COKE/PEPSI AS PESTICIDE

FIRE WATER:MALCOLM McCLURE INTERVIEW

PART 1

PART 2

PART 3

PART 4

PART 5

FIRE WATER:DR. ANDREW HARRIS INTERVIEW

CHOOSING HEALTHY FOODS NOW CALLED A MENTAL DISORDER

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) In its never-ending attempt to fabricate "mental disorders" out of every human activity, the psychiatric industry is now pushing the most ridiculous disease they've invented yet: Healthy eating disorder.

This is no joke: If you focus on eating healthy foods, you're "mentally diseased" and probably need some sort of chemical treatment involving powerful psychotropic drugs. The Guardian newspaper reports, "Fixation with healthy eating can be sign of serious psychological disorder" and goes on to claim this "disease" is called orthorexia nervosa -- which is basically just Latin for "nervous about correct eating."

But they can't just called it "nervous healthy eating disorder" because that doesn't sound like they know what they're talking about. So they translate it into Latin where it sounds smart (even though it isn't). That's where most disease names come from: Doctors just describe the symptoms they see with a name like osteoporosis (which means "bones with holes in them").

Getting back to this fabricated "orthorexia" disease, the Guardian goes on to report, "Orthorexics commonly have rigid rules around eating. Refusing to touch sugar, salt, caffeine, alcohol, wheat, gluten, yeast, soya, corn and dairy foods is just the start of their diet restrictions. Any foods that have come into contact with pesticides, herbicides or contain artificial additives are also out."

Wait a second. So attempting to avoid chemicals, dairy, soy and sugar now makes you a mental health patient? Yep. According to these experts. If you actually take special care to avoid pesticides, herbicides and genetically modified ingredients like soy and sugar, there's something wrong with you.

But did you notice that eating junk food is assumed to be "normal?" If you eat processed junk foods laced with synthetic chemicals, that's okay with them. The mental patients are the ones who choose organic, natural foods, apparently.

What is "normal" when it comes to foods?

I told you this was coming. Years ago, I warned NaturalNews readers that an attempt might soon be under way to outlaw broccoli because of its anti-cancer phytonutrients. This mental health assault on health-conscious consumers is part of that agenda. It's an effort to marginalize healthy eaters by declaring them to be mentally unstable and therefore justify carting them off to mental institutions where they will be injected with psychiatric drugs and fed institutional food that's all processed, dead and full of toxic chemicals.

The Guardian even goes to the ridiculous extreme of saying, "The obsession about which foods are "good" and which are "bad" means orthorexics can end up malnourished."

Follow the non-logic on this, if you can: Eating "good" foods will cause malnutrition! Eating bad foods, I suppose, is assumed to provide all the nutrients you need. That's about as crazy a statement on nutrition as I've ever read. No wonder people are so diseased today: The mainstream media is telling them that eating health food is a mental disorder that will cause malnutrition!

Shut up and swallow your Soylent Green

It's just like I reported years ago: You're not supposed to question your food, folks. Sit down, shut up, dig in and chow down. Stop thinking about what you're eating and just do what you're told by the mainstream media and its processed food advertisers. Questioning the health properties of your junk food is a mental disorder, didn't you know? And if you "obsess" over foods (by doing such things as reading the ingredients labels, for example), then you're weird. Maybe even sick.

That's the message they're broadcasting now. Junk food eaters are "normal" and "sane" and "nourished." But health food eaters are diseased, abnormal and malnourished.

But why, you ask, would they attack healthy eaters? People like Dr. Gabriel Cousens can tell you why: Because increased mental and spiritual awareness is only possible while on a diet of living, natural foods.

Eating junk foods keeps you dumbed down and easy to control, you see. It literally messes with your mind, numbing your senses with MSG, aspartame and yeast extract. People who subsist on junk foods are docile and quickly lose the ability to think for themselves. They go along with whatever they're told by the TV or those in apparent positions of authority, never questioning their actions or what's really happening in the world around them.

