British Psychiatrist Slams TeenScreen

Excerpted from Interview of Joanna Moncrieff, MD
Interviewer: Claudia Hammond
January 3, 2007
Audio can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBfA2OBirBI

“All in the Mind” reports from the U.S.A. on the increasing controversial mental health screening programs for school children. Now, here’s Claudia Hammond with “All in the Mind”

Claudia Hammond: The biggest screening program is TeenScreen; it’s a quick questionnaire designed for 9-18 year olds. And the idea is to highlight anyone who might have symptoms of a psychiatric problem.

But not everyone is happy with the idea. Everyday teenage behaviour might be pathologized as illness and that the more children who are screened the more children will end up on psychiatric medication. And some parents are unhappy that their children were given the test at all.

Claudia Hammond: Joanna, in Chelsea’s case, the issue of consent did seem to be a big problem. But if in principal, if parental consent is obtained and it’s all voluntary, I mean it sounds like a kind of laudable aim to try and screen individuals.

Joanna Moncrieff: Well firstly on the issue of consent, in order for it to be informed consent, parents really ought to be told that there is no evidence that screening is actually going to prevent suicide, which is one of the main reasons it was introduced and also that the evidence about standard psychiatric treatment; such as drug treatments in children is questionable.

For example the trials on the use of antidepressants in children are inconsistent and many of them show that antidepressants do not have good effects in children. So parental consent needs to be properly informed consent. And I’m not at all convinced that the parents are getting the full facts when they’re being asked about whether to submit their children to this screening program.

I think problem with screening is it, it’s already suggesting way before you get into a clinical interview that it’s already starting to reframe peoples’ problems in medical terms and so even if the people who do this screening test don’t actually say explicitly to the children that they’ve got a psychiatric disorder called “this”. The children will take away from the experience of screening that they have a psychiatric problem and that they’re psychiatrically ill and in today’s’ climate many people will assume that that means that they need drug treatment. One test of the screening instrument that happened in Colorado diagnosed 50% of children as having evidence of possibly having some psychiatric disorder.

Claudia Hammond: 50%? That really is quite high isn’t it?

Joanna Moncrieff: It is indeed. And although not all of those people would probably have a confirmed diagnoses after a clinical interview, you’ve already started to suggest to them and their families that there’s something’s wrong and that what is wrong is a medical or psychiatric problem.

Claudia Hammond: So Joanna, if it’s all voluntary like that and it’s framed in such a way that the children themselves and their parents know exactly what it is they’re filling in and what this test can do and can’t do; isn’t that sort of reasonable to sort of highlight things if you can do it in a very sensitive way?

Joanna Moncrieff: Well first of all, as you know it hasn’t always been done in a voluntary way; often the screening has been implemented when parents haven’t objected to it rather then actually parents actively agreeing to their children to be screened. But secondly I think although many children will attend a clinical interview and won’t necessarily go on to be diagnosed and put on drug treatment. Actually even the experience of going to see a psychiatrist may be very frightening and very stigmatizing for some people, especially some young people. I think as psychiatrists we get immune to that and loose sight of how perturbing it is to be told that even might have a psychiatric problem. And of course some children will end up on drug treatment and we know that more and more children are being put on drug treatment. And I think that there is not enough concern about that at the moment.

Claudia Hammond: Joanna , what do you think will happen here? Will we see this coming across the Atlantic and being introduced in schools in the U.K. do you think?

Joanna Moncrieff: I don’t know whether we’ll actually get the full screening, with use of screening instruments. But we already see evidence in the U.K. of the sort of attitudes that inspired screening in the U.S.

For example, many more childhood behavioural problems are being labelled as psychiatric disorders, are being given diagnostic labels and the use of a range of psychiatric drugs such as Ritalin and stimulants, antidepressants and antipsychotics; their uses all increasing in line with trends in the United States albeit not as dramatically.

Claudia Hammond: If screening programs do start to appear over here we’ll keep you up to date on “All in the Mind” But in the meantime do let us know what you think about the idea of screening teenagers in schools. You can email us at allinthemind@bbc.co.uk

+++
Joanna is a Senior Lecturer in Psychiatry at University College London, department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Science. She has published several critical reviews of psychiatric drug treatments, as well as papers on the history of psychiatry. She is the founding member and co chair person of the Critical Psychiatry Network (web site: www.critpsynet.freeuk.com). This is a network of psychiatrists in the UK who challenge some of the orthodox thinking in psychiatry, especially the emphasis on the medical model of psychiatric disorder, and the link between psychiatry and coercion.

NY Times: Lilly Settles For 500 Million

This article is from the New York Times. I understand that "Zyprexa" is Prozac repackaged. It is an end run around the expiration of the Prozac patent. By making minor changes, Lilly was able to start up a new patent, thus getting richer by selling a drug that couldn't be copied. But bad drugs are bad drugs. Already discredited for its effect as "Prozac", it is still causing trouble in its new incarnation.

