One of the most popular and influential authors in the world of alternative solutions to medical problems is Kevin Trudeau, author of the best seller Natural Cures.
One of the points Trudeau makes in his book is the importance of avoiding psychiatric solutions. This is a quote from the book, available at amazon.com:
"Stay away from psychiatrists and psychologists.""Psychiatrists and psychologists do not help the people they treat. Statistics show that the majority of people who are treated by psychiatrists and psychologists actually get worse. Psychiatrists almost always prescribe drugs to their petients. These drugs are some of the most dangerous and deadly pharmaceuticals available today. Did you know that in the last ten years, virtually every violent act committed in schools was perpetrated by a person who either had taken or was currently taking a psychiatric drug? Finally, the research has become so compelling that there are warnings saying that certain psychiatric drugs actually increase the propensity to commit suicide. This is such an important issue that I encourage you to read PSYCHIATRY: THE ULTIMATE BETRAYAL [Note: Also available on amazon.com] and if you are still not convinced that psychiatrists and psychologists should be avoided at all costs, I will personally make a donation to the charity of your choice."
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Sunday, April 23, 2006
Who's Behind It?
We are now experiencing a huge push for psychiatric evaluation in the school systems. They hope to find, through their minimal little tests, that your child needs some expensive drug like Prozac or Ritalin or Adderal.
No parent really wants their child "evaluated" and possibly labeled for life with a mental health issue, nor do they want to wrestle with this bureaucracy to keep from giving their kids drugs. No politician seems to really be behind it, except for a few rabid pro-pharmaceutical regulars. But it keeps moving forward. What is up with that?
Here's where you can see who's really behind it. Go to http://www.signsofsuicide.org/. The pharmaceutical companies that will benefit from this, known collectively as "Big Pharma" are funding it with millions of dollars. The page has actual documents to prove it.
No parent really wants their child "evaluated" and possibly labeled for life with a mental health issue, nor do they want to wrestle with this bureaucracy to keep from giving their kids drugs. No politician seems to really be behind it, except for a few rabid pro-pharmaceutical regulars. But it keeps moving forward. What is up with that?
Here's where you can see who's really behind it. Go to http://www.signsofsuicide.org/. The pharmaceutical companies that will benefit from this, known collectively as "Big Pharma" are funding it with millions of dollars. The page has actual documents to prove it.
Friday, April 21, 2006
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Side Effect Blindness In Big Pharma
Aggressive marketing without regard for the safety of the public is a hallmark of the pharmaceutical drug industry. This poignant article by a former drug company rep illustrates the phenomenon.
After talking one doctor into prescribing a new drug against his better judgment, the rep wound up back in his office bringing a form for him to fill out regarding the life-threatening complications that occurred when he prescribed the drug for one of his patients. "Apparently the company's marketing strategy has been more thoroughly tested than the drug," he told her.
The rest of the site is also interesting.
After talking one doctor into prescribing a new drug against his better judgment, the rep wound up back in his office bringing a form for him to fill out regarding the life-threatening complications that occurred when he prescribed the drug for one of his patients. "Apparently the company's marketing strategy has been more thoroughly tested than the drug," he told her.
The rest of the site is also interesting.
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
Jeffrey Schaler
At the annual awards dinner of the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), the Thomas Szasz (named after the famous critic of psychiatry) was given to Dr. Jeffrey Schaler. You must, must, must listen to his acceptance speech. It is at http://www.cchr.org/uploads/video/dinnerSchaler.wmv
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Demand the FDA Fulfill Its Obligation To Public Safety
I am sending this request to get your assistance on a very vital action that will only take a few minutes of your time. The issue is ADHD drugs. We have received confirmation that many of you have written your letters and THANK YOU. If you haven't yet done it, please write your letter immediately and email me confirmation that you've done it.
Recently, the FDA held hearings on “ADHD” drugs due to numerous reports of hallucinations and psychosis attributed to them. And while the FDA panel did recommend new warning language for these drugs, the panel refused to issue “black box” warnings – the agency’s most severe warning label.