In contrast to that, people who eat health-enhancing natural foods -- with all the medicinal nutrients still intact -- begin to awaken their minds and spirits. Over time, they begin to question the reality around them and they pursue more enlightened explorations of topics like community, nature, ethics, philosophy and the big picture of things that are happening in the world. They become "aware" and can start to see the very fabric of the Matrix, so to speak.

This, of course, is a huge danger to those who run our consumption-based society because consumption depends on ignorance combined with suggestibility. For people to keep blindly buying foods, medicines, health insurance and consumer goods, they need to have their higher brain functions switched off. Processed junk foods laced with toxic chemicals just happens to achieve that rather nicely. Why do you think dead, processed foods remain the default meals in public schools, hospitals and prisons? It's because dead foods turn off higher levels of awareness and keep people focused on whatever distractions you can feed their brains: Television, violence, fear, sports, sex and so on.

But living as a zombie is, in one way quite "normal" in society today because so many people are doing it. But that doesn't make it normal in my book: The real "normal" is an empowered, healthy, awakened person nourished with living foods and operating as a sovereign citizen in a free world. Eating living foods is like taking the red pill because over time it opens up a whole new perspective on the fabric of reality. It sets you free to think for yourself.

But eating processed junk foods is like taking the blue pill because it keeps you trapped in a fabricated reality where your life experiences are fabricated by consumer product companies who hijack your senses with designer chemicals (like MSG) that fool your brain into thinking you're eating real food.

If you want to be alive, aware and in control of your own life, eat more healthy living foods. But don't expect to be popular with mainstream mental health "experts" or dieticians -- they're all being programmed to consider you to be "crazy" because you don't follow their mainstream diets of dead foods laced with synthetic chemicals.

But you and I know the truth here: We are the normal ones. The junk food eaters are the real mental patients, and the only way to wake them up to the real world is to start feeding them living foods.

Some people are ready to take the red pill, and others aren't. All you can do is show them the door. They must open it themselves.

In the mean time, try to avoid the mental health agents who are trying to label you as having a mental disorder just because you pay attention to what you put in your body. There's nothing wrong with avoiding sugar, soy, MSG, aspartame, HFCS and other toxic chemicals in the food supply. In fact, your very life depends on it.

Oh, and by the way, if you want to join the health experts who keep inventing new fictitious diseases and disorders, check out my popular Disease Mongering Engine web page where you can invent your own new diseases at the click of a button! You'll find it at: http://www.naturalnews.com/disease-...

Sources for this story include:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2...

THIS COULD THREATEN THE FUTURE OF FOOD – DESTROYING THE ENTIRE FOOD CHAIN…

Posted By Dr. Mercola February 02 2011

Roundup, Monsanto's glyphosate-based herbicide, is causing Sudden Death Syndrome (SDS), a serious plant disease, in many fields. Study after study shows that glyphosate is contributing not only to the huge increase in SDS, but also to the outbreak of numerous other diseases.

Glyphosate is the world's bestselling weed killer; it was patented by Monsanto for use in their Roundup brand, which became more popular when they introduced "Roundup Ready" crops -- genetically modified (GM) plants that can withstand applications of normally deadly Roundup.

But the herbicide doesn't destroy plants directly; instead, it creates a unique perfect storm of conditions that activates disease-causing organisms in the soil, while at the same time wiping out plant defenses against those diseases.

The Institute for Responsible Technology reports:

"By weakening plants and promoting disease, glyphosate opens the door for lots of problems in the field. According to Don [Huber, a plant pathologist], 'There are more than 40 diseases of crop plants that are reported to increase with the use of glyphosate …'

Some of the fungi promoted by glyphosate produce dangerous toxins that can end up in food and feed ... They've 'been linked to the plague epidemics' of medieval Europe, 'large-scale human toxicosis in Eastern Europe,' esophageal cancer in southern Africa and parts of China, joint diseases in Asia and southern Africa, and a blood disorder in Russia."