Lilly to Pay Up to $500 Million to Settle Claims


By ALEX BERENSON
Published: January 4, 2007
Eli Lilly agreed today to pay up to $500 million to settle 18,000 lawsuits from people who claimed they developed diabetes or other diseases after taking Zyprexa, Lilly’s drug for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder

Including earlier settlements over Zyprexa, Lilly has now agreed to pay at least $1.2 billion to 28,500 people who claim they were injured by the drug. At least 1,200 suits are still pending, the company said. About 20 million people worldwide have taken Zyprexa since its introduction in 1996.

The settlement covers cases filed in state and federal courts by 14 plaintiffs’ law firms or groups of firms, Lilly said. The federal suits have been overseen by a judge in Brooklyn, Jack B. Weinstein of the Eastern District of New York.

The settlement will not affect civil or criminal investigations pending over Zyprexa from state attorneys general and federal prosecutors, which are continuing.

Both Lilly and lawyers for plaintiffs said they were pleased with the agreement. With sales of $4.2 billion last year, Zyprexa is Lilly’s largest-selling drug and a major contributor to the company’s profits. Lilly shares were little changed after the settlement announcement.

Zyprexa is the brand name for olanzapine, a potent chemical that binds to receptors in the brain to reduce psychotic hallucinations and delusions. Clinical trials show Zyprexa also causes severe weight gain and increases in cholesterol and blood sugar in many patients.

Documents provided to The New York Times last month by a lawyer who represents mentally ill patients show that Lilly played down the risks of Zyprexa to doctors as the drug’s sales soared after its introduction in 1996. The internal documents show that Lilly’s own clinical trials found that 16 percent of people taking Zyprexa gained more than 66 pounds after a year on the drug, a far higher figure than the company disclosed to doctors.

The documents also show that Lilly marketed the drug as appropriate for patients who do not meet accepted diagnoses of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, Zyprexa’s only approved uses. By law, drugmakers may only promote their drugs for diseases in which the Food and Drug Administration has found the medicines to be safe and effective, although doctors may prescribe drugs in any way they see fit.

In response to questions about the information in the documents, Lilly has denied any wrongdoing and said it provided all relevant information to doctors and the F.D.A. Lilly has also said it did not promote Zyprexa for conditions other than schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.

In 2004, a panel of the American Diabetes Association found that Zyprexa caused diabetes more than other widely used antipsychotic drugs in part because it tends to cause much more weight gain. But the F.D.A. has never made a similar finding. Instead, the F.D.A. added a warning in 2003 to the label of Zyprexa and other new antipsychotic drugs about their tendency to cause high blood sugar.

The settlement follows an additional $700 million agreement in 2005 covering 8,000 patients, as well as 2,500 individual settlements whose total value has not been disclosed, Lilly said. The 2005 settlement valued each claim at nearly $90,000 per plaintiff, while today’s agreement values claims at more than $27,000 per plaintiff.

The lower value for the new claims comes in part because of the F.D.A. label change, which has allowed Lilly to contend that it adequately warned doctors of Zyprexa’s risks after 2003. The label change may also help to protect Lilly from other lawsuits going forward, drug industry analysts and lawyers say.

In its statement, Lilly said the settlement did not change its views that Zyprexa is a safe and effective treatment for mental illness.

"We wanted to reduce significant uncertainties involved in litigating such complex cases," Sidney Taurel, Lilly’s chief executive, said in the statement.

Richard Meadow, one of the lead lawyers for plaintiffs, said the deal was fair to both sides. "Prolonging this litigation further is in no one’s best interest," he said.

Letter To The Editor In The San Francisco Chronicle

I want to thank you for your Dec. 27 article, "Illiteracy reinforces prisoners' captivity" which provides interesting statistics on the enormous number of prisoners who are poorly educated or illiterate.

The illiterate person is cut off from being able to communicate with or understand the rest of society that he depends on. Too many find crime as their only solution. If we could just get our schools to educate children, we will have fewer people turn to crime and then fewer people in prison, instead of more and more.

My plea is not for money. I am begging parents and school officials to reject the insidious idea that schools are supposed to be mental-health clinics and return to real teaching methods that produce real results: Children who can read, write, do math, and have knowledge of history to make informed political decisions, and sciences to have vocational choices.

A Brit Doubts The Existence Of ADHD

Here's an interesting rant by a Brit who doesn't buy the ADHD fraud. It's from the Sunday Mirror newspaper.

NAUGHTY KIDS NEED DISCIPLINE NOT DRUGS

Paul Routledge

I seem to have stirred up a hornet's nest by doubting the existence of so-called Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

One reader, who claims two children with ADHD, accuses me of "hurtful, unhelpful comments".