Why? Consider this: There has been a lot of public outcry about millions of children being prescribed ADHD drugs with increasing reports of the drugs causing suicide, psychosis and hallucinations. A few months ago, a leading cardiologist recommended the FDA issue black box warnings due to reports of heart attack, stroke and sudden death from ADHD drugs. So this latest FDA panel --which included psychiatrists with ties to the pharmaceutical industry – had to take some action – so issued increased warning language about the drugs. But why not the black box? Because the FDA appears to be more interested in protecting psychiatric/pharmaceutical interests, than in the public’s interest. When black box warnings are issued, drug manufacturers have to disclose the risks in all advertising.
This is why many of the experts and medical doctors attending the FDA hearing on ADHD drugs called it a sham and said that the FDA yielded to the profit-driven psychiatric/pharmaceutical industry.
The Deputy Director of the Office of Drug Safety himself has stated, “…. products that carry box warnings also have to carry that in their advertising and quite frequently that makes it quite difficult to explicitly advertise that product in direct-to-consumer advertising."
So the issue is simple. Black box warnings mean drug sales go down. The FDA’s own mission statement says it is responsible for “protecting the public health and ensuring the safety, efficacy and security of human and veterinary drugs.” So CCHR is asking everyone to fax letters to the FDA demanding black box warnings on these drugs – and reminding the FDA that they are there to protect the public’s safety and interests–- not psychiatric pharmaceutical interests.
Emails or letters should be sent to the Acting Commissioner of the FDA at:
Andrew C. von Eschenbach, M.D.,
Acting Commissioner
Food and Drug Administration
5600 Fishers Lane
Rockville, MD 20857-0001
Email: andrew.voneschenbach@fda.hhs.gov
(please blind copy your emails to CCHR at fieldactivities@cchr.org
We want to send copies of all these emails to Senator Charles Grassley, the member of Congress who has been addressing the need for oversight of the FDA.
Or you can fax him yourself at 202-224-6020
Senator Charles Grassley
135 Hart Senate Bldg.
Washington, D.C., 20510-1501
Your help is needed on this. So thanks in advance for your assistance.
Recently, the FDA held hearings on “ADHD” drugs due to numerous reports of hallucinations and psychosis attributed to them. And while the FDA panel did recommend new warning language for these drugs, the panel refused to issue “black box” warnings – the agency’s most severe warning label.
Why? Consider this: There has been a lot of public outcry about millions of children being prescribed ADHD drugs with increasing reports of the drugs causing suicide, psychosis and hallucinations. A few months ago, a leading cardiologist recommended the FDA issue black box warnings due to reports of heart attack, stroke and sudden death from ADHD drugs. So this latest FDA panel --which included psychiatrists with ties to the pharmaceutical industry – had to take some action – so issued increased warning language about the drugs. But why not the black box? Because the FDA appears to be more interested in protecting psychiatric/pharmaceutical interests, than in the public’s interest. When black box warnings are issued, drug manufacturers have to disclose the risks in all advertising.
This is why many of the experts and medical doctors attending the FDA hearing on ADHD drugs called it a sham and said that the FDA yielded to the profit-driven psychiatric/pharmaceutical industry.
The Deputy Director of the Office of Drug Safety himself has stated, “…. products that carry box warnings also have to carry that in their advertising and quite frequently that makes it quite difficult to explicitly advertise that product in direct-to-consumer advertising."
So the issue is simple. Black box warnings mean drug sales go down. The FDA’s own mission statement says it is responsible for “protecting the public health and ensuring the safety, efficacy and security of human and veterinary drugs.” So CCHR is asking everyone to fax letters to the FDA demanding black box warnings on these drugs – and reminding the FDA that they are there to protect the public’s safety and interests–- not psychiatric pharmaceutical interests.
Emails or letters should be sent to the Acting Commissioner of the FDA at:
Andrew C. von Eschenbach, M.D.,
Acting Commissioner
Food and Drug Administration
5600 Fishers Lane
Rockville, MD 20857-0001
Email: andrew.voneschenbach@fda.hhs.gov
(please blind copy your emails to CCHR at fieldactivities@cchr.org
We want to send copies of all these emails to Senator Charles Grassley, the member of Congress who has been addressing the need for oversight of the FDA.
Or you can fax him yourself at 202-224-6020
Senator Charles Grassley
135 Hart Senate Bldg.
Washington, D.C., 20510-1501
Your help is needed on this. So thanks in advance for your assistance.
