30,000 members of the Ahmadiyya Islamic movement gathered at Oakland Farm in Hampshire for a three-day assembly, the 50th time the annual event has taken place.

On the last day, attendees were directed by the global Caliph of the movement in a promise of peace and a pledge of allegiance to their home nations. The only thing the revolutionaries are doing is to simply dishonor the teachings of the Holy Koran and the Holy Prophet Muhammad.

They are not following Islam, rather it appears as though they have created their own hate-filled and destructive beliefs. The Ahmadiyya movement has 129 hubs across the United Kingdom covering the Baitul Futuh Mosque in south London, the biggest in Western Europe.

The movement was established in India in 1889 with a heavy importance on peace over violence and tolerance over extremism.

30,000-plus people from across 90 nations gathering at the convention come in the spirit of fraternity, and to give gratitude for the protection and liberation they have encountered in Britain.

Many have escaped oppression in other nations and together, they will reaffirm their commitment to support the real teachings of Islam, that are teachings of peace, and to showcase all kinds of extremism and intolerance.

They have much to be thankful for in Britain which has enabled their community to succeed and contribute to British life for more than 100 years. They count themselves gratified to call themselves British Ahmadi Muslims.

The true saying of the movement is “Love for all, hatred for none”.

Organizers of an anti-Isis march in London talked about their disappointment following mainstream media outlets that declined to cover the demonstration. Myriads of people took part in the yearly UK Arbaeen Procession, organized by the Husaini Islamic Trust UK.

While Shia Muslims take part in the march each year to mark the Arbaeen or mourning, the anniversary of Imam Husain, a seventh-century leader who strived for social justice, this year organizers chose to use the occasion as a floor to condemn terrorism following the recent Isis assaults in Paris, Beirut and elsewhere.

There were hundreds of placards which were essentially declaring no to terrorism and no to Isis. A pretty applauded message. For them, it was a controversial move to go political. Usually, they don’t combine politics with mourning.

With what occurred recently, they believed that they had to make sure they as a population completely disassociated themselves with what’s occurring elsewhere in the world. The demonstration, however, declined to accumulate attention in the mainstream media because of stereotyping.

It is the oldest yearly Muslim event in London but sadly, it is quite hard to get any media coverage because of stereotyping. People view the whole Muslim community as one community. The Muslim community is a pretty diverse community, with the vast bulk of them appalled by Isis.

Because Islam and Muslims are getting labeled all over the globe owing to the number of a percentile, no other culture or faith is treated in this way, therefore certainly it is astonishing and requires media coverage.

However, it’s Muslim’s getting the blame, when it’s the radicals creating the dilemma. It’s astounding as this culture and religion are all seen as all being identical. This solidarity proves they are not and these ladies are as offended by these actions as you and I and are not scared to confront and show it.

We should applaud them. Well done ladies!

If we can’t say anything nice, then we shouldn’t say anything at all. Muslims are Muslims and extremists are different, nevertheless, Muslims should unite with the UK people and get to know us and not be against us and vice versa.

We should not have to censor our faiths but should stand with a nation that is working to support us to make a better life for ourselves, and our families. Nevertheless, we should not protect the agitators, the zealots, however, we should understand there is a distinction between Muslims and extremists.

After all, we have no difficulty going to our corner stores that are operated by Muslim families, most of who are really friendly people, nice and polite.

My corner shop is operated by a Muslim family, they work extremely hard, and open up real early and finish rather late. They bend over backward to accommodate me when I go over there, understanding that I am disabled.

If they don’t have a commodity I want in the store, they will go and obtain it for me, even if I am the only person that needs that merchandise. They open up on Christmas Day, Boxing Day and New Year’s day, which is very helpful for me, and I appreciate all they do.

They have been in this country for a really long time, and work extremely hard, they are grafters, and we would be lost without our corner shops, and when we use them we ignore the reality that they are Muslim since it suits us to buy from them.

Nevertheless, if we didn’t require a corner store, see how fast we would abuse those folks that work in them now.

We are not an especially peaceful society and we manage to separate from other people’s needs, and nonviolent doesn’t appear to be in our lexicon. We appear to have a hard job existing collectively which forces us against one another.

The intensity of that produces multiple conflicts which have multiple outcomes which make us crash and burn. People think that we can’t live together in peace but that’s not really correct because we could put an end to all hostilities, it’s called compromise.

We are the engineer of our own future, we are the masterminds behind any conflict that goes on, and when it comes down to it we are really not very clever people at all. We are human beings with very limited intelligence at all because as human beings our animal instincts are still there, so when it comes down to it, we have not evolved very far.

We are driven by servitude and we are the doormats of the elite and the mass media and we are deceived all the time. The news is repressed all the time by the media and we don’t scrutinize what the elite and media don’t want us to know.

We must prevent prejudice of any sort since hatred is a kind of bullying and we should have a ban on this. We must defeat any manner of conflict since there is only beauty in the universe, we simply have to look around us to understand and appreciate how brilliant it is, however, we appear hell bent on punishing each other, but life is not a contest.

We should never discount a person’s beliefs and feelings merely because it does not match in with ours, and we should never scrutinize at a glance or overlook the reality that we are all diverse, that’s what makes this a diverse planet.

The problem is, we are entirely motivated by fear, and most of us are followers similar to sheep, and we are chauffeured by the familiar sheepdog. Suddenly there is this eruption of terror which the government describes as terrorism and it’s like a whack on the chops and it doesn’t matter whether they are revolutionaries or not, they are still identified as subversives.

There is no life to be seen in violence. Each introduction of violence brings us nearer to heaven or hell, depending on what you believe in. Whether it’s the mundane brutality we do to our bodies by eating noxious food or drink or the sheer brutality of child molestation, domestic hostilities, life-threatening hunger, alcoholism, or state terrorism.

Generally, nobody desires to wage war on one another, however, we do it so effortlessly, and we expect conflict before its even here because like Chinese whispers the government make us desire, like an extreme itch and it’s an element of our daily life.

We first encountered the infidels in the name of our faith, then Communism, and presently in the name of drugs and terrorism. Our reasons for global control forever alter.

We don’t require justification to wage war, we simply make one up as we go along, like fools that rush in and all because of hardened rebels, Muslims, however, not all Muslims are revolutionaries, though there are some badass insurgents out there.

Terrorism is a significant threat to peace and security, prosperity and people, and it makes people very highly strung but governments use this to their advantage along with media coverage. It’s utilized as a warning to people that they are at risk, but we are in danger each day, wandering across the road, taking a trip on a plane, in fact, we are seemingly less inclined to get killed by a revolutionary than anything else.

This fanaticism is what encourages terrorism, and this is exactly why Muslims need to play an actual part in fighting hate speeches and stimulus to terrorism and extremism in their mosques and it’s now obvious that not all Muslims advocate subversives, and it’s imperative that those that don’t should make a stand.

When a person is suicidal, it’s not always what people imagine. Being suicidal doesn’t suggest that they have a plan to hurt themselves. Nevertheless, it can still indicate that you feel suicidal, and for some people, it can be a permanent burden.

People consider things like suicide in such black or white terms. Nonetheless, much like all else, we are so keen to place it into categories, and for some being suicidal plunges into a shaded area.