Another points out that children today sorely lack discipline.

And I hear from South Wales of a family whose "very modest" demand is for a three bedroom council house because one of their two sons might have the disorder. This is obviously a very divisive issue. It is also a hidden scandal.

Let's look at the facts. ADHD was first described by a Dr Friedrich Hoffman in 1845, in his book of poems about "Fidgety Philip". The symptoms were inattention, fidgeting, restlessness - and noisily tapping pencils.

This sounds like most children in my experience. They can't sit still, and their attention span is shorter than a politician's.

Over a century later, doctors in the US - who get paid in proportion to the treatment they say is necessary - realised this syndrome is a goldmine. ADHD was unknown in my childhood, but like so many Yankee ideas it soon crossed the Atlantic. And if we are to believe the medical profession, there are now 366,000 sufferers under the age of 18 in the UK.

Official figures from the Department of Health show that more than 1,000 prescriptions for powerful drugs are doled out every day to treat behavioural disorders in children. GPs prescribed drugs such as Ritalin, known as the "chemical cosh", on 384,000 occasions last year - a fourfold increase since 1997. An estimated 32,000 children are being drugged every day, at a cost to the NHS of £13.5million a year.

A whole generation is in danger of becoming drug-dependent because parents and doctors want to "medicalise" bad behaviour, rather than control it through diet, discipline and parental devotion. Consultant child psychiatrist Dr Sami Timimi argues that medicalisation of childhood problems is due to a search for "an easy cure that fits in with our fast lifestyles and gives us a quick answer".

Real-life TV programmes also glorify misbehaved children, and pander to the hand-wringing inadequacy of parents. Stroppy Johnny makes good telly, but it also encourages imitative behaviour.

So far, so bad. But I also learn that drug companies secretly fund support groups for parents of kids diagnosed with behavioural problems. In other words, they are fuelling this Ritalin bonanza - despite evidence linking their very profitable drugs to sudden deaths and heart problems.

Even Health minister Andy Burnham accepts that there is "limited information" about the long-term effects of these drugs.

I am not a doctor, and do not pretend to medical knowledge. But my sense of smell is unimpaired, and this business stinks.

Is TeenScreen Controversial?

You be the judge.

See video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfU9puZQKBY&eurl= (Watch full screen so you don't miss the actual "motivational poster" of a TeenScreen employee who advocates "Drugging America's Children -- One Child At A Time".

Do you want to help?

To augment the national controversy, pick a school in your neck of the woods and raise the dickens with school board members, legislators, newspapers, radio and your local TV news. Any talk radio show, for example, would be interested in what you have to say about the national controversy of the secretive TeenScreen which will not release their financial records (what are they hiding?) and refuse to make their suicide survey public.

Any radio show will go "Huh, what, really??? We can do a show on that!" when you tell them them that school children as young as 9 years old are being asked questions about suicide and then are being referred to dangerous and controversial "treatment" (psychiatric drugs).

Drug Company Lies

Here's a great article from the Austin American-Statesman:

And, for additional information concerning Drug Company illegal acts, lawsuits and funding of Psychiatric Programs, go to www.winhs.org for routine updates.

Leading Pharmaceutical Company, Johnson and Johnson and Several Subsidiaries Misrepresented the Safety and Effectiveness of Anti-Psychotic Drug (Risperdal) – Then Influenced State Officials into Making the Suspect Drug a Standard Treatment in Public Mental Programs.

By Jason Embry, W. Gardner Selby
December 16, 2006

Texas Attorney General, Greg Abbott joined the suit and alleges official State's mental facilities were duped into using the drug. A lawsuit against the pharmaceutical company claims State official pushed the drug and was rewarded with money.

Attorney General Greg Abbott joined the lawsuit filed in Travis County district court by Allen Jones, a former investigator for the state of Pennsylvania, against Johnson & Johnson Inc. and five related companies. Jones says in the lawsuit that he learned of payments to at least one Texas mental health official in interviews he conducted as an investigator. No official is named in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit, which came to light Friday, seeks to recover for the state untallied alleged overcharges to the state's Medicaid program, which pays for health care for low-income people.

Jones' lawsuit alleges that the companies launched a drug named Risperdal in 1994 to treat schizophrenia. About the same time, the state was developing a protocol, or treatment guidelines, for which drugs should be used in public mental health programs. The defendants "provided substantial financial contributions to and improperly influenced the development" of the protocols, the lawsuit said, and Risperdal took precedence in the protocols over cheaper, equally effective medicines.

The drug later received recommendations as the medicine of choice in the state's mental health protocol for treating children and adolescents, even though it lacked a Food and Drug Administration indication for those age groups, the lawsuit says. It says side effects and health risks include increased chance of stroke, renal failure and hyperglycemia.

