The Linda Geddes who wrote the NewScientist article is sadly misleading a lot of people. I bet there are going to be people who wouldn't have
otherwise taken depakote who will take it out of curiousity of that article. Thats a lot of bad karma I wouldn't want to go on a good person, so I
write in this thread.
Depakote, valproate sodium, valproic acid, divalproex, or whatever you would like to call it...IS A STERILANT!
85%+ hand-counted on a slide sperm abnormalities reported after exposure to depakote... thats only 15% of sperm being normal after taking it. If u
want to do that.. Fine... go on telling people you are a super survivor... You will just need some expensive IVF if you want a kid that doesn't have
spina bifida for sure.
So I look up Linda Geddes, the author of the article on the supersurvivor depakote eunuch. Apparently she was awarded for her non-alarmist...
"outstanding reporting that enhances the public understanding of health issues pertaining to the field of endocrinology"
Linda Geddes - Endocrine Society Award
...for this article that claims that Lance Armstrong's performance was increased by his loss of a testicle.
Superhuman. What gives elite
athletes the edge?
And I threw in one of her sterilization apologist articles on the effects of birth control on sexual attraction that makes no mention of permanent
female infertility as a possible side effect to birth control.
Has the pill changed the rules of
sexual attraction
Look folks.. if you're just walking into this subject of Depakote as a sterilant now... newscientist is now officially the worst place to start.
Here are a few ATS threads making mention of Depakote independently as a sterilant, and in the context of the Bioshield II legislation.
Mass sterilization campaign Exposed! This Includes You! Epigenotoxins! Legal
Loophole!
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Bioshield Two: And Now For Some Real "Pandemic" Insight... If You Dare
www.abovetopsecret.com...
I think the idea is simply to render as many infertile as possible while its still legal then make money with in-vitro fertilization services popping
up left and right. Epigenetic liability has not yet been legally established, meaning epigenetic toxins have no legal status, and so you as the
patient, must fend for yourself in this matter.
The problem is also in the legal definition of fertility. Epigenetic harm doesn't change the fertilization rate of the sperm...as much as it changes
the miscarriage rate of the developing embryo...Increasing it until infertility is achieved...for rats this is after a 30 gram dose.. In humans its
higher, but like I said its up to you to read for yourselves.
Watch out for the innocent Linda Geddes' of the world, and british accents repeating things that just don't sound right.
If you want to discuss depakote, I would do it from a previous thread in which there are higher quality works cited. I wouldn't want readers to get
entranced by this super-survivor propaganda one bit.
[edit on 30-1-2010 by elusive1]