People who are suicidal can be having the greatest day of their lives, but yet, the suicidal feelings will hover. They don’t have to be in a bad frame of mind to be suicidal, and they will still have those feelings even if they are surrounded by the people they love, or even if they are doing anything that they are enthusiastic about.

They arouse most mornings thinking they’d be better off dead but might be quickly interrupted by a family member or friend, but they still feel it, but try not to give power to it. During the day they are confronted with trials that immediately transform their mind.

Either the suicidal feelings get louder, or they don’t. Occasionally, being suicidal is different than suicidal feelings. It’s an exact feeling. The feeling that you have an itch you can’t scratch, that a dark cloud is covering you. It’s fear and panic, it’s a diverse state.

You’re dying, there’s no air, and coming down from that feeling takes so long you believe it’s futile. You have blinders on and you don’t know what’s going to transpire next. You just have to force through.
And while this reaction is happening, you go through your day, as normal as you can, without feeding the feeling.

Some days are worse than others when you’re not feeling great, and you wake up believing that your family is better off without you. The way people feel isn’t a representation of reality. They know they have something to live for, and they know everything will get better.

They know the feeling will pass.

People with a mental disorder live in obscure areas and gray regions. It’s not something that shuts off and on, it comes in waves, it climaxes and it disappears. However, these reactions are never gone.

They wish more than anything in this world that they would die. No one who hasn’t experience suicide will understand the emotions, it’s difficult to describe to other people, that each and every day, even if everything is great, they still feel suicidal.

Being suicidal is not the same thing as just wanting to die. Of course, if you’re suicidal, you do want to die or, more accurately, to end your misery through death but, if you really want to die, you may not be actively self-destructive. Wanting to die and being suicidal are both dangerous and serious, but they are not the same.

Wanting to die is passive and being suicidal is active. Therefore, being suicidal is considerably more serious. Not to say that a passive desire to die can’t harm you, it can, but being actively suicidal is more of an emergency situation.

The distinction between suicidality and wanting to die? The difference is how a person expresses their emotions. For instance, when you just want to die, you don’t believe that you’re in immediate danger, but you know the feeling and understanding pattern could be a stepping stone to a full-blown suicidality, so need to deal with it and certainly not overlook it.

If on the other hand, you’re actively suicidal, that’s the time when a suicide safety plan needs to be put into place and even a trip to the hospital may need to be arranged and both cases must be identified and dealt with, it’s essential to understand the distinction between a pressing dilemma and a crisis state.

Regardless, if you are feeling both or one of these things, you need to know the treatment benefits. That might be speaking to your therapist or doctor, but unquestionably, speak to an expert. Hopefully, you can successfully talk about your particular situation and your professional can evaluate your current risk for harm and get you the relief that you require.

If you think you may harm yourself or somebody else, call emergency services, if it comes down to your life or a three digit number, your life wins every time. That is what emergency workers are there for.

Everybody feels down at times. The breakup of a relationship or a poor grade can lead to a low state. Sometimes depression comes on for no obvious cause. Is there any distinction between these shifting feelings and what is called depression?

Anybody who has encountered an event of depression would probably respond with a yes. Depression, versus normal sadness, is defined by prolonged and profound moods of sadness and the appearance of specific characteristic manifestations.

This difference is significant since in severe cases, depression can be life threatening, with suicide as a potential result. Depressed people can further fail to live up to their potential, doing badly in school and staying on the social perimeters.

Depression is often overlooked or untreated, the condition usually stops people from taking measures to help themselves. This is sad, as adequate relief is available. Yet, countless professionals get it wrong.

You start off by feeling terrible, and it’s just getting worse. You can’t concentrate, or sleep properly and your appetite has diminished. You feel low-spirited, anxious, weepy and completely worthless. Everybody, even your canine, seems to sense your depression, your doctor has passed it off as a virus.

Diagnosing depression isn’t as simple as you might imagine and it’s as much a dilemma for the doctor as it is the sufferer.

If you have a past history of depression then those problems probably won’t apply to you. In fact, a potential problem, in this case, is that those somewhat obscure physical manifestations that may indicate an illness are wrongly seen as signs of depression.

This is much truer if you don’t present with a temperature or rash or some other obvious physical symptoms. Nevertheless, the focus of this is more towards people who have no prior history of depression.

From the perspective of the patient, it isn’t at all unusual for them to miss the depression objective altogether. A number of the manifestations of depression appear very physical in nature and even if they aren’t we seem hard-wired to look for solutions for the way we feel in a physical form.

Anybody who has experienced, say, the flu or a virus will know how it pulls your motivation and spirits into your boots. It stands to reason that if you can’t recognize an obvious reason for changes in your emotional mood, you’ll begin to look within yourself.

So, you get yourself off for a consultation. You wait and finally, you get your 10 minutes or so. You tell the doctor how you feel. They take your blood pressure, question whether you’ve been feverish, question how long you’ve felt like this, how it’s affecting your work and everyday life.

It seems like they are on to something. Then they state the obvious, something like you must be a little run down, or, that you might need a rest, then perhaps they might take a blood sample, and before you know it you’re thanking them and traveling home.

At home, you think on what’s transpired. Perhaps you’re relieved that your symptoms weren’t recognized as a warning of some unfortunate condition. Maybe you feel a little better because you’ve managed to see a health professional and say things previously unsaid? Or maybe you feel frustrated because the very thing you were conscious of, your mood, appears to have been overlooked and you feel no better.

The chance is that your doctor has comparatively limited practice in identifying and treating depression. Well over a quarter of patients seeing their family doctor will experience some form of depression, anxiety or both, and despite your doctor’s professional training, the role of personal opinions could still have some bearing in the way your symptoms are seen or acknowledged.

Now we factor the patient into the equation. With no previous history of depression, they have given a menu of reasonably common manifestations that could compare as much to depression as to some viral ailment, or other probabilities like thyroid deficiency, hormonal upsets, iron deficiencies and so on.

Quite appropriately, the doctor has taken a blood specimen and sent it for examination. This will serve to rule out likely physical causes for signs of depression. Maybe where the system sometimes disappoints is the presumption that in determining a physical condition, the mood will lift.

It may, but then again what’s preventing a patient with depression further having a physical problem? In such circumstances, the depressive manifestations may be rejected as a kind of collateral damage rather than as manifestations in their own right that need treating.

There are many ways for a doctor to screen for depression but expert opinion is still a powerful force that can work for or against the patient. Nevertheless, the use of standardized questionnaire methods is more popular now.

The Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD), for instance, is supposed to be receptive to differences in the severity of depression. This indicates once a determination of depression is made and treatment starts, the HRSD can further lead to the effectiveness of therapy.

Tools such as this and the popular Beck Depression Inventory, which shows the severity of depression, all have their place. Ultimately their use comes down somewhat to the preference of the doctor to apply them and the information given to the doctor by the patient that may influence them.

Some doctors have a finely tuned understanding towards mental illness whilst others don’t seem to or have not as yet acquired the skills, and as patients, we have no real internal tool that states, this is depression, so, therefore, it isn’t so shocking that the physical manifestations seem to take precedence.

