Adding Lithium to Water Supplies; Lithium as a Treatment for Bipolar, Mood Disorder

by Mr. Augie

There is a little talk about adding lithium to the public water supplies and it sounds to me just like another fluoride scheme. Although it may reduce rapes and suicides as studies show, I am more concerned what lithium water would do to the other 99.99 percent. Judas Priest, if someone needs lithium then a doctor should give them some—rather than drugging us all to get it to those who need it.

It would not be the first time when certain stimuli are given by authorities to change the behavior of and calm the masses—as in television signals. But adding lithium to public drinking water could be another social planners dream to reach the Utopian society, an Alice’s Wonderland. Controlling behaviors through chemical means would amount to another psychological experiment and may have one big adverse reaction like fluoridation. In fact, it may even react with the fluoride ions as it does with trace metals.

“They” would not be adding pharmaceutical-grade lithium mind you. I imagine it would be like the partially processed magic metal mined from the huge lithium deposits in the now U.S.-controlled Afghanistan—perhaps contaminated with other substances. (Some say it is bound for China to make batteries.)

I found it a bit humorous to read about this because my son’s doctor was so against using a natural lithium supplement as being too dangerous instead of the prescription lithium. And then I stumbled upon the article above about natural lithium waters and the wild idea of another “safe and effective” mass medication without informed consent. There are lithium waters and springs in Oregon and Texas and in other places in the world—people say it calms them down.

About five years ago I had looked into the use of Lithium as a mood stabilizer. It is the first or second compound of choice of psychiatrists as a prescription in the treatment of bipolar disorder (manic-depression) and requires frequent blood analyses and return doctor visits. At the time I discussed this with the doctor my idea of using the natural element in an over-the-counter preparation was quickly poo-pood as dangerous.

“But . . . lithium is lithium!” I said. She went on to say how dangerous it was unless it was by her script and with monitoring and analysis. I didn’t know it at the time but naturally-occurring Lithium waters are used for therapeutic purposes in the U.S and abroad. Lithium was even added to 7-Up until 1948—and lithium-based patent medicines were available in the late 1800s.

There are lithium supplements to be found at the health food store. A particular type called lithium orotate is said to be superior than the “controlled drug” called lithium carbonate. But you can also get over-the-counter lithium carbonate. It is also said the lithium orotate is much safer since you need so little of it compared to the prescription “drug”. One brand of the lithium orotate is produced under the auspices of the doctor who researched the effectiveness. But there are other brands, too. Lithium in general is effective in about 70% of bipolar cases with very few side effects.

From what I can tell at this point, a natural lithium supplement may be the preferred-choice to try for those with bi-polar, mood swings, depression, impulsivity and those quick to anger if you are not yet on a medication. A good exercise routine, a nutrient-rich diet, good sleep habits can work wonders. Anyone should get their Vitamin D3 checked and get on cod liver oil or D3 drops whether depression is a problem or not, because it builds immunity—especially against colds and flus.

If you are on the lithium script or the Depakote, Lamactil or other bipolar treatment, ask your doctor if the lithium supplement is right for you, but you will be lucky if she is willing to slowly down-dose you on the drug. She will likely say, “It’s just too dangerous.”

More information:

A good report on the history, therapeutic use of Lithium for bipolar (manic-depressive) disorder

A brief discussion of bipolar psychotropic pharmaceuticals compared to lithium

2 responses to “Adding Lithium to Water Supplies; Lithium as a Treatment for Bipolar, Mood Disorder

  1. adding lithium to fluorinated water is like adding manganese to soil that hast round up added to the soil.

    that is trying to fix something that you intentionality broke

    dr rich olree

  2. adding lithium to fluorinated water is like adding manganese to soil that hast round up added to the soil.

    that is trying to fix something that you intentionality broke

    *Public kept in the dark on Roundup link with birth defects
    *Industry knew since 1980s, regulators since 1990s
    Earth Open Source
    Press release for immediate release, 7 June 2011

    Industry and EU regulators knew as long ago as the 1980s-1990s that Roundup, the world’s best selling herbicide, causes birth defects – but they failed to inform the public. This is the conclusion of a new report, “Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?” co-authored by a group of international scientists and researchers and released today.[1]

    The report reveals that industry’s own studies (including one commissioned by Monsanto) showed as long ago as the 1980s that Roundup’s active ingredient glyphosate causes birth defects in laboratory animals.