Sources:

Institute for Responsible Technology January 14, 2011

More than:

• 75 percent of soybeans
• 65 percent of cotton
• 10 percent of corn grown in the United States

… contain the genetically modified (GM) Roundup Ready gene, which allows farmers to spray Monsanto's Roundup herbicide directly onto their fields, killing weeds without harming the crops … theoretically.

However, this convenience comes at a steep price, as evidence shows that Roundup's active ingredient, glyphosate, is actually devastating crops and human and animal health around the world, even when the exposure is restricted to residues leftover in the soil.

"The Perfect Storm" for Plant Devastation

Glyphosate is the world's bestselling weed killer, and it's found in more than 30 percent of all herbicides. While Roundup Ready crops can withstand the toxin because of GM genetic material from viruses and bacteria, the weed killer is thought to be contributing to Sudden Death Syndrome (SDS), a deadly plant disease that causes plants to turn yellow and die.

As reported by GM expert Jeffrey Smith, numerous studies have linked glyphosate to increases in SDS, including in crops that have never been sprayed with the herbicide but were planted in a field that received an application the previous season.

As Smith points out:

"The herbicide doesn't destroy plants directly. It rather cooks up a unique perfect storm of conditions that revs up disease-causing organisms in the soil, and at the same time wipes out plant defenses against those diseases. The mechanisms are well-documented but rarely cited."

In fact, Roundup herbicide weakens plants and promotes disease in a number of ways, including:

• Acting as a chelator of vital nutrients, depriving plants of the nutrients necessary for healthy plant function
• Destroying beneficial soil organisms that suppress disease-causing organisms and help plants absorb nutrients
• Interfering with photosynthesis, reducing water use efficiency, shortening root systems and causing plants to release sugars, which changes soil pH
• Stunting and weakening plant growth
• Promoting disease-causing organisms in soil, which then overtake the weakened crops

So the glyphosate in Roundup is not only weakening plants, it's changing the makeup of soil and boosting the number of disease-causing organisms, a deadly recipe for crops around the globe.

As Don Huber, a plant pathologist at Purdue University, stated:

"There are more than 40 diseases of crop plants that are reported to increase with the use of glyphosate, and that number keeps growing as people recognize the association between glyphosate and disease."

As the use of Roundup has increased, so too has the prevalence of potentially devastating plant diseases, which could threaten future food crops and the food chain that depends on them.

Dangers for People and Animals Too

It's not only plant life that's threatened by the use of Roundup -- human and animal toxins are created too. As Smith reported, glyphosate promotes the formation of certain types of fungi that are dangerous to people and contaminate food and animal feed. One such fungi, the Fusarium fungus, has been linked to plague epidemics, cancer, infertility and animal diseases.

Residues of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide found in GM food and feed have also been linked to cell damage and even death, even at very low levels. Researchers have also found it causes membrane and DNA damage, and inhibits cell respiration.

It's also possible that glyphosate is significantly altering the nutrient content of our food, through its chelating mechanism, leading to widespread mineral deficiencies in animals and humans. Smith writes:

"The same nutrients that glyphosate chelates and deprives plants are also vital for human and animal health. These include iron, zinc, copper, manganese, magnesium, calcium, boron, and others. Deficiencies of these elements in our diets, alone or in combination, are known to interfere with vital enzyme systems and cause a long list of disorders and diseases …

Glyphosate-induced mineral deficiencies can easily go unidentified and untreated. Even when laboratory tests are done, they can sometimes detect adequate mineral levels, but miss the fact that glyphosate has already rendered them unusable.

Glyphosate can tie up minerals for years and years, essentially removing them from the pool of nutrients available for plants, animals, and humans. If we combine the more than 135 million pounds of glyphosate-based herbicides applied in the US in 2010 with total applications over the past 30 years, we may have already eliminated millions of pounds of nutrients from our food supply."