After all, countless people communicate with their doctor because of their physical manifestations, not the psychological one’s that accompany them.

Hence, the evaluation of depression isn’t fundamentally clear-cut and can require a little trial and error until a resolution is reached. Nevertheless, many people believe that their psychological manifestations are being ignored, maybe since they display with both physical and emotional manifestations, therefore they must speak out, or even contemplate changing their doctor.

Doctors can be pretty oblivious to their patient’s feelings, and frequently the patient gets overlooked since the doctor thinks that they know enough to make a judgment, however, that is nonsense and complete drivel because it is the patient that is suffering, and they know their manifestations better than anyone else.

Numerous people go into their doctors with an ailment that requires consideration, and they get told they are depressed when really are not, but they can also go to their doctor with depression and their doctor will just brush it off.

If a person goes to their doctor because they feel ill, then obviously there is a reason they feel this way, it could be because they are depressed, or that they simply feel sick, and any sensation of not being well should be examined, not merely swept under the rug because the doctor just does not have the time or tolerance to dispense with it.

How doctors warrant sending their patients home with a pill for depression is beyond me, particularly when you’ve gone in there feeling like you’ve been run over by a truck, and I know that a doctor’s surgery can get really congested and that every consultation a doctor has with his patient is timed, but actually that’s just crossing the line.

Doctor’s might not be able to ridicule the patient, but they can unquestionably ridicule their illness and sprinkle the patient with despair because they can’t get anyone to listen, particularly their doctor who should be the one supporting to help them.

It appears these days that we can scream as much as we like, but we are never heard or taken seriously, whilst other people whisper in the darkness stating that the person is not genuinely sick, they are just pretending.

People with depression don’t fake it and doctors should conduct themselves in the proper way when dealing with a patient that has depression. The point where a patient goes to their doctor and says they are depressed, sirens should be sounding in that doctor’s eardrum.

I don’t think any of us want to be depressed. Depression is more than just feeling miserable or fed up for a few days. Most people go through phases of feeling down, but when you’re depressed you feel persistently down for weeks or months, rather than merely a few days.

Some people believe depression is a minor thing and not a legitimate health condition. They’re wrong, it is a genuine illness with genuine manifestations. Depression isn’t a mark of vulnerability or something you can snap out of by pulling yourself together.

The good news is that with the right approach and help, most people with depression can make a full recovery. Depression affects people in many ways and can create a broad assortment of symptoms. They range from constant feelings of sadness and hopelessness to losing enthusiasm in the things you used to enjoy and feeling quite teary.

Many people with depression further have manifestations of stress. There can be physical manifestations too, such as feeling constantly worn out, sleeping badly, having no appetite or sex drive, and many twinges and pangs.

The symptoms of depression scale from moderate to severe. At its mildest, you can just feel persistently low in vitality, whilst severe depression can make you feel suicidal, that life is no longer worth living.

Most people encounter feelings of fear, grief or stress throughout hard times. A low frame of mind may get better following a brief time, rather than being a sign of depression. It’s important to seek assistance from your GP if you believe you may be depressed.

Many people wait a long time prior to asking for advice for depression, but it’s best not to delay. The earlier you consult a doctor, the sooner you can be on the way to recovery. Occasionally there’s a trigger for depression. Life-changing events, such as death, losing your job or even having a child, can bring it on.

People with a family past of depression are more prone to encounter it themselves. Nevertheless, you can further become depressed for no apparent reason. Depression is somewhat prevalent, afflicting nearly one in 10 people at some time throughout their life. It affects men and women, young and old.

Investigations have revealed that approximately 4% of children aged five to 16 in the United Kingdom are anxious or depressed. Medication for depression can require a blend of lifestyle modifications, talking treatments, and medication. Your suggested treatment will be based on if you have moderate, mild or severe depression.

If you have moderate depression, your doctor may recommend waiting to see if it changes on its own, whilst watching your progress. This is perceived as watchful waiting. They may further recommend lifestyle measures such as exercise and self-help clubs.

Talking treatments, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), are usually applied for mild depression that isn’t changing, or moderate depression. Antidepressants are also sometimes prescribed.

For mild to severe depression, a mixture of talking therapy and antidepressants is frequently prescribed. If you have severe depression, you may be assigned to a professional mental health unit for intensive specialist talking treatments and prescribed medication.

Many people with depression benefit by making lifestyle adjustments, such as getting more exercise, cutting down on alcohol, giving up smoking and eating healthily.

Is it fair that we retain monkies as pets, or in fact any animal, that could mean your dog, cat, pet budgie to name a few? Should we be permitted to keep any animal as a pet, particularly if it’s locked up in an enclosure.

The human-pet timeline is still being put together but it turns out that man’s best friend might also be his oldest. Pets have been harnessed to humans for perhaps tens of thousands of years.

Regardless of when pet ownership sprung up, our deep affection for these animals is still going strong. Americans own some 78 million dogs, 85 million cats, 14 million birds, 12 million small mammals and 9 million reptiles, according to pet industry statistics.

No connection that humans have is actually like the love we form to non-humans. Many of us live with or have lived with an animal at some time or another. Currently, according to the American Humane Society, 39% of U.S. householders have at least one dog, and 33% have at least one cat.

You view hundreds of really delightful and charming video’s and photos of monkies on sites such as Facebook and other similar localities, but animated, smart, eerily human, monkeys are among the countless, animals on our planet.

That’s why monkeys would appear to make charming pets. However, unlike dogs or cats, primates (all monkeys and apes) have not developed over thousands of years to live compatibly with humans. Monkeys are not domesticated.

They are wild creatures ill-equipped to adjust to the unusual world of their human relatives. Keeping primates fit and strong in captivity is hard, costly and time-consuming.

As you consider bringing a monkey into your home, please think about the following:

Never overlook that a monkey is a wild creature. Similar to raccoons, their infant cordiality decreases as they approach adulthood, when they become aggressive and can attack with the slightest provocation.

Most monkeys you view on television or out in public are quite young, adults are seldom seen outside of an enclosure. Even hand-rearing a baby primate does not prevent this actual shift in behavior. In fact, denying a baby monkey of a healthy bond with its mother and family group can result in a lifetime of neurotic behavior.

All monkey homes share something in common, broken lamps and housewares, torn curtains, exhumed house plants, not to mention the distinct smell.

Young monkeys, like all newborn primates, are sweet-natured and loving. However, be prepared for a total transformation of character when your monkey reaches sexual maturity. All monkeys become temperamental as they grow older.

Owners need to be quite sympathetic to their moods, for primates will attack even their primary caregivers, usually with no indication. Similar to humans, every monkey has a diverse nature, some don’t trust newcomers or kids, whilst others will quickly change their loyalty from one family member to another.

Decorating baby monkeys up like dolls can seem compelling. However, as they grow older, most primates decline to permit themselves to be adorned. Those obtained as substitute children are soon discarded when they don’t live up to expectations.

Furthermore, if you’d like to teach a monkey to do tricks, disregard it, except if you are a licensed animal handler. Even then, trainers oust their primates once they reach sexual development and become dangerous, most are developed by the age of four.