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Legal Help For Psych Victims
The Citizens Commission on Human Rights International has a new feature on their www.psychcrime.org website – a section for referral to attorneys.
CCHR is affiliated with the Church of Scientology. To learn more about the church and its social betterment programs, check out the site at Center for Studies on New Religions.
CCHR is contacted regularly by individuals who have been harmed or violated by psychiatry, or whose loved ones have been harmed, damaged or even killed.
For instance, psychiatric drugs are notorious for causing suicidal thoughts and actions. Indeed, thousands of such cases have resulted in compensation to victims. Psychiatrists often take sexual liberties with the patients, even calling it "therapy", causing substantial and indefensible harm.
These victims often seek attorneys and need attorneys to preserve their rights and to seek compensation for damages caused by psychiatric abuses and pharmaceutical injuries. CCHR therefore endeavors to get victims in contact with attorneys who are potentially interested in helping these individuals protect their rights and receive proper restitution for wrongdoing.
Therefore, as a non-profit, public benefit organization, CCHR has developed a section of our website, www.psychcrime.org where abused individuals can post information about the abuse they have been subjected to, sorted by state and type of abuse. Then attorneys can view these files to see if there is someone they feel they could assist. In addition to the cases posted at the time of the section's launch, new cases will be added regularly as we prepare the information from complaints received in recent months, as well as new ones coming in.
If you know individuals who have been abused by psychiatric treatments and are seeking counsel, have them fill out the Abuse Case Form on the website. If you know attorneys who want to assist such abused individuals, please have them fill out the Attorney Form on the site. The attorney's name will then be provided to the potential client.
This service is being offered as a public service and there is no charge for it.
CCHR is affiliated with the Church of Scientology. To learn more about the church and its social betterment programs, check out the site at Center for Studies on New Religions.
CCHR is contacted regularly by individuals who have been harmed or violated by psychiatry, or whose loved ones have been harmed, damaged or even killed.
For instance, psychiatric drugs are notorious for causing suicidal thoughts and actions. Indeed, thousands of such cases have resulted in compensation to victims. Psychiatrists often take sexual liberties with the patients, even calling it "therapy", causing substantial and indefensible harm.
These victims often seek attorneys and need attorneys to preserve their rights and to seek compensation for damages caused by psychiatric abuses and pharmaceutical injuries. CCHR therefore endeavors to get victims in contact with attorneys who are potentially interested in helping these individuals protect their rights and receive proper restitution for wrongdoing.
Therefore, as a non-profit, public benefit organization, CCHR has developed a section of our website, www.psychcrime.org where abused individuals can post information about the abuse they have been subjected to, sorted by state and type of abuse. Then attorneys can view these files to see if there is someone they feel they could assist. In addition to the cases posted at the time of the section's launch, new cases will be added regularly as we prepare the information from complaints received in recent months, as well as new ones coming in.
If you know individuals who have been abused by psychiatric treatments and are seeking counsel, have them fill out the Abuse Case Form on the website. If you know attorneys who want to assist such abused individuals, please have them fill out the Attorney Form on the site. The attorney's name will then be provided to the potential client.
This service is being offered as a public service and there is no charge for it.
Monday, April 10, 2006
Quest for Profit Yields New ADHD Patch
"Main ADHD stimulant more potent than cocaine", says D.E.A.
While billions in tax dollars are paid each year to fight the “War on Drugs,” psychiatrists continue to promote and prescribe addictive mind-altering ADHD drugs to children -- evidenced by the latest "ADHD patch". While two separate FDA panels have warned of ADHD drugs' lethal effects, Australia reported nearly 400 adverse reactions with children as young as 5 suddenly dropping dead and children as young as 7 having heart attacks or strokes caused by ADHD drugs. Many others worldwide suffer induced hallucinations, psychosis, mania or suicidal ideation.
Even the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration says Ritalin is more potent than cocaine.
It is appalling that the FDA would allow a new ADHD patch when they should be issuing black box warnings on these addictive life-threatening narcotics known as ADHD drugs.