Roundup in the Environment

Monsanto long used the slogans, "It's Safer than Mowing," "Biodegradable," and "Environmentally Friendly" to describe Roundup -- until the real effects of this toxic herbicide were revealed and they were forced to discontinue their deceptive advertising.

The truth is Monsanto's own tests showed that only 2 percent of the herbicide broke down after 28 days, which means it readily persists in the environment. Glyphosate is actually the most commonly reported cause of pesticide illness among landscape maintenance workers in California. Additionally:

• The surfactant ingredient in Roundup is more acutely toxic than glyphosate itself, and the combination of the two is even more toxic.
• Glyphosate is suspected of causing genetic damage.
• Glyphosate is acutely toxic to fish and birds and can kill beneficial insects and soil organisms that maintain ecological balance.
• Laboratory studies have identified adverse effects of glyphosate-containing products in all standard categories of toxicological testing.

In one animal study, rats given 1,000 mg/kg of glyphosate resulted in a 50 percent mortality rate, and skeletal alterations were observed in over 57 percent of fetuses!

And just so you understand, GM crops that are resistant to Roundup are the most widely sold GM varieties. So if you eat GM foods, there is a very good chance those foods contain Roundup residues -- and possibly hefty amounts of them.

According to Smith, by 2004 farmers used an estimated 86 percent more herbicide on GM soy fields compared to non-GM. Higher levels of herbicide residue in this GM soy might cause health problems, and many symptoms identified in one UK soy allergy study are also related to glyphosate exposure.

The allergy study identified irritable bowel syndrome, digestion problems, chronic fatigue, headaches, lethargy, and skin complaints including acne and eczema, all related to soy consumption.

Symptoms of glyphosate exposure include nausea, headaches, lethargy, skin rashes, and burning or itchy skin. It is also possible that glyphosate's breakdown product AMPA, which accumulates in GM soybeans after each spray, might contribute to allergies.

Again, the use of Roundup herbicide has increased dramatically since the GM Roundup Ready crops were introduced. In the first 13 years, American farmers sprayed an additional 383 million pounds of herbicide due to these herbicide-tolerant crops. And now the repeated exposures have given Mother Nature all she needs to stage her comeback in the form of devastating superweeds.

How Can You Avoid Roundup and Roundup Ready Crops?

Did you know that genetically modified foods are so prevalent in the United States that if you randomly pick an item off your grocery store's shelves, you have a 75 percent chance of picking a food with GM ingredients?

It's true. At least seven out of every 10 processed food items have been genetically modified, and there's more to come.

The potential health ramifications of these world-wide experiments with our food supply are frightening to say the least. If you care about the health and future of your family, I strongly urge you to refuse to participate in this destructive trend.

How?

It's actually simpler than you might think... By buying only non-GM foods.

The True Food Shopping Guide is a great tool for helping you determine which brands and products contain GM ingredients. It lists 20 different food categories that include everything from baby food to chocolate.

Additionally, here are four simple steps to decrease your consumption of GM foods as much as possible:

• Reduce or eliminate processed foods in your diet. The fact that 75 percent of processed foods contain GM ingredients is only one of the many reasons to stick to a whole foods diet.
• Read produce and food labels. Conventionally raised soybeans and corn make up the largest portion of genetically modified crops. Ingredients made from these foods include high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), corn flour and meal, dextrin, starch, soy sauce, margarine, and tofu.
• Buy organic produce. By definition, food that is certified organic must be free from all GM organisms, produced without artificial pesticides and fertilizers and from an animal reared without the routine use of antibiotics, growth promoters or other drugs. Additionally, grass-fed beef will not have been fed GM corn feed.

You can also get involved in helping to defeat GM crops at the regulatory level. Right now the USDA is considering the approval of Monsanto's Roundup Ready alfalfa, which would lead to the application of millions more pounds of Roundup herbicide each year.