The companies pushed Risperdal in other states through paid consultants on expert panels, peer-to-peer marketing strategies and "administrative decisions made by a select few public officials," the lawsuit says. The companies sent an unnamed Texas official around the country as a spokesman for the drug, and they hired third-party contractors to conceal their control and funding of medical education programs, speakers' bureaus and clinical research that promoted the benefits and safety of Risperdal, the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit says at least 17 states, including Texas, have implemented the protocol or are doing so.

"We allege it's a scheme whereby they passed off as medical science phony representations and misleading facts about the efficacy and appropriateness of these drugs," said Thomas Melsheimer, a lawyer for Jones.

Abbott's office declined to comment on the lawsuit, as did spokesmen for Johnson & Johnson and the state's Health and Human Services Commission, which oversees the Medicaid program. A commission spokesman did say Texas paid 308,000 claims totaling $73.5 million for Risperdal in 2005.

Melsheimer described Jones as a "classic whistle-blower" who filed the lawsuit in 2004 on behalf of Texas to recover the companies' overcharges. Because of his whistle-blower status, the lawsuit was sealed from public view until Abbott joined it.

Copyright 2001 – 2006 Cox Texas Newspapers, LLC. All Rights Reserved

Ouch! Burned my fingers on this one...

This is a letter to the editor from a mother in Fort Madison, Iowa. It is apparently an answer to an attack on a previous letter she wrote, but the content of this letter is self-explanatory.

It is from the Opinion section of the Fort Madison Daily Democrat newspaper.

Fort Madison Daily, Iowa

December 19, 2006

Mission accomplished - My objective was to make parents think twice about TeenScreen

I wrote the original letter about the Teen Screen test being given in the schools. Ms. Gutman and Ms. Jarvis said "much of the letter was inaccurate and seemingly misinformed." I'm wondering what was inaccurate or misinformed.

The first thing they addressed was that the test was given with the consent of the parents and the students. I never said anything to indicate it wasn't. As a matter of fact, in my letter I said "Central Lee sends home a permission slip, but the permission slip gives the parent no idea of the content of the test or the repercussions." So I wasn't inaccurate or misinformed in that.

My letter said that it's being billed as a "suicide prevention test." Their letter called it a "suicide risk screening program." Very little difference there. Their letter said "TeenScreen is a screening program only and does not involve diagnosis or treatment as the letter insinuates." I believe Teresa Rhoades of Indiana would have to disagree with that. She has filed a lawsuit because her daughter was diagnosed and labeled at school without the benefit of her parents' presence. By the time her daughter came home from school at the end of the day, she was very distraught because she didn't understand the meaning of obsessive compulsive disorder and social anxiety disorder. I have used her name with permission and she also gave me permission to include her e-mail address. You may check the facts with her directly at mason101459@comcast.net or Google Teen Screen Lawsuits.

Their letter goes on to explain how this test is not "affiliated with or funded by any pharmaceutical companies." I find it very interesting that you should suggest that, as I never suggested any such thing in my letter. I suggested that the desire was to put the teen on psychotropic drugs. A doctor doesn't have to have any affiliation with a pharmaceutical company to prescribe a medication for a patient. The quote "me thinks thee doth protest too much" comes to mind.

You then said that teen suicide is the second leading cause of death for teens. And while any number is unacceptable, it only stands to reason that it would be second only to trauma. After all, most teens don't die of heart attacks or strokes. You made it sound as if we're in the midst of an epidemic of teen suicides. As anyone who's been following these letters can see, that's hardly the case. Teen suicide is actually very rare.

As the last letter said, do we really need a test putting ideas in the minds of emotionally healthy young people when it's highly likely that a teen who's considering suicide will show signs that family, teachers, friends or clergy will already have picked up on and be working with? I also listed some of the questions on the test. I can assure you those were neither inaccurate nor misinformed. My daughter took the test and stated unequivocally those questions were on the test. My goal was to get parents to think about what is going on with their children at school and check it out. So I very much appreciate your letter in that if people have been reading the Letters to the Editor, I have very likely achieved that goal.

Jeannie Hetzer

Ft. Madison

TeenScreen's Evil Sister Sued by Texas Attorney General

TMAP is the Texas Medication Algorithm Project -- a TeenScreen-style program concocted by drug companies to influence government officials to push the newest most expensive antipsychotic drugs. This program and TeenScreen were "recommended" by the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. Both are tools of Big Pharma -- the pharmaceutical industry.

But a whistleblower has initiated a huge lawsuit by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott against Johnson & Johnson and five related companies, claiming that an official was paid under the table to recommend a certain drug with no superiority over other drugs available for the same purpose except for it's greater price tag.