Lastly, don’t overlook that monkeys are uninhibited animals who engage in natural pursuits that may upset you, including genitalia performances, masturbation, intercourse and same-sex mounting.

No matter what you may be assured, all monkeys bite. Biting is a primate’s expression of anger and nothing you can do will alter that. Discipline is normally taken as a threat and can have severe results. Furthermore contrary to common knowledge, spaying or neutering your monkey will have limited or no impact on controlling hostility.

Teeth extraction is not only harmful and cruel, it doesn’t eliminate the threat, a toothless monkey can still produce severe injuries. For the stability of both the monkey and people, you need to keep your primate from contact with any and all newcomers, that covers friends of your children, neighbors, and relations.

In many cases, health authorities will kill a monkey that has bitten to examine it for rabies. You should further invest in liability insurance, people who are bitten can prosecute. Furthermore, make sure you have some kind of comprehensive health insurance for you and your family. A bite on the hand from a grown-up monkey can put you out of commission for weeks.

It’s all really delightful to see monkey’s jumping and bouncing about on Facebook video’s and other localities, but what you have to recognize is the circumstances that they have been taken from, and what conditions they might be living in with their masters, and also how they have come to be having a monkey in the first place.

You also have to remember that every year in the United States more than 105,000 primates are confined to laboratories, where they are injured and killed in invasive, disturbing, and terrifying experiments.

Whilst it is well known that nonhuman primates are sensitive, smart beings who share various major biological and psychological traits with humans, these powerful characteristics, sadly, make them choice game for experimenters, who use them as if they were disposable pieces of laboratory apparatus.

Primates violated in tests are raised in government or commercial facilities, born in laboratories, or caught in the wild countries such as China, Cambodia, and the island of Mauritius. Babies born in laboratories are violently ripped from their shrieking mothers and permanently sequestered from them, normally inside three days of birth.

Various studies have found that in order to seize primates from their habitats in the wild, hunters usually shoot mothers from trees, drug the animals with dart guns, and then apprehend the babies, who adhere, panic-stricken, to their mothers’ corpses.

Some wildlife dealers catch entire primate families in baited snares. The animals are crammed into small crates with limited to no food or water and are taken to dirty holding stations, where they wait for the long and terrifying excursions in the cargo containers of passenger airlines.

Their destination, laboratories like Covance or Charles River Laboratories, laboratory dealers like Primate Products, Inc, or primate breeding stations.

After suffering a traumatic parting from their families and/or habitats, primates in laboratories are normally restricted to barren steel pens, a far cry from the green woodlands and savannahs where they would otherwise live.

In their natural environments, nonhuman primates can travel for miles, searching for a variety of foods, socializing with family, ascending hills, swaying from vines, swimming in rivers, running across fields, and playing with their mates.

In laboratories, these animals have hardly enough room to sit, stand, lie down, or turn around. The vibrant days full of sensory stimulation that they should be encountering are substituted by days that are void of color, scent, and nearly every other kind of environmental enhancement.

At most, the primates in laboratories are given inexpensive molded toys, damaged reflectors, and the rare wedge of apple or banana.

The study reveals that 90 percent of primates in laboratories display unusual habits that are created by the physical injury, psychological anxiety, social segregation, and barren confinement that they are made to endure.

Many go crazy, rocking back and forth, pacing endlessly in the pens, and engaging in repeated movements such as back-flipping. They even engage in acts of self-mutilation, including tearing out their own hair or biting their own body.

Beyond having their most basic needs and wants that are being ignored, primates confined in laboratories are subjected to severe and traumatic procedures, including the following:

Pharmaceutical experiments:

In these experiments, thick gavage devices are forced up primates’ noses or down the animals’ gullets so that experimental drugs can be pumped into their bellies, even though the U.S. Food and Drug Administration states that animal experiments have a shocking 92 percent failure rate in foretelling the safety and/or effectiveness of pharmaceuticals.

Chimpanzees and rhesus monkeys are given communicable diseases and then utilized as test subjects for experimental vaccines. Even though decades of these tests on primates have failed to create adequate vaccines for humans, monkeys are still contaminated with HIV-like diseases that cause them to experience severe weight loss, significant organ malfunction, breathing problems, and neurological disorders before they die excruciatingly agonizing deaths or are destroyed.

In recent tests carried out by the military, primates were exposed to anthrax and contaminated with botulism and bubonic plague. In antiquated chemical casualty training exercises that were stopped following objections from PETA, squirrel monkeys were infected with nerve agents that made them convulse, even though human-patient simulators exist and produce more efficient training.

These remarkably harsh studies started more than five decades ago when Harry Harlow infamously removed baby primates away from their mothers, giving them only rag dolls or offensive wire mothers as replacements.

Even though we know the adverse implications of separating babies from their mothers, related tests are conducted today at places such as the National Institutes of Health, Oregon National Primate Research Center, Wake Forest University, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and the University of Washington, where baby monkeys are ripped from their mothers in order deliberately to create psychological trauma and explore the harm that occurs.

In some new extreme studies, experimenters studied the association linking maternal need and if the baby monkeys grew right-handed or left-handed or how it influenced the animals’ alcohol-drinking habits later in life.

In disturbingly common trials at universities across the land, including the University of Utah, the University of California, San Francisco, and the University of Washington, monkeys have holes drilled into their heads, metal restraint devices twisted into their heads, and electrodes implanted into their brains.

Experimenters at Columbia University created strokes in baboons by removing their left eyeballs and utilizing the hollow eye openings to clamp crucial blood vessels leading to their brains. Some animals have parts of their brains destroyed or removed to reduce their cognitive capacity or cripple them.

These sensitive, smart animals then have their bodies immobilized in restraint chairs and their heads locked into place as they are forced to do a variation of behavioral tasks and their brain activity is recorded.

In order to coerce the monkeys to cooperate, they are sometimes denied water for up to 24 hours at a time. When the tests stop, most of the animals are euthanized and their brains are extracted and dissected.

A clandestine network of wildlife traffickers trading baby chimpanzees has been exposed by an investigation. The small animals are taken from the wild and traded as pets. The investigation revealed a notorious West African core for wildlife trafficking, identified as the blue room, and led to the liberation of a one-year-old chimp.

His black hair is disheveled and his dirty nappy rubs the concrete floor as he inches towards the familiar figures of the men who have been holding him captive. The infant chimp torn away from his family in the wild is the victim of a profitable and cruel smuggling operation, exposed by an inquiry spanning half a dozen nations.

In demand as pets in rich homes or as performers in commercial zoos, baby chimpanzees hold a price tag of $12,500, a little under £10,000, but sometimes more. Each acquisition of a live infant like this one imposes a shocking loss on chimp populations.

The common tactic adopted by poachers is to kill as many of the adults in a family as possible. This stops them from opposing the acquisition of the baby and their bodies can then be marketed as bushmeat.

To take one infant alive, up to 10 adults are typically killed. Once caught, these baby chimps then enter a complex chain that extends from the poachers in the jungles to brokers, who arrange fake export licenses and transportation, and finally to the clients.