You can urge U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack to NOT approve Roundup Ready alfalfa, which would lead to the addition of more Roundup on U.S. fields and in our food, by using this action form from the Institute for Responsible Technology

THE NEWEST DANGEROUS SWEETENER TO HIT YOUR FOOD SHELVES...

February 08 2008, By Dr. Mercola

Since 2002 an artificial sweetener called neotame has been approved for use in food and drink products around the world, although so far its use appears to be very limited.

Neotame is a chemical derivative of aspartame, and judging by the chemicals used in its manufacturing, it appears even more toxic than aspartame, although the proponents of neotame claim that increased toxicity is not a concern, because less of it is needed to achieve the desired effect.

Neotame is bad science brought to you by the Monsanto Company.

If Monsano truly had nothing to fear with either of these artificial chemical sweeteners, they would have funded rigorous independent testing for safety. To date they have not, and they won't, because virtually every independent analysis of aspartame not conducted by Monsanto partners has revealed a long list of disturbing side effects, mostly neurological in nature.

Monsanto also has now sold the NutraSweet Company to someone else, but the approval of neotame came under Monsanto's ownership, and was most likely a result of Monsanto's cozy relationship with the FDA. More about that in a minute.

My recommendation for neotame is the same as that for aspartame, which is: it should be avoided if you care about your health.

Why is Neotame Dangerous?

Hopefully by now you are aware of the dangers of aspartame, if you aren't, please review this previous article.

But as if aspartame wasn't bad enough, NutraSweet (a Monsanto subsidiary at the time of neotame's approval) "improved" the aspartame formula, making neotame 7,000-13,000 times sweeter than sugar (sucrose) and 30-60 times sweeter than aspartame.

How did they do this?

In 1998, Monsanto applied for FDA approval for neotame, "based on the aspartame formula" with one critical addition: 3-dimethylbutyl, which just happens to be listed on the EPA's most hazardous chemical list.

So not only is neotame potentially more devastating to your health than aspartame, it is also approved for use in a wider array of food products, including baked goods, because it is more stable at higher temperatures.

What is 3-Dimethylbutyl?

Neotame is manufactured by combining aspartame with 3,3-dimethylbutyraldehyd, which was added to block enzymes that break the peptide bond between aspartic acid and phenylalanine, thereby reducing the availability of phenylalanine.

This eliminates the need for a warning on labels directed at people who cannot properly metabolize phenylalanine.

However, 3,3-Dimethylbutyraldehyde is categorized as both highly flammable and an irritant, and carries risk statements for handling including irritating to skin, eyes and respiratory system.

In other words, the NutraSweet company assures you that neotame is perfectly safe, while at the same time they manufacture neotame through a chemical reaction between aspartame and a substance that is highly flammable and a skin, eye and respiratory irritant (that must be handled with extreme caution by anyone involved in the manufacturing process).

Does this sound like something you want to put into your body?

Why are These Chemicals Approved for Human Consumption?

Many people actually consider the FDA to be a "subsidiary" of the Monsanto Company. It sounds impossible, but when you look at all the Monsanto executives who have gone through the revolving door between private industry and government oversight, a truly disturbing picture emerges of the foxes guarding the henhouse..

The FDA is packed by pro-business, pro-corporation advocates who often have massive conflicts of interest when it comes to protecting the health of the public.

In fact, the revolving door between private industry and government oversight agencies is so well established these days, it has become business as usual to read about scandal, conflicts of interest and blatant pro-industry bias, even when it flies in the face of science or the law.

A few examples include:

• FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, a former dental amalgam company executive, helped subvert a federal judge's order to label mercury fillings as a hazard to children and pregnant women.
• The FDA's top medical-device regulator, Daniel Schultz, resigned following internal dissent over decisions that his critics said were too friendly to industry.
• Janet Woodcock, the director of the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, was accused of a massive conflict of interest stemming from an ethics complaint filed by Amphastar Pharmaceuticals Inc.
• The agency's list of corruptions and collusions is now a mile long. And each piece of new legislation aimed to improve its function seems to do just the opposite—making the FDA even more dependent upon financial support by Big Pharma.