While billions in tax dollars are paid each year to fight the “War on Drugs,” psychiatrists continue to promote and prescribe addictive mind-altering ADHD drugs to children -- evidenced by the latest "ADHD patch". While two separate FDA panels have warned of ADHD drugs' lethal effects, Australia reported nearly 400 adverse reactions with children as young as 5 suddenly dropping dead and children as young as 7 having heart attacks or strokes caused by ADHD drugs. Many others worldwide suffer induced hallucinations, psychosis, mania or suicidal ideation.
Even the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration says Ritalin is more potent than cocaine.
It is appalling that the FDA would allow a new ADHD patch when they should be issuing black box warnings on these addictive life-threatening narcotics known as ADHD drugs.
Saturday, April 08, 2006
Canadian School District Bullies Parents On Ritalin
A Quebec schoolboy was suspended for not taking Ritalin. The parents have filed a lawsuit against the school district, and the result is a much needed public inspection of the policies in that district.
According to an article in The Gazette, the attack on these parents when they refused to drug their child was merciless.
In the U.S. we have a shiny new law that prevents school districts from this kind of behavior. But the drug companies are trying to get around it by promoting TeenScreen. Read more about TeenScreen when you get a chance. It's insidious.
According to an article in The Gazette, the attack on these parents when they refused to drug their child was merciless.
In the U.S. we have a shiny new law that prevents school districts from this kind of behavior. But the drug companies are trying to get around it by promoting TeenScreen. Read more about TeenScreen when you get a chance. It's insidious.
Friday, March 31, 2006
Thank God For Whistleblowers!
St. Louis, Wednesday, March 29, 2006: The Citizens Commission on Human Rights® of St. Louis (CCHR) filed a complaint against a psychiatrist with the Missouri State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts in the matter of psychiatric abuse of one of its clients and has just been notified that the psychiatrist has been disciplined
and lost his license.
Ronald P. McPike, D.O., of Bonaparte, Iowa, was engaged in the practice of psychiatry and licensed as a physician in Iowa and Missouri. The Iowa Board of Medical Examiners found that McPike demonstrated serious character deficits which negatively impacted his medical practice; his care and treatment of several of his patients constituted a pattern of professional incompetency and practice harmful to his patients, including inappropriate prescribing practices and inappropriate diagnostic practices. The Board suspended his medical license indefinitely in June, 2005.
In a legal settlement reached in February, 2006, McPike voluntarily surrendered his Missouri license in lieu of disciplinary action based on the findings of fact in the Iowa judgment.
CCHR regularly files complaints with local, state and federal authorities for psychiatric fraud and abuse; in this case, justice has been served and another fraudulent psychiatrist has lost his license to abuse patients.
The Citizens Commission on Human Rights was established in 1969 by the Church of Scientology to investigate and expose psychiatric violations of human rights and to clean up the field of mental healing. Today it has more than 130 chapters in 31 countries and is recognized as an authority on psychiatric abuse. CCHR is primarily concerned with psychiatry's fraudulent use of "diagnoses" that are not based on
science or medical criteria. For more information, call the Citizens Commission on Human Rights of St. Louis at (314) 727-8307. To lodge a complaint against a psychiatrist or psychiatric facility for fraud or patient abuse, call (314) 729-2854.
and lost his license.
Ronald P. McPike, D.O., of Bonaparte, Iowa, was engaged in the practice of psychiatry and licensed as a physician in Iowa and Missouri. The Iowa Board of Medical Examiners found that McPike demonstrated serious character deficits which negatively impacted his medical practice; his care and treatment of several of his patients constituted a pattern of professional incompetency and practice harmful to his patients, including inappropriate prescribing practices and inappropriate diagnostic practices. The Board suspended his medical license indefinitely in June, 2005.
In a legal settlement reached in February, 2006, McPike voluntarily surrendered his Missouri license in lieu of disciplinary action based on the findings of fact in the Iowa judgment.
CCHR regularly files complaints with local, state and federal authorities for psychiatric fraud and abuse; in this case, justice has been served and another fraudulent psychiatrist has lost his license to abuse patients.
The Citizens Commission on Human Rights was established in 1969 by the Church of Scientology to investigate and expose psychiatric violations of human rights and to clean up the field of mental healing. Today it has more than 130 chapters in 31 countries and is recognized as an authority on psychiatric abuse. CCHR is primarily concerned with psychiatry's fraudulent use of "diagnoses" that are not based on
science or medical criteria. For more information, call the Citizens Commission on Human Rights of St. Louis at (314) 727-8307. To lodge a complaint against a psychiatrist or psychiatric facility for fraud or patient abuse, call (314) 729-2854.