The animals are in high demand in the Gulf countries, southeast Asia and China, with clients prepared to pay high prices and extra expenses to help bypass international authorities. Furthermore, whilst they may be well looked after whilst they are young, chimpanzees soon become too strong and potentially violent to be kept in a home.

It’s a kind of slavery and when chimps stop being adorable infants, they meet a gruesome end.

They still have 90% of their life before of them. They get locked in some pen and perhaps even destroyed in some circumstances since they have outlived their serviceable pet stage.

The infant chimp found by the BBC had been purchased from a poacher, according to one report, for 300 Euros (£257). However, it was freed en route as a consequence of their investigation, leading Interpol officials and Ivorian investigators to reveal a major trafficking group.

After months of work building connections with merchants across a number of nations, the team hunted down the smuggling leaders to a residence in Abidjan. Acting as proposed customers, clandestine reporters established the baby chimp was at the home before informing Interpol and local police who were waiting nearby.

During the police operation, a tiny opening about the size of a shower cubicle was located, furnished with small blue tilework. Inside it, they found a small chimp cowering in a wooden cage.

The discovery was not just a moment of freedom for the small animal, but also a significant turning point in a lengthy exploration by wildlife campaigners to hunt down the notorious blue room, known to be used as a holding enclosure by traffickers and regularly restocked.

For years, when traders had distributed videos displaying confined infant chimpanzees available for purchase, the same distinguishing blue tilework was visible. Understood to be in West Africa, no-one knew which country it might be in, let alone which city, until the research directed police to it.

This discovery gives new insight into the possible measure of loss sustained by large apes, including chimpanzees.

A predicted 3,000 great apes, including orangutans, gorillas, and chimpanzees, are lost from the wild every year as a consequence of illegal enterprise. They are either sold, killed during the hunt or die in captivity.

About two-thirds of the apes lost are chimpanzees, an endangered species. Western chimpanzees, like the one freed in Abidjan, are found to be particularly vulnerable and are categorized as critically endangered. There are no more than 65,000 left and apparently far less.

Some 1,800 apes were taken by officials in 23 nations whilst being trafficked amid 2005 and 2011. A quarter of those apes freed were chimps. Though it is unknown how many smuggled apes reach their destinations undetected, the total is almost determined to be greater than previously believed.

The illicit sale in great apes is made feasible by the determination of the dealers and the ease with which international regulations on purchasing and marketing imperiled species can be deceived. Selling of compromised wild animals and plants is tightly regulated under the Cites agreement, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, which tries to protect all wildlife under threat.

Under the legislation, chimpanzees, which are given a considerable level of protection, can only be sold overseas under a very restricted number of exemptions. For example, the animals require to have been bred in captivity, which is not known to occur in West Africa, and selling overseas and buying from abroad organizations require to be registered with Cites.

In spite of this, examination exposed that with the appropriate money and the proper links the bootlegging networks can circumvent these controls. Faced with proof, the secretary-general of Cites, stated that whilst he wasn’t disturbed by the efficiency with which false licenses for the exportation of baby chimps were obtained, he was dismayed.

Whilst it is believed the permit system was safe and sound overall, there were cases, particularly in West and Central Africa, where there was an exploitation of permits.

Law enforcement attempts, nevertheless, appear to fall far behind the percentage of illegal trade. Just 27 arrests were made in Africa and Asia in connection with the great ape trade between 2005 and 2011, and one-quarter of the arrests at no time led to prosecutions taken to court.

At Interpol, which facilitates international law enforcement collaboration, animal smuggling is a prime concern, nevertheless, national governments have specified that the funding and investigative attempts should be concentrated on the highest-profile threats, such as the killing of elephants and rhinos.

Interpol’s Environmental Security Unit admitted the district of West Africa had not been a prime concern, and nor had the smuggling of great apes. Since such offenses do not threaten the financial well-being of a country or its political stability, it did not force governments to respond, and the resources are clearly not there.

With the lack of funding, nothing can be done. So with primates, sadly, the facts are not as strong as it could be. States should step up and provide the vital financial funding.

We should be horrified by the way these primates are being treated, after all, they are the closest descendants we have to ourselves. Most of us would not behave towards our own youngsters like this, so why would we behave towards primates in this way?

Primates are worthy of a life of liberty in their own naturalness. They were born in the wild in their own natural environment, with their own parents, and it is revolting that they are taken away from their own natural environment to be locked in enclosures.

If somebody such as poachers were attempting to do that to our youngsters, and our children were being left in solitary confinement in barren enclosures, we would not be thrilled about it but wait, those poachers would have murdered us, the parents, just like they are murdering the parents of these primates.

Nevertheless, we all feel the need to go onto Facebook and glance at images or videos of small sweet monkeys being bathed by youngsters, and it all looks extremely sweet. I am culpable of doing the identical thing, I am one of those human beings.

These monkeys that you see are not contented monkeys, their parents have been murdered by poachers and they are left in barren pens where in the end they will be tested on and then killed for bushmeat.

This is the pattern of their life, not so nice, is it? Therefore, you can entertain yourself and stimulate yourself, looking at a video that seems syrupy and mushy, so take a peek and have a think about what goes on in numerous laboratories.

Now take a stand, since nothing is always what it appears, and you might be drawn to such videos, yet the end result is this primates demise. I estimate that’s not as fragrant as you first believed since I’m certain your wish is not death to these poor primates…

 

Processed foods in America contains substances that are banned in Europe. Mountain Dew and Fanta actually contain flame retardants, and the same additive seen in Pop-Tarts is further used in antifreeze.

These ingredients have beef burgers with growth problems, organ damage, birth defects, seizures, schizophrenia, so why are these additives permitted? The FDA maintains these chemicals are safe in small doses. Nevertheless, it doesn’t end there. It’s up to the companies to determine whether ingredients require government permission.

As a consequence, thousands are on the shelf that the FDA hasn’t studied. Meanwhile, in Europe, regulators would sooner be safe than sorry. All ingredients need government endorsement before use and they have a greater standard for what’s permitted. A chemical which induces cancer has been detected in a broad array of household name food commodities from sliced bread to crackers, beefburgers, and cheese.

The Food Standards Agency declared a warning about some foreign-made Chinese soy sauce commodities which were above recommended safety levels for the chemical 3-MCPD. However, it has now surfaced that a vast number of other processed foods, made and sold in Britain, are above the same boundary.

The discoveries have come from an independent watchdog, the Food Commission, which alleges that the British authorities have deceived the public. Comparatively high levels of the chemical were detected in popular labels such as Mother’s Pride, Jacobs crackers, John West, Kraft Dairylea and McVitie’s Krackawheat.

The same research further observed relatively large levels in a variety of supermarket own-brands, including Tesco char-grilled beef burgers, Sainsbury’s Hot ‘n Spicy Chicken Drumsticks and digestive biscuits from Asda.

 

The chemical concerned has been linked to liver cancer and is thought so serious that it has a safety limit of just 20 micrograms per kilogram (mcg/kg).

That limit has so far been confirmed only for soy sauce commodities, however, the same figure is anticipated to be implemented to other foods as the additional investigation is carried out.

Last month the FSA ordered stores to rid their racks of 18 labels of soy sauce and related merchandises, mostly shipped from China, Hong Kong, and Thailand, which were above the 20mcg/kg threshold.