Read about the case by clicking here. It's a fascinating story, and another crack in the Big Pharma phacade.

Federal Government Lends A Helping Hand To Robber Baron Pharmaceutical Companies

A fascinating article in the Online Journal has exposed an egregious government shenanigan designed to provide a free marketing campaign for the multi-billion dollar per year Big Pharma pharmaceutical industry.

"Under the guise of combating the stigma of mental illness, the U.S. government will soon begin a massive campaign of psychiatric indoctrination, designed to increase the acceptance of psychiatric chemical imbalance theories and labeling, and to pave the way for national psychiatric screening, driving more Americans into seeking psychiatric drug treatment," according to the article.

It's always amazing to see what lengths these insanely rich mega-corporations will go to in their attempt to covertly promote their dangerous and controversial psychiatric mood drugs and antidepressants -- especially in view of the increasing resistance to forthright promotion of the products as the public becomes more aware and informed of the fact that these "antidepressants" actually promote suicide and homicide.

Evidence Mounts on Antidepressant-Suicide Link

The current debate isn't really on whether antidepressants cause suicide, but rather which antidepressants cause it more often! In a recent article in Medscape medical news, that issue was seen as an important part of a Finnish study, which was originally published in the Archives of General Psychiatry.

"Among suicidal subjects who had ever used antidepressants, the current use of any antidepressant was associated with a markedly increased risk of attempted suicide..." according to the article.

This study and most others still ignore the obvious link between antidepressants and homicide/violence. But it's a step in the right direction.

The effect is being felt, too. Yesterday the FDA stated that they are expanding the "black-box" warning label on antidepressants to include young adults as potential victims of suicide or suicidal thinking. This is a BIG step in the right direction. There has been a black box warning (so called because it must be in a black box on the product) warning about this reaction to the drug in children and young adults for several years already.

Xanax-Crazed Boys Become Violent

KHOU.com, a Houston television station, carries this story about a group of young boys that became unspeakably violent with a Hispanic boy they captured. One has already been sentenced to life in prison. The other just got a sentence of 90 years, and will be eligible for parole in 30. But the real story is hidden in the copy. We've pasted the first part of the KHOU article, down to where the truth is revealed. And guess what? It's exactly what this whole blog is about. If you want to read the rest of the article, click here.

A 17-year-old suburban teen was sentenced Monday to 90 years in prison in the brutal attack of a Hispanic boy who was beaten, kicked, stomped, burned and sodomized with the plastic pole of a patio umbrella.

Keith Turner was the second teen convicted of aggravated sexual assault in the April attack at a house in Spring, north of Houston. David Henry Tuck, 18, was convicted and sentenced to life in prison on Nov. 16.

Turner was convicted late Friday after about 90 minutes of deliberations. The jury took about five hours over two days to reach the sentence of 90 years.

Turner will have to serve at least 30 years before becoming eligible for parole.

Although Turner was the younger of the assailants and didn’t have the history of racial attacks that colored Tuck’s past, it was his idea to use the patio umbrella pole in the attack.

Turner, Tuck, the victim and two other teens were partying at a house in Spring, drinking and taking cocaine and Xanax...

From The Atlanta Journal Constitution

The Atlanta Journal Constitution
Drugs for preschoolers? Hit alarm

The controversy over using medications to tame easily distracted and hyperactive schoolchildren hasn't stopped millions of parents from asking doctors to prescribe the powerful stimulants for their children.

The benefits of the medication — better school performance and a calmer child — outweigh the risks, many parents believe.

However, the most recent trend of prescribing Ritalin, Adderall, Concerta and other controlled medications for preschoolers ought to alarm federal regulators, especially now that some studies are suggesting low doses of the drugs could be helpful in very young children with moderate to severe forms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD.

Such "off-label" use of stimulants for children younger than age 6 is prohibited by the Food and Drug Administration. Yet a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2000 estimated at least 200,000 preschoolers were getting prescriptions for the drugs. Most experts believe the number has since doubled.

Caution is all the more important because researchers are finally starting to compile data on the use of the drugs in children 3 to 6 years old.

In one study, 40 percent of the children who took Ritalin developed side effects. About 11 percent of the children were withdrawn from the 70-week study because of severe problems, including irritability, weight loss, insomnia and slowed growth. Those are rates well above what happens to school-age children who experience similar side effects.

Still, Dr. Scott Kollins, a Duke University psychologist, believes limited use of Ritalin and other stimulants should not be ruled out in very young patients with extreme cases of hyperactivity. Small doses of the drug significantly improved behavior in about half the children in the study. "It's very clear there is a set of kids for whom this will be very important," Kollins told the Scripps Howard News Service.