    The German government has known about these findings since at least the 1990s, when as the “rapporteur” member state for glyphosate, it reviewed industry’s studies for the EU approval of the herbicide. The European Commission has known since at least 2002, when it signed off on glyphosate’s approval.

    But this information was not made public. On the contrary, regulators have consistently misled the public about glyphosate’s safety. As recently as last year, the German Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety, BVL, told the Commission there was “no evidence of teratogenicity” (ability to cause birth defects) for glyphosate.

    BVL made this comment in its rebuttal[2] of an independent scientific study published last year by Argentine scientists. The study showed that Roundup and glyphosate cause birth defects in frogs and chickens at concentrations much lower than those used in agricultural spraying.[3] The study was prompted by reports of high rates of birth defects and cancers in areas of South America growing genetically modified (GM) Roundup Ready soy, which is engineered to tolerate being sprayed liberally with glyphosate herbicide.

    In its rebuttal of the Argentine study, BVL cited as proof of glyphosate’s safety the industry studies submitted for the Commission’s 2002 approval of glyphosate (the approval that is currently in force).

    But the authors of the new report obtained the approval documents and found that contrary to BVL’s claim, industry’s own studies, conducted in the 1980s and 1990s, showed that glyphosate/Roundup causes birth defects in experimental animals. In some cases, these effects occurred at low doses.

    The German authorities and the EU Commission’s ECCO expert review panel[4] whitewashed the findings and the Commission approved the herbicide.

    Claire Robinson, a co-author of the new report and spokesperson for the sustainability NGO Earth Open Source, which published it, said, “This looks like a thirty-year cover-up by industry and regulators and it has certainly placed the public at risk. Roundup is used not only by farmers but by home gardeners and in school grounds and other public areas, in part because of false marketing claims that it is safe.”

    Commission delays review of glyphosate

    A new, more stringent pesticide regulation comes into force in the EU this June. An objective review of glyphosate under this new regulation would almost certainly result in a ban. This is because under the regulation, independent studies have to be taken into consideration. Many of these studies, summarised in the new report, show that glyphosate and Roundup cause birth defects, cancer, genetic damage, endocrine disruption, and other serious effects, often at very low doses.

    Glyphosate was due to be reviewed in 2012. But late last year, the Commission quietly passed a directive delaying the review of glyphosate and 38 other pesticides until 2015.[5]

    Moreover, in 2015, glyphosate will be reviewed under lax, outdated standards. This is because the Commission has failed to complete the data requirements (the tests that industry has to do) for the new regulation in time for industry to do the new tests. So glyphosate will likely sail through its 2015 review and will not be reviewed under up-to-date, more stringent data requirements for another 15 years, in 2030.[6]

    Claire Robinson said, “Glyphosate could get a free regulatory ride until 2030, at a time when biotech companies are pressuring the EU for permission to cultivate glyphosate-tolerant GM seeds in Europe. This would lead to a huge increase in the use of glyphosate in Europe, as has happened in North and South America. The beneficiary of the Commission’s delay will be the pesticide industry; the victim will be public health.

    “The Commission must cancel the delay and conduct an immediate review of glyphosate and Roundup, taking into consideration the independent scientific literature. In the meantime, it must apply the precautionary principle and withdraw the herbicide from use in Europe until the review has been completed.”



    1. Antoniou, M., Habib, M., Howard, C.V., Jennings, R.C., Leifert, C., Nodari, R. O., Robinson, C., Fagan, J. 2011. Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark? Earth Open Source. June.

    2. BVL, Germany. 2010. Glyphosate – Comments from Germany on the paper by Paganelli, A. et al. (2010): “Glyphosate-based Herbicides Produce Teratogenic Effects on Vertebrates by Impairing Retinoic Acid Signaling”. October 19.

    3. Paganelli, A., Gnazzo, V. et al. 2010. Glyphosate-based herbicides produce teratogenic effects on vertebrates by impairing retinoic acid signaling. Chem Res Toxicol 23(10): 1586–1595.

    4. This review role is now performed by the EFSA’s PPR Panel.

    5. European Commission. 2010. Commission Directive 2010/77/EU of 10 November 2010 amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards the expiry dates for inclusion in Annex I of certain active substances. OJ L 230, 19.8.1991.

    6. The detailed reasons for this delay are explained in the new report. Details as above.
    dr rich olree

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s