However, the Food Commission is concerned that the FSA has not taken the same action upon the multitude of other foods which contain 3-MCPD above the same limit.

Asda’s 50 percent less fat cream crackers contained 134mcg/kg, which is more than six times the threshold set for soy sauce. Tesco’s similar brand had a reading of 107.

Other high readings came from Jacobs Continental Pecan Toast, at 88, McVitie’s Krackawheat at 87, and John West Flat Fillets of Anchovies in olive oil, at 81.

A number of the commodities are unlikely to be consumed in great amounts on an everyday basis, nevertheless, the presence of the chemical in Mother’s Pride bread is more disturbing.

The Food Commission named 26 everyday commodities which contained the chemical at more than 30mcg/kg from a study led by the FSA, the Government’s watchdog.

If any of these commodities had been soy sauce they would have been withdrawn from sale.

It is thought that soy sauce is responsible for around 20 billion micrograms of 3-MCPD in our diets, bread, crackers, and burgers solely are responsible for almost 50 billion.

There is no reason to hit on soy sauce companies, making one rule for them and different for somebody else.

In the United Kingdom commodities should be regulated as heavily as shipped merchandises, so that customers are shielded from harmful manufacturing methods wherever the food comes from.

The Food Standards Agency announced there was no need for public fear or any menace to the safety of customers.

Of course, there is a threat to the safety of customers, particularly when consuming them, we are putting one foot in the grave. It shouldn’t matter how much of what is within the feed and we are not psychic when we put the food into our mouths, consequently, it is imperative that companies put, what components are in the food on the front of packages.

How businesses have the balls to sell us this complete crap is way past me, but of course, we don’t have to consume it, however, it’s in almost all of our foods, if not all of our foods and it’s gradually destroying us.

We are not visually impaired, of course, we know what’s going on with our food, but its been going on for such a long time now that we can’t even recollect when it began to be bad food, that’s because we were never informed.

As human beings, we actually don’t pay much thought to what we eat, so long as it looks good, and it tastes good, it must be good to eat, how mistaken we are! Consider what goes into your burger at Mcdonald’s, a 100% beef patty that’s seasoned with a pinch of salt and pepper, covered with melty cheese, tangy pickles, minced onions, and, of course, ketchup and mustard. Duh

 

But what’s really is in a McDonald’s hamburger? I’m so happy you asked.

The McDonald’s hamburger deconstructed

What’s actually in a McDonald’s hamburger? You may not want to know. Let’s take a swift look at what’s in a McDonald’s hamburger as described in their nutritional information. It gives a somewhat inoffensive ingredient listing:

100% beef patty
regular bun
pasteurized process American cheese
ketchup
mustard
pickle slices
onions

Despite what countless Americans believe, generally, people don’t see hamburgers as their average junk food villain. Under normal conditions, I am completely game for a true hamburger. And by real I mean that the beef is grass-fed, the cheese isn’t processed, the bun is sourdough or sprouted, and the condiments are not full of harmful stuff.

Not too surprising, but the McDonald’s hamburger isn’t actually so real. In fact, you have to scroll down their 30-page nutritional information guide to get the complete scary facts.

Let’s get to it, shall we?

What’s really in a McDonald’s Hamburger: The Ingredient Breakdown

100% Beef Patty:

Ingredients: 100% pure USDA inspected beef, no fillers, no extenders. Prepared with grill seasoning, salt, black pepper.

Thankfully, McDonald’s and many other chains recently quit using the pink slime in their beef. However, the vast bulk of fast food beef comes from CAFO (concentrated agricultural feeding operation) cows.

Not only is this awful for the animals and the environment, but eating meat from infected animals will only make you ill. Eat a McDonald’s hamburger and you might be getting a mouth full of antibiotics, hormones, and dangerous bacteria.

Regular Bun:

Ingredients: Enriched flour, bleached wheat flour, malted barley flour, niacin, reduced iron, thiamin mononitrate, riboflavin, folic acid, water, high fructose corn syrup and/or sugar, yeast, soybean oil and/or canola oil, contains 2% or less of the following: salt, wheat gluten, calcium sulfate, calcium carbonate, ammonium sulfate, ammonium chloride, dough conditioners (may contain one or more of the following: sodium stearoyl lactylate, datem, ascorbic acid, azodicarbonamide, mono- and diglycerides, ethoxylated monoglycerides, monocalcium phosphate, enzymes, guar gum, calcium peroxide), sorbic acid, calcium propionate and/or sodium propionate, preservatives, soy lecithin.

Where do I begin? How about we simply look at the length of this ingredient listing. All of this for a bun? Did you know you can make your own bread using only flour, salt, and water? The extra 20–30 ingredients here are components your body doesn’t require.

Let’s look at just a few of the above ingredients:

 

Ammonium chloride, appears delicious right? Did you know it is also an ingredient in fireworks, safety matches, and contact explosives?

Eat up.

 

Ammonium sulfate is used most commonly as an artificial manure for alkaline soils. It’s further in flame retardant materials. Ammonium sulfate stimulates yeast, therefore it helps to get industrially manufactured bread to rise.

The soybean and/or canola oil used here are most likely GMO. There are further foods we should generally dodge for a number of reasons.
The high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), for, is not natural.

Furthermore, since it’s in so much of our processed foods, not only is it difficult to dodge, but it can be doing significant harm to your well-being. Enriched flour seems inoffensive enough. However, enriched simply indicates that all the nourishment was taken out in the first place.

Processed flours are also difficult for your body to digest, even before the mixture of substances are added to it.

I can’t even get through this entire list. However, I believe you get the point. Nothing very normal or real here.

Ketchup:

Ingredients: Tomato concentrate from red ripe tomatoes, distilled vinegar, high fructose corn syrup, corn syrup, water, salt, natural flavors (vegetable source)

As if HFCS isn’t enough. Let’s combine some regular corn syrup to the process. Not to mention that most corn is GMO. Did you know that recently the first long-term research on the impacts of GMO was released?

You can see it here. The part that should freak you out, massive growths in rats who are fed GMO corn for two years. What do I mean by massive? Check this out:

That’s after two years. GMOs have been in our market for 20 years.

Let’s discuss the natural flavors. What does that actually imply? For me, it’s Frankenfoods. The phrase natural flavors can be applied for a number of not-so-natural and definitely not-so-healthy ingredients covering stuff like MSG, Aspartame, and insects, yes, insects.

Mustard:

Ingredients: Distilled vinegar, water, mustard seed, salt, turmeric, paprika, spice extractive.

These items might seem familiar. Except for perhaps spice extractive. What does that mean? Read this and try to figure it out… a little iffy for sure.

Pasteurized Process American Cheese:

Ingredients: Milk, water, milkfat, cheese culture, sodium citrate, salt, citric acid, sorbic acid (preservative), sodium phosphate, color added, lactic acid, acetic acid, enzymes, soy lecithin (added for slice separation).

Let’s just begin with the name. I mean, come on. Cheese is milk’s opportunity for continuity and pasteurized processed American cheese really sounds gross.