Sunday, March 26, 2006
A Nurse Writes To The Tucson Newspaper
Tucson Citizen (Arizona)
March 24, 2006 Friday
Effects of anti-psychotropic drugs
Re: your Friday article "Kids' anti-psychotic drug use soars":
This article is right on the money to question the use of anti-psychotropic drugs on children.
Considering that this is when the body and nervous system still are developing, even into the early 20s, this is an open case for attorneys to gather the facts and claim doctors are damaging their patients. This trend is already on the market; I have seen advertisements for attorneys taking cases against diabetes-induced side effects of Zyprexa.
As an RN working with our elderly population, I see the effects of long-term anti-psychotics and anti-depressants use.
Central nervous system damage and blunted emotional capability are the obvious.
When family members say to me, "Grandma just isn't herself anymore," and it's timed coincidental to being put on anti-depressants, I shake my head. Families are being robbed of their most cherished memories of a happy, laughing and communicative grandparent who now just lies in bed shaking uncontrollably from effects of anti-psychotics or sleeping most of the time from anti-depressants.
Shame on any program like TeenScreen for even thinking of offering these drugs to children.
(name withheld on this post)
March 24, 2006 Friday
Effects of anti-psychotropic drugs
Re: your Friday article "Kids' anti-psychotic drug use soars":
This article is right on the money to question the use of anti-psychotropic drugs on children.
Considering that this is when the body and nervous system still are developing, even into the early 20s, this is an open case for attorneys to gather the facts and claim doctors are damaging their patients. This trend is already on the market; I have seen advertisements for attorneys taking cases against diabetes-induced side effects of Zyprexa.
As an RN working with our elderly population, I see the effects of long-term anti-psychotics and anti-depressants use.
Central nervous system damage and blunted emotional capability are the obvious.
When family members say to me, "Grandma just isn't herself anymore," and it's timed coincidental to being put on anti-depressants, I shake my head. Families are being robbed of their most cherished memories of a happy, laughing and communicative grandparent who now just lies in bed shaking uncontrollably from effects of anti-psychotics or sleeping most of the time from anti-depressants.
Shame on any program like TeenScreen for even thinking of offering these drugs to children.
(name withheld on this post)
Friday, March 17, 2006
Pops Prozac, Kills Kids
In another classic SSRI murder, David Crespi killed his two kids, a few days after his doctor switched him from Paxil to Prozac. (SSRIs are the class of psych drugs that includes Paxil and Prozac and Zoloft and several other of those depressing "anti-depressant" drugs.)
Crespi lives in North Carolina. He killed his two kids in January. We noticed it in the news and thought "psych drug murder". But there wasn't a word about psych drugs. That happens a lot. There is an attitude that a person's psychiatric history is privileged information. And prosecutors don't like it when the psych drug thing comes out because they feel it makes it harder for them to get a conviction. In this case it was the media who got the scent and convinced the judge to unseal the psych history, over the objections of the prosecutor. There it was -- he's been on psychiatry lines for years. And as is so often the case, he didn't get better -- he got worse. Psychiatrists just haven't figured out how to actually do people any good. So they drug them instead, with SSRIs that make a percentage of them suicidal/homicidal.
In the case of Crespi, he went off Paxil and went on Prozac, and a few days later he killed his kids. Now he's so suicidal they've taken him out of the jail and put him in an asylum where they can keep him under control.
So let's repeat the big Prozac Causes Depression question: If he wasn't killing himself or his kids years ago, and if he's been under the care of psychiatrists ever since, why NOW does he do this? Shouldn't he be better after years of psychiatric care and psychiatric drugs? Of course, Dear Reader, we know better. The psuedo-science of psychiatry is the child of the same nuts that built Hitler's concentration camps and whisked away Russia's dissidents to Siberia on charges of insanity. They don't help people. They certainly didn't help Mr. Crespi -- or his children.