Why Aspartame and Neotame are NOT a Dieters Best Friend

On of the biggest marketing and PR tactics for man-made chemical sweeteners has been the claim that they help in the battle against obesity. Folks, they don't. They never have and they never will.

The research and the epidemiologic data suggest the opposite is true, and that artificial sweeteners such as aspartame and neotame tend to lead to weight gain. As I've often said, there's more to weight gain or weight loss than mere calorie intake.

One reason for aspartame and neotame's potential to cause weight gain is because phenylalanine and aspartic acid – the two amino acids that make up 90 percent of aspartame and are also present in neotame -- are known to rapidly stimulate the release of insulin and leptin; two hormones that are intricately involved with satiety and fat storage.

Insulin and leptin are also the primary hormones that regulate your metabolism.

So although you're not ingesting calories in the form of sugar, aspartame and neotame can still raise your insulin and leptin levels. Elevated insulin and leptin levels, in turn, are two of the driving forces behind obesity, diabetes, and a number of our current chronic disease epidemics.

Over time, if your body is exposed to too much leptin, it will become resistant to it, just as your body can become resistant to insulin, and once that happens, your body can no longer "hear" the hormonal messages instructing your body to stop eating, burn fat, and maintain good sensitivity to sweet tastes in your taste buds.

What happens then?

You remain hungry; you crave sweets, and your body stores more fat.

Leptin-resistance also causes an increase in visceral fat, sending you on a vicious cycle of hunger, fat storage and an increased risk of heart disease, diabetes, metabolic syndrome and more.

The Real Reason Artificial Sweetener Use Has Exploded

If you want some answers in scenarios like this it is typically useful to follow the money trail. Aspartame currently has the largest market share of all artificial sweeteners, and the people at NutraSweet would like to keep it that way.

Artificial sweeteners cost a great deal less than real sugar, corn syrup or molasses, so the processed food and beverage industry saves money by using LESS of these man-made chemicals to create MORE sweetness in their products.

Neotame is manufactured from aspartame, and builds on aspartame's ability to provide more sweetness from less raw material, as it is 30-60 times sweeter than aspartame.

Unfortunately, one byproduct your body creates by breaking down aspartame is formaldehyde, which is extremely toxic to your health even in very small doses. The NutraSweet Company claims the addition of 3,3-Dimethylbutyraldehyde to aspartame makes it more stable at higher temperatures, and reduces the availability of phenylalanine. But nowhere do they discuss the formation of formaldehyde when your body breaks down aspartame, which is the main ingredient of neotame.

In a search of pubmed.gov, the U.S. National Library of Medicine, which has over 11 million medical citations, neotame returns zero double-blind scientific studies on toxicity in humans or animals.

If neotame was indeed completely safe to ingest, you would think the NutraSweet Company would have published at least one double-blind safety study in the public domain? They haven't.

You have to ask yourself "why not?"

Have You Experienced a Bad Aspartame or Neotame Reaction? Be Heard!

Did you know that only a fraction of all adverse food reactions are ever reported to the FDA? This is a problem that only you as the consumer can have an impact upon.

In order to truly alert the FDA to a problem with a product they've approved, they must be notified – by as many people as possible who believe they have experienced a side effect. This mean you can take action against the manufacturers of these chemicals that continue to put your optimal health at risk, if you feel you have had a bad reaction to their product.

I urge you, if you believe you have experienced side effects from aspartame or neotame, let the FDA know about it!

Please go to the FDA Consumer Complaint Coordinator page, find the phone number listed for your state, and report your adverse reaction.

There's no telling just how many reports they might need before considering taking another look at the safety of aspartame or neotame, but the only way to press them is by reporting any and all adverse effects!