Why are we messing with something so great? Pasteurization destroys existing enzymes. Though in this case, it’s plausibly beneficial because it can also remove the dangerous material that comes from milk from sick cows in horrific factories.

With all the combined colors, preservatives, and other goodies I think I’ll skip the cheeseburger.

Pickle Slices:

Ingredients: Cucumbers, water, distilled vinegar, salt, calcium chloride, alum, potassium sorbate (preservative), natural flavors (plant source), polysorbate 80, extractives of turmeric (color)

 

Another handful of chemicals. Let’s just highlight the polysorbate 80 for a while. Overall, this chemical is deemed safe and well tolerated. Though a tiny number of people may be sensitive to it, and it may be detrimental to people with Crohn’s disease.

However, don’t despair, that only affects between 400,000 and 600,000 people in North America. Damn.

Onions:

Ingredients: Chopped onions.

Lastly, an ingredient list we can get behind. Of course, some may favor organic veggies, provincially produced is even better, to bypass pesticides. However, so far the onions are your protected bet.

So, what’s the conclusion about what’s actually in a McDonald’s hamburger?

Well for an ingredient list with 50+ questionable items, I believe many people will pass on the McDonad’s hamburger, permanently. Furthermore, before you presume I have anything against McDonald’s, understand that this list will resemble somewhat comparable for any fast food hamburger.

Remember, food is what nourishes your body and helps it grow. Feed your body infected food and imagine how you’ll end up? Infected.

Finally, though, it’s not McDonald’s we should be angry at. Nobody is forcing us to consume this rubbish. What we want is to help teach people and let them know what they are putting in their bodies. I believe Joel Salatin states it well:

Help to empower people with knowledge to make healthier decisions. Distribute what you know and be ready to change. Your body will thank you.

If you want to eat better, but are worried by all the information out there, then you’re not alone.

It can take years to figure out this entire healthy eating thing, and that’s because the world is full of misleading information. Each expert is telling you something different, and it appears the lists of shoulds and should not eats are developing quicker than we can keep up with.

We have to be really cautious when choosing and eating foods from the supermarket and even elsewhere. We are simply buying from our supermarkets on the assumption that since it is on the rack that it is safe to consume.

Let’s face it, if it’s on the rack at our regional supermarket then it must be safe to consume, and are we being negligent by thinking this, well, I guess we are since you can’t believe anybody these days.

Everyone is out to make a buck even if it does mean that it’s going to kill a few hundred people here and there in the meantime, who minds, well, the people that got killed off, I imagine!

We need to be making wise decisions when eating food, and to understand what is going into our food that we eat, and to pay attention. The supermarkets are not accountable for what we purchase, they do not put a gun to our heads in an effort to purchase their food.

Nevertheless, they do promote them on TV that they are good and delicious and that we should purchase them, which is all misleading advertisement.

They are not safe for us to eat, and you don’t need to be an expert to realize that if you don’t understand what’s on the label, and it seems all pretty scientific then somehow it can’t be safe to eat.

When I look on a package or a container at my regional supermarket I think like I’m on the set of “Big Bang Theory”, and I’m looking about for Sheldon to come and give me a lesson on what I’m really putting into my body.

Of course, Sheldon is just a fictional character and not real, and neither is the food that we are eating, but then you don’t need to be a brainiac to realize that, yet we still eat it.

We require a climactic shift in the way that our food is marketed and sold, and to make certain our food is not tainted with deadly chemicals that are obviously dangerous to our body and even sometimes deadly.

The people are the scapegoats for these inept businesses that make us victims, and they make their food engaging and pleasing to the eye so that the public think that they are safe enough to eat. Their ads are effective, where they engage on a singular audience to scapegoat.

Everyone has been misled into thinking that this food that we consume is harmless and these companies have no integrity, it’s a genuine shame, however, you have to admire them for trying. Nevertheless, now the cat is out of the bag and their reputation is in tatters, now that it has been determined that this food that they are feeding us is tainted with all sorts of chemicals.

Try saying “no”, well, that is difficult to do since the adverse effects on our well-being have already begun, and have been for a long time, additionally if we do not eat what’s in our supermarkets, what else are we going to eat?

It’s advantageous for these businesses since they know that the only food we can purchase is on the racks at supermarkets all around the globe and they realize that we have twigged onto what they are doing, who is going to bring a lawsuit upon these businesses in a court of law?

Furthermore, who do we really blame, the businesses that market this food, or the corporations that created GMO’s in the first place?

 

The polysorbate 80 and GMO companies are BASF, Bayer, Dupont, Dow Chemical Company, Monsanto, and Syngenta. They are so called since they control the agricultural input market, that is, they dominate the world’s seed, pesticide and biotechnology enterprises.

Our survival is questionable, and there needs to be some kind of retort and somebody needs to acknowledge themselves for this complete and absolute war on food.

The danger that this food is causing, and it’s not only foods, it’s in everything from foods to what we wear, plastics and even UPVC, it’s in absolutely everything we consume and touch, now that can’t be good at all.

Nevertheless, without these things how do we endure? We need food to remain alive, but the problem is, we are not surviving, not like we should be, and it might have come to our notice that this is going on, but we are powerless to do something about it.

It takes 30 seconds to inform the FDA that you have the right to know what’s in your food, and we should be telling our governments that we demand to support forced GMO labelling.

 

Eat fresh, since whilst most food is genetically altered, most GMOs are discovered in processed foods comprising soy and corn. Eat more fresh greens and unprocessed foods. Your body will thank you and you will shun genetically modified foods.

Bypass the five commodities that are most likely to be genetically modified (GMO), except if they say that they are not made with genetically modified ingredients or have a valid claim such as Non-GMO Project Verified, or they are USDA certified organic: Corn, Soy, Canola, Cotton, and Sugar made from beets (sugar from cane is NOT GMO).

Look for the USDA Organic sticker and purchase organic, The National Organic Standards prevent the utilization of genetic modified.

 

Download the True Food Shopper’s Guide from the Center for Food Safety for a list of names with produce that maintain to be made without genetic modification. Or check out Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) Shopper’s Guide to Avoiding GE Food.

Spread the word and urge your friends and family to comment on the FDA petition, talk to Congress, and share on Facebook and Twitter.

When uncertain, question it. Ask the company of your favorite foods and demand if they include genetically modified products. This way you get the information you want and you can let the company know how you feel about GMO foods.

The United Kingdom is usually seen as having a prohibitive approach towards genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and crops, nevertheless, lately there seems to have been a gradual change toward a greater approval of them.

Genetically modified (GM) crops are currently not grown commercially in the United Kingdom, but they are imported. These crops are essentially utilized in animal fodder and a few food commodities. There is no general ban on the farming of GM crops, and farming them is only allowed if a robust risk assessment indicates that it is safe for people and the environment.

The government has said that if GM crops are commercially produced in the United Kingdom, it will implement pragmatic and proportionate measures to segregate these from conventional and organic crops, so that choice can be exercised and economic interests appropriately protected.

In the past, there have been remonstrances when GM crops have been seeded, and anti-GM organizations often damage such domains. There are stringent labeling laws in place that demand the revelation of GM commodities if they have been adopted.

