When depression affects your kids
When we lose a beloved superstar like Robin Williams to an apparent suicide and learn he had been battling severe depression before his death, it's natural to think about our own loved ones.
Join the discussion below, or Read more at 4029TV.com.
#1 Aug 13, 2014
Mind drugs and anti depressants are a direct cause of depression creating death by susicide and murder.
Since: Aug 14
#2 Aug 14, 2014
Yes you are right. It will definitely affect out child..
#3 Aug 15, 2014
Memory and reality
What could cause a person to believe sincerely in something that never happened? We have posted on this site both
Website of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation
If homosexual behavior can be caused by mind drugs then the crimes seen in the society could be caused by those implimenting mind control for reasons like increasing the profit margins of their profession (other professions including legal professions) psychology , psychiatry or family counseling. Given the courts position with the "no science" based on hearsay, Mental Health programs and organizations including Guardian ad lines with intent should be exposed.
#4 Aug 15, 2014
Robin Williams spent a lot of time medicating himself and seeking treatment. Havent heard what he may have been taking that pushed him over the edge.
#5 Aug 15, 2014
Behind closed doors and locked in the hearts of love ones are the true stories of fear of further involvement of the mental health industry and the mind drugging for those that survived a mental Health / Pharmaceutical horror story of mind drug usage..
In death, No doubt the pharmaceutical crisis control team was Johnny on the $pot with hearing of any celebrity or mass murder in the society making the News media.
#7 Aug 15, 2014
Don't let it it's not fun take it from a person who when though it
#8 Aug 15, 2014
Obama’s Preemption Memo: Limiting Regulatory Preemption of State Common Law Claims
By Matt Melamed
Public Justice Kazan-Wallace Fellow
On May 20, 2009, President Obama reversed one of the most nefarious practices of the Bush administration by issuing a memorandum (Preemption Memo) aimed at curbing federal preemption by regulatory fiat.(The memorandum is available at
With the Preemption Memo, the President made clear his intent to limit federal agencies’ efforts to preempt state law claims merely by declaring that they would conflict with federal regulatory purposes. This position represents a radical shift from that taken by the Bush administration, which aggressively encouraged federal agencies to seek to preempt state tort law in precisely that fashion. For the first time in a long time, consumer advocates have an ally in the executive branch.
The Bush Administration’s Stealth Tort Reform Effort
The Preemption Memo is described more fully below. But its importance can only be understood against the backdrop of the Bush administration’s attempt to utilize federal agencies to implement stealth tort reform. Since 2005, seven federal agencies have issued over 60 proposed or final rules that were accompanied by introductory statements – commonly known as “preambles”– stating that the rule preempts state tort law on the ground that lawsuits involving the regulated matters would conflict with the agencies’ regulatory goals. See, e.g., Press Release, American Association for Justice, FOIAs Reveal How Bush Administration Made Complete Immunity for Negligent Corporations a Top Priority (Oct. 15, 2008), available at:
The most notorious example of this practice is the preamble to a 2006 United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) labeling regulation, which states that the FDA’s approval of a prescription drug’s label “preempts conflicting or contrary State law,” including lawsuits seeking to hold drug manufacturers liable for failing adequately to warn of a drug’s dangers. 71 Fed. Reg. 3922, 3934-35 (2006). This preemption preamble was particularly egregious because it represented a 180-degree reversal of the FDA’s prior views on the matter: before the Bush administration took power, the FDA enthusiastically endorsed tort litigation as complementing the agency’s ability to ensure the safety of prescription drugs.(As discussed below, in Wyeth v. Levine, 129 S. Ct. 1187 (2009),the U.S. Supreme Court held that the 2006 labeling regulation’s preemptive preamble was not entitled to any deference.)
The intention behind this and other Bush-era preemption preambles is clear: by attempting to strip consumers of their rights to sue, the Bush administration was pandering to the business community, which seeks at all costs to immunize itself from tort liability. Indeed, Bush administration officials had an unusually close relationship with the industries they regulated. Again, the 2006 FDA labeling regulation is instructive. As first proposed, the preamble to the labeling regulation specifically stated that the FDA did not intend to preempt state law failure-to-warn claims. See Press Release, American Association for Justice, supra. Less than six months before issuing the final regulation, FDA’s chief counsel met with legal representatives from the largest pharmaceutical companies. Id. After the meeting, the preamble was changed to state that FDA approval of a drug label preempted state common law failure-to-warn claims.
Add your comments below
|This election has divided the country. Getting ... (Nov '16)||Jul '17||Maria||1,141|
|Sean Miller leaving Arizona for Ohio State? 'Ov...||Jun '17||They cannot kill ...||1|
|Activists put up crosses at construction site f...||Mar '17||Texxy||1|
|University of Arizona Guide: Safe Spaces should...||Mar '17||kdavidsmith13||1|
|Cassandra Garcia, 8-Year-Old Student, Upset Aft... (May '12)||Mar '17||Maltomon||9|
|Tucson Day Trip: Downtown's East End (Feb '17)||Feb '17||flubber||1|
|Vote for it or money goes away: Arizona lawmake... (Feb '17)||Feb '17||Predator Harm In ...||1|
Find what you want!
Search University of Arizona Forum Now
Copyright © 2017 Topix LLC