And in the meantime, do your health and the health of your family a favor and treat all foods and drinks that contain aspartame or neotame as if they were deleterious to your optimal health. Because, in my opinion, they are.

MANY GET ANTIDEPRESSANTS FOR NO PSYCHIATRIC REASON

By Frederik Joelving

NEW YORK | Fri Feb 4, 2011 4:20pm EST

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - More than a quarter of Americans taking antidepressants have never been diagnosed with any of the conditions the drugs are typically used to treat, according to new research.

That means millions could be exposed to side effects from the medicines without proven health benefits, researchers say.

"We cannot be sure that the risks and side effects of antidepressants are worth the benefit of taking them for people who do not meet criteria for major depression," said Jina Pagura, a psychologist and currently a medical student at the University of Manitoba in Canada, who worked on the study.

"These individuals are likely approaching their physicians with concerns that may be related to depression, and could include symptoms like trouble sleeping, poor mood, difficulties in relationships, etc.," she added in an e-mail to Reuters Health. "Although an antidepressant might help with these issues, the problems may also go away on their own with time, or might be more amenable to counseling or psychotherapy."

The researchers tapped into data from the Collaborative Psychiatric Epidemiologic Surveys, which include a nationally representative sample of more than 20,000 U.S. adults interviewed between 2001 and 2003.

Roughly one in ten people told interviewers they had been taking antidepressants during the past year. Yet a quarter of those people had never been diagnosed with any of the conditions that doctors usually treat with the medication, such as major depression and anxiety disorder.

According to The National Institute of Mental Health, nearly 15 million American adults suffer from major depression, and 40 million more have anxiety disorders.

Although the survey didn't include all mental illnesses that might have led doctors to prescribe an antidepressant -- say, obsessive-compulsive disorder or to help quit smoking -- other experts said the new findings are not exaggerated.

"Reviews of claims records, which are diagnoses actually given by health care professionals, suggest that only about 50% of patients who are prescribed antidepressants receive a psychiatric diagnosis," said Dr. Mark Olfson, a psychiatrist at Columbia University in New York.

"These findings raise questions about the clinical appropriateness of antidepressant treatment selection for many primary care patients," he added in an e-mail to Reuters Health.

With sales of $9.9 billion in 2009, up three percent since the previous year, antidepressants rank fourth among prescription drugs in the U.S., according to IMS Health, a company that analyzes the pharmaceutical industry.

Popular brand names include Pfizer's Zoloft, Forest Laboratories' Lexapro and Eli Lilly's Prozac.

While studies have shown the drugs may help some people with depression, they come with a price tag -- and not only the $100 or more that a month's supply can cost. Some users experience sexual problems or gain weight, for instance.

"Nearly all medication has side effects, so there are undoubtedly a large number of Americans who are taking antidepressants that may not be effective at treating their conditions, yet they suffer from the side effects," said Jeffrey S. Harman, an expert in health services at the University of Florida in Gainesville, who was not involved in the new study.

"Not to mention inappropriate use of our health care dollars that comes along with inappropriate prescribing," he added in an e-mail.

Still, Harman said the findings, published in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, didn't necessarily mean doctors are prescribing more antidepressants than they should.

"As far as overprescribing, I don't think you can say that it is occurring as a blanket statement," he explained. "There are undoubtedly many people being prescribed antidepressants that may not be effective for them, but there are also millions of Americans suffering from depression who are not being prescribed antidepressants or are being prescribed them at a suboptimal dose."

Pfizer did not comment directly on the new findings, but told Reuters Health it was dedicated to ensuring "that patients and their doctors have the most up to date medical information on which to base their treatment decisions."

SOURCE: bit.ly/eXPVSL Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, online January 25, 2011.

Originally published in Reuters

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/04/us-many-get-antidepressants-no-psychiatr-idUSTRE7136EW20110204?pageNumber=1