The main idea of the United Kingdom’s law and management program is the stability of the people and the environment. Especially, when the government says that it will only agree to the planting of GM crops, the release of other types of GM organism, or the marketing of GM food or feed products if a robust risk assessment indicates that it is safe for people and the environment.

All application for GM commodities is defined on a case-by-case basis and involves consideration of all scientific data accessible, with the stability of public well-being and the environment being the main priority.

Newspaper articles frequently describe the British people as opposed to the use of genetically modified crops and food commodities, with newspapers portraying Britain as a nation that is impenetrable by biotech corporations involved in developing and marketing GM products.

This powerful opposition emerged in the late 1990s when there was a move to introduce GM crops into the country. The people was not open to these crops and, over concerns of cross-pollination, scaffolded protests, and even pulled up known GM crops out of the ground to halt work.

 

GM crops grew widely known as Frankenfoods, and the British people was actively opposed to their growth, marketing, and consumption. A newspaper article reflecting on this time noted that the opposition was mostly directed at the big multinational companies that were perceived as heavy-handed in their approach to the public’s interest as to the safety of eating such crops.

Some newspaper reports even refer to this time as the GM wars, as activists, started on at least one time, by a government minister, supplied themselves with lawnmowers to destroy crops whilst farmers fought back by using their tractors as battering rams.

2007 and 2008 witnessed comparable moves when two fields planted with GM crops were subsequently attacked overnight by activists, who uprooted the plants despite twenty-four-hour protection watchdogs, fencing, and court orders.

More recent GM crop cultivation has been faced with some opposition, but not quite the outrage that was observed in the 1990s. When anti-GM groups in 2012 threatened to pull up the experimental GM crops of public-sector scientists, the scientists recorded a video appeal to the radicals, urging them to not destroy their work.

In this example, the media were sensitive to the scientists and denounced the activists’ threat to pull up the crops as an act of vandalism. Since public sentiment in both Britain and the EU continues to be generally opposed to GM crops, large biotech seed producer Monsanto stated that it was withdrawing all applications for the European Union (EU) support for its GM crops as the EU today is effectively a conventional seed market.

The resistance of the UK to GM crops has been scrutinized by the government’s former chief science adviser, who predicted that Britain has expended about £4 billion (approximately US$7.2 billion) worth of funds.

The prevailing government, headed by the Environment Secretary and Science Minister, is reportedly driving to push the UK towards consuming more GM foods, with the prevailing policy report on GM foods showing support.

Government policy says that, provided it is handled carefully, GM foods could be a means with which to address global food safety and climate change and assist with sustainable agricultural security.

The regulations that dictate the environment and the use of GMOs are essentially based on EU legislation. As stated before, the central part of the national law that controls the environment is the Environmental Protection Act, which gives the Secretary of State with the authority and ability to manage the intentional discharge of GMOs in England.

At the EU level, the central EU directive that controls the discharge of GMOs across the Member States is Directive 2001/18. This was executed by the national authority of England through the Genetically Modified (Deliberate Release) Regulations 2002.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) is the leading government department in England for preserving the environment.

England is not shielded from impairment in the United Kingdom, and GMO’s are dangerous, it doesn’t matter what way you put it, or what semantics you tell it in, it’s representative of these corporations to pressure the people into believing that what they are consuming is safe.

Furthermore, they disparage the people by telling them untruths, however, making them look as if they are genuine. Increase that deception and you can then see the austerity of it all. We are in jeopardy of shifting into a nation of controlled Frankenstein’s, to go along with our Frankenfoods, a programmed and controlled civilization of drones, and be careful folks, there might be one just around the corner!

 

Amusing footage has surfaced revealing SNP MP Mhairi Black telling a Conservative MP in Parliament: “You talk s***e hen” as she annihilates the government’s housing benefit cuts.

The clip, which was taken from a parliamentary assembly on Tuesday, reveals the 22-year-old MP criticize the removal of housing benefits for 18-21 year-olds, a move proposed by the government.

She begins off by stating: “The Scottish Government cannot reverse the cuts, or provide an exemption for Scotland.

“Does the minister agree that it is simply ridiculous that young people should suffer purely because this government is obsessed with imposing austerity.”

Tory MP Caroline Nokes responded back by stating: “The Scottish Government already has a wide range of powers which would enable them to alleviate the changes being proposed here.”

 

Black, the junior member of the House of Commons, can be seen in the background seeming troubled and mocking at the MP’s reply.
The video has since gone viral, firing mass discussion on social media as to what the Paisley and Renfrewshire MP really said.

This is the moment SNP MP Mhairi Black allegedly tells a Tory minister: “You talk s***e hen” as they discuss housing benefit cuts.

The clip, taken from a parliamentary gathering, shows the 22-year-old MP criticize the UK government removing housing benefits for 18-21 year-olds.

Well done to Mhairi Black, she’s only telling it how it is,
we want more realistic politicians like her. She’s a good woman. telling it as it is, we could do with more like her because the Tories are destroying the poor daily.

Parental Responsibility is a legal name that implies having all the legal rights, responsibilities, authorities and duties for a child, a child is a person under the age of 18. The meaning and acquisition of Parental Responsibility alter according to where in the United Kingdom your child lives.

Having Parental Responsibility for a child indicates that you are bound for, and have the power to be discussed, the child’s well-being, and education. Parental Responsibility is only lost when
the child approaches 18 years of age (16 in Scotland).

However, sometimes there is tension in the family unit and frequently children leave home earlier than when they should. This appears to be somewhat of a nuisance for the government since it appears to be less than the perfect situation, particularly when the government is having to pay out for teens housing benefit.

This is not a fictional situation, it occurs all the time, kids and parents become estranged from one another and children end up languishing on the streets, where they are often frozen, starving and helpless.

It might look insignificant to the government, but then they don’t have to agonize over their children if they have any kids at all and those that don’t have children are often happy to rent boys out for sex. You see it in the papers all the time, whistleblower and former Conservative party activist Anthony Gilberthorpe states he provided child prostitutes for a sex and drugs party with top politicians.

The more young children under the age of 18 that end up on the streets will be fair game for characters like Anthony Gilberthorpe and any associates like him. Where Tory cabinet ministers take children off the streets and use them for sex parties.

 

Margaret Thatcher knew this was going on 25 years ago, she was also given the names of those involved. There were allegations that saw top Tories having sex with boys and there was a big cover-up.

 

Trawling seedy streets during a Tory conference, Gilberthorpe states he was asked to locate underage rent boys for a private sex party at a prime hotel.

More than three decades later, he maintains he was operating on the orders of some of the most senior figures in Margaret Thatcher’s government. It seems that this is still going on as Keith Vaz faced sleaze probe over rent boy shame as Theresa May reminds citizens must have confidence in MPs.

Makes you question who you can trust in government with all their sexual relationships with rent boys, it’s like Caligula’s tea party, with all their brutality, cruelty, indulgence, and sexual perversity, exhibiting them as mad dictators.

This government is so absorbed with an indulgence that it simply needs to command everybody and everything, while the needy of this country merely continue to exist.

They need to put an end to these absurd cuts in housing benefit particularly when playing with a person’s life, and it might seem macho to prance about like they control everything, however, most of them are limp-wristed master bates…