That echoes the justification pediatricians and child psychiatrists used decades ago when Ritalin first came on the market. The drug was supposed to be prescribed only in the most extreme cases and for only a few years, until children outgrew the brain chemistry problem thought to cause the disorder. Researchers estimate 3 percent to 5 percent of children have ADHD.

But over the last 20 years, use of the stimulants became commonplace, with many elementary and middle school teachers reporting at least a third of their male students taking Ritalin or one of the other drugs daily. Previous studies have indicated that metro Atlanta is a hotbed for prescriptions in school-age children.

More recently, advertising campaigns by the drug manufacturers have emphasized that older children and adults could improve their performance in college or on the job by taking the medication.

There is little question that drugs are effective at helping regulate brain activity. But they are powerful compounds, even when prescribed in low doses, and their long-term effects are still largely unknown. Using stimulants instead of teaching children with mild forms of the disorder how to modify behavior remains controversial.

The FDA should post stronger warning labels and notices to reinforce to parents and physicians alike that widespread use of these stimulants in preschoolers is not encouraged.

— Mike King, for the editorial board

From The Atlanta Journal Constitution

The Atlanta Journal Constitution
Drugs for preschoolers? Hit alarm

The controversy over using medications to tame easily distracted and hyperactive schoolchildren hasn't stopped millions of parents from asking doctors to prescribe the powerful stimulants for their children.

The benefits of the medication — better school performance and a calmer child — outweigh the risks, many parents believe.

However, the most recent trend of prescribing Ritalin, Adderall, Concerta and other controlled medications for preschoolers ought to alarm federal regulators, especially now that some studies are suggesting low doses of the drugs could be helpful in very young children with moderate to severe forms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD.

Such "off-label" use of stimulants for children younger than age 6 is prohibited by the Food and Drug Administration. Yet a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2000 estimated at least 200,000 preschoolers were getting prescriptions for the drugs. Most experts believe the number has since doubled.

Caution is all the more important because researchers are finally starting to compile data on the use of the drugs in children 3 to 6 years old.

In one study, 40 percent of the children who took Ritalin developed side effects. About 11 percent of the children were withdrawn from the 70-week study because of severe problems, including irritability, weight loss, insomnia and slowed growth. Those are rates well above what happens to school-age children who experience similar side effects.

Still, Dr. Scott Kollins, a Duke University psychologist, believes limited use of Ritalin and other stimulants should not be ruled out in very young patients with extreme cases of hyperactivity. Small doses of the drug significantly improved behavior in about half the children in the study. "It's very clear there is a set of kids for whom this will be very important," Kollins told the Scripps Howard News Service.

That echoes the justification pediatricians and child psychiatrists used decades ago when Ritalin first came on the market. The drug was supposed to be prescribed only in the most extreme cases and for only a few years, until children outgrew the brain chemistry problem thought to cause the disorder. Researchers estimate 3 percent to 5 percent of children have ADHD.

But over the last 20 years, use of the stimulants became commonplace, with many elementary and middle school teachers reporting at least a third of their male students taking Ritalin or one of the other drugs daily. Previous studies have indicated that metro Atlanta is a hotbed for prescriptions in school-age children.

More recently, advertising campaigns by the drug manufacturers have emphasized that older children and adults could improve their performance in college or on the job by taking the medication.

There is little question that drugs are effective at helping regulate brain activity. But they are powerful compounds, even when prescribed in low doses, and their long-term effects are still largely unknown. Using stimulants instead of teaching children with mild forms of the disorder how to modify behavior remains controversial.

The FDA should post stronger warning labels and notices to reinforce to parents and physicians alike that widespread use of these stimulants in preschoolers is not encouraged.

— Mike King, for the editorial board

Throwing The Ship In Reverse

Quote from below article: "Instead of dealing with the overprescription of drug cocktails for children, our government is telling us we have a mental health crisis, and the remedy is universal mental health screening. A major government campaign is now under way, sweetened with federal grants, to subject all children to mental health screening."

https://www.copleynews.com/

Copley News Service
December 1, 2006
Parents worry about prescription drugs, too
By: Phyllis Schlafly

Methamphetamine and marijuana aren't the only drugs parents worry about. The problems caused by prescription combinations called "drug cocktails" have finally broken into the national news stream.

A recent Page 1 of the New York Times described Stephen, age 15, who takes antidepressants Zoloft and Desyrel, plus anticonvulsant Lamictal to moderate his moods, plus the stimulant Focalin XR to improve concentration. His brother Jacob, age 14, takes Focalin XR for concentration, plus the anticonvulsant Depakote to moderate his moods, plus the antipsychotic Risperdal to reduce anger, plus Catapres to induce sleep.

Over the last three years, each boy has been prescribed 28 different psychiatric drugs and has seen 11 psychiatrists. Gone are the days when a visit to a psychiatrist meant lying on a couch to recite your troubles. Treatment today means taking prescription drugs, lots of them.

More than 3 million children are using the most commonly prescribed drug, Ritalin, and it is routinely combined with other drugs. Last year, 1.6 million children and teenagers were given at least two psychiatric drugs in combination, and 500,000 were given at least three.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration requires manufacturers to prove the safety of each drug. But hardly any studies have examined the safety or effectiveness of drugs used in combination.

The American Journal of Psychiatry in 2003 found only six controlled trials of two-drug combinations, four of which failed to show any benefit, and a fifth showed bad side effects. Scientific studies of combinations of three or more drugs are nonexistent.

There are no studies showing long-term safety of psychiatric drugs used on children or the effect on children's developing brains and bodies. The vast majority of these drugs are not FDA-approved for use in children, but they are prescribed for children nevertheless.

Two of the three classes of these drugs are under the FDA's stringent warnings for suicide and violence. They also interfere with learning, causing violence, neurological problems, diabetes and heart attacks.

Ritalin is prescribed to address what is called attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, a disorder first defined in 1980. The pediatric guidelines for diagnosing ADHD are subjective, such as, child often has difficulty awaiting his turn, occasionally may do things compulsively, easily distracted from tasks, fails to give close attention to details, and makes careless mistakes.

A few years later, ADHD was classified as a disability and a federal cash incentive program was initiated for low-income families with children who are said to have ADHD. A family could get $450 a month for each child diagnosed with ADHD, with the cost of treatment and medication for low-income children covered by Medicaid.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, passed in 1990, mandates that "eligible children receive access to special education and related services." The school is required to craft an Individualized Education Plan to accommodate each child, which may include drugs prescribed by a medical doctor.

The U.S. Department of Education classified ADHD as a handicap, and in 1991 schools began receiving education grants of $400 a year for each ADHD child.

Since labeling kids ADHD brings more money to the schools, it's not surprising that schools often pressure parents to get an ADHD diagnosis and put their child on Ritalin. School have also found it useful to deal with behavioral and discipline problems by giving boys a drug to get them to sit down, shut up, and do what they're told.

The FDA reported on Feb. 8 that 25 people (including 19 children) died and 54 suffered serious cardiovascular problems after taking drugs prescribed to treat ADHD between 1999 and 2003. An FDA advisory panel finally voted in favor of requiring the famous "black box" warning on these drugs.

Instead of dealing with the overprescription of drug cocktails for children, our government is telling us we have a mental health crisis, and the remedy is universal mental health screening. A major government campaign is now under way, sweetened with federal grants, to subject all children to mental health screening.

The screening usually means having the child fill out a survey about his own behavior. If his answers don't comport with what the so-called experts want, the kid can be referred for treatment, and treatment usually includes medication.

It's up to parents to stop this unscientific, ineffective, and dangerous government intrusion into the minds and values of our children. State laws should require parental consent for all mental health screening, and Congress should pass the Child Medication Safety Act, to prohibit schools from denying entry to a child whose parents choose not to put him on drugs.

Phyllis Schlafly is a lawyer, conservative political analyst and the author of the newly revised and expanded "Supremacists." She can be contacted by e-mail at phyllis@eagleforum.org.

---

What can a person DO about it right now using the keyboard their fingers are on?
For starters, get this petition into the hands of everyone possible: http://www.petitiononline.com/TScreen/petition.html
Not enough Americans know about this grand psychiatric / pharmaceutical / government plan. But watch out when they do!

++

The Shoe Drops

This quote is from a news article on CNN, regarding the death of Anna Nicole Smith's son:

A private pathologist concluded that Daniel Smith died from a lethal combination of methadone and two antidepressants. Official toxicology results have not been publicly released.

So we know he is another victim of psych drugs. Prozac does more than cause depression. It kills.

Letter To The Editor In Fort Madison, Iowa

Daily Democrat

Fort Madison, Iowa

November 10, 2006

Parents need to check out this TeenScreen program

To the parents of students at Ft. Madison & Central Lee Schools:

I discovered recently that both of these schools participate in the TeenScreen program. It's a psychological evaluation given to middle school and high school students. Central Lee sends home a permission slip, but the permission slip gives the parent no idea of the content of the test or the repercussions. Below is an idea of some of the questions on the test.

Has there been a time when nothing was fun for you and you just weren't interested in anything?

Has there been a time when you felt you couldn't do anything well or that you weren't as good-looking or as smart as other people?

How often did your parents get annoyed or upset with you because of the way you were feeling or acting?

Have you often felt very nervous when you've had to do things in front of people?

Have you often worried a lot before you were going to play a sport or game or do some other activity?

Have you tried to kill yourself in the last year?

Are you still thinking of killing yourself?

Have you thought seriously about killing yourself?

I can't imagine any normal teenager that hasn't experienced the first five of these questions. This test is billed as a suicide prevention test. However, it goes much further than that. From the results of this test students are labeled with:

Social Phobia

Panic Disorder

Anxiety

Obsessive Compulsive Disorder

Active Suicide Ideation

Passive Suicide Ideation

Along with these so-called disorders goes the desire to put the teen on psychotropic drugs. According to the web sites I checked there is a 84-94% misdiagnosis rate with this test. I suggest all parents go to Google and type in ‘Teen Screen' and read through the various web sites. By typing in this web site, you can read the test in its entirety: http://www.psychsearch.net/teenscreen_lawsuit/31_4.pdf As you can see, you have to have Adobe Acrobat Reader to view this site. If I had known what was in these tests I would never have allowed my children to take them.

I am blessed with children who have a lot of common sense and a healthy sense of self-esteem. My daughter said a teacher stopped her in the hall and wanted to discuss the results of her test. My daughter told her the test was stupid and she wasn't interested in discussing it: end of discussion. Her comment to me was that “the guy who designed this test must have been high.” My son said the test was ridiculously long and he didn't read it, just randomly answered the questions. His was kicked out by the computer as unreliable. He was quite pleased with himself.

In the interests of your children, please check it out.

Jeannie Hetzer

Ft. Madison

Mom Wallops Teenscreen Right Between The Eyes

Now Playing: Teresa Rhoades, a mother from Indiana, wallops TeenScreen right between the eyes. Teresa and her husband, Michael, sued in federal court because their daughter Chelsea was screened by TeenScreen and diagnosed with two mental disorders - all without her parent's knowledge.

You can see the video here: www.psychsearch.net/teenscreen.html

We should give thanks to Teresa and others like her who have stood up against TeenScreen from the start - initially as lone voices that have grown into a giant rebellious chorus!

Teresa has one Thanksgiving request to ask of you:

From: IndianaPatMom@comcast.net
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 11:31 AM
To: IndianaPatMom@comcast.net
Subject: Thanksgiving Request

Dear Friends,

While you're visiting friends and family Thursday, please sit everyone down at a computer and show them the online TeenScreen petition and have them sign it and forward it to everyone they know: http://www.petitiononline.com/TScreen/petition.html The only way to win this war is to inform enough people fast enough. Please do this as you are giving thank s for your freedom, your family, your friends but remember the children need us to stand up and protect their rights.

Please do this before you eat all the turkey and take a nap!

With much love,

Teresa Rhoades

Indiana Parents Against TeenScreen Mom

Indiana Politician on TeenScreen

Check out the video here. Just click on start to hear Eric Miller, the founder of Advance America, the largest pro-family organization in Indiana, talk about why we need to deep six TeenScreen.

Texas Hate-Crimer Was On Xanax

Texas teenager David Henry Tuck was sentenced to life in prison after an assault on a Hispanic teenager during which he sodomized the boy with an umbrella, yelling "White Power". The event occurred at a drug party where the main course included Xanax, a Prozac-style "anti-depression" drug.

Tuck has a history of this kind of behavior and was considered by the judge to be beyond rehabilitation. That's fine, but what about the Xanax? We've seen WAY too many violent crimes under the influence of this family of drugs to simply dismiss it. Would he have gone so crazy without the drug? His home town of Houston is where the mother drowned her four kids in a bathtub while she was on Prozac.

These drugs kill and should be outlawed.

Read the story at this link.

TeenScreen Hit Again

Enraged parents' groups around the country are continuing to explode in the face of the TeenScreen program. Seen as an attempt to hijack the school system as a feeder source for down-trending psychiatric funding and drug sales, TeenScreen is a sham program that asks a few questions of school children, then on the basis of these few answers pretends to predict whether these children are prone to suicide or exhibiting other signs of psychosis.

The answers to inane questions like, "Has there been a time when nothing was fun for you and you just weren't interested in anything?" and "Has there been a time when nothing was fun for you and you just weren't interested in anything?" children are being hung with psychiatric labels and encouraged or even coerced into taking drugs.

The latest shot across the bow is in Kenosha, Wisconsin. In an article in the Kenosha News (requires subscription) reporter Chris Barncard describes the outraged reaction of the Kenosha Parents Union which has "spoken out against school boundary changes and Columbia University TeenScreen, a suicide risk screening program being considered for Unified eighth-graders."

This is a reaction that is occuring across the United States, as TeenScreen continues to try to circumvent federal law that requires parental permission for children to participate in the program. TeenScreen spokesmen complain that requests for permission from parents have a low return rate, so they try to use "opt out" forms or give prizes to students who can bring back a signed form. But trickery like this only outrages parents' groups more. It's hard to tell Big Pharma and the psychiatry industry they have to go away, but they do. They have no place nosing around our children in the school system.