Crespi lives in North Carolina. He killed his two kids in January. We noticed it in the news and thought "psych drug murder". But there wasn't a word about psych drugs. That happens a lot. There is an attitude that a person's psychiatric history is privileged information. And prosecutors don't like it when the psych drug thing comes out because they feel it makes it harder for them to get a conviction. In this case it was the media who got the scent and convinced the judge to unseal the psych history, over the objections of the prosecutor. There it was -- he's been on psychiatry lines for years. And as is so often the case, he didn't get better -- he got worse. Psychiatrists just haven't figured out how to actually do people any good. So they drug them instead, with SSRIs that make a percentage of them suicidal/homicidal.
In the case of Crespi, he went off Paxil and went on Prozac, and a few days later he killed his kids. Now he's so suicidal they've taken him out of the jail and put him in an asylum where they can keep him under control.
So let's repeat the big Prozac Causes Depression question: If he wasn't killing himself or his kids years ago, and if he's been under the care of psychiatrists ever since, why NOW does he do this? Shouldn't he be better after years of psychiatric care and psychiatric drugs? Of course, Dear Reader, we know better. The psuedo-science of psychiatry is the child of the same nuts that built Hitler's concentration camps and whisked away Russia's dissidents to Siberia on charges of insanity. They don't help people. They certainly didn't help Mr. Crespi -- or his children.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Wanna Join The Army? Not If You're On Psych Drugs
Uncle Sam wants you! Unless you're a Ritalin user, that is.
One of several things that will disqualify a young man or woman from military service is use of Ritalin or other psychiatric drugs. Other limitations include severely overweight, specific diseases such as asthma, or a criminal record.
That's interesting company for the Ritalin ban.
You may recall that one of the Columbine School shooters had tried to join the Army but had been rejected because of use of psych drugs.
The Army has the right idea. They avoided a person who was capable of shooting a room full of his friends, then himself. Now if the schools would get the right idea, they'd be safe. There is no place in them for kids who are put on these psychiatric drugs. These drugs are the primary source of the severe decline in safety and discipline in schools.
One of several things that will disqualify a young man or woman from military service is use of Ritalin or other psychiatric drugs. Other limitations include severely overweight, specific diseases such as asthma, or a criminal record.
That's interesting company for the Ritalin ban.
You may recall that one of the Columbine School shooters had tried to join the Army but had been rejected because of use of psych drugs.
The Army has the right idea. They avoided a person who was capable of shooting a room full of his friends, then himself. Now if the schools would get the right idea, they'd be safe. There is no place in them for kids who are put on these psychiatric drugs. These drugs are the primary source of the severe decline in safety and discipline in schools.
Monday, March 06, 2006
Florida Rep Documents Youth Suicides on Antidepressants
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FLORIDA HOUSE REPRESENTATIVE GUS BARREIRO RELEASES REPORT DOCUMENTING 96 FLORIDA YOUTH SUICIDES LINKED TO PSYCHIATRIC MEDICATION
Florida State Representative Gus Barreiro will release a report on a study just completed which documents that 96 Florida children ages 18 and under who used psychotropic drugs, committed suicide over a five year period from 1999 to 2004.
This number represents an astounding 38% of the total youth suicides during that time period.
Rep Barreiro stated, “This report is significant in light of the September 2004 ‘Black Box’ warning given by the FDA for all antidepressant use in children due to the risk that they may cause suicidal behavior. This report suggests that the danger is even worse than indicated by the FDA.”
Additionally, in June 2005 an FDA advisory committee recommended placing warnings of suicidal behavior for children using the popular “ADHD” stimulant medications, which are being given to some 2.5 million children in America today. This report showed 36 children committed suicide while using these drugs, or with a history of using them.
The report states that the percentages may actually be higher as in some cases all information on use or prior history of use of psychiatric drugs was not available.
Rep. Barreiro intends to release the report and accompanying documentation to the press at a press conference at 12 noon, February 23, 2006 on the steps of the old Florida Capitol building. Rep. Barreiro will also be participating in a gathering at the same time and place of a coalition of human rights, education rights and youth rights organizations in support of a bill sponsored by Rep Barreiro in the Florida House and Sen. Victor Crist in the Florida Senate. The bills if passed will guarantee the right to full informed consent for parents whose children are referred for psychological type evaluations through the school system, which commonly result in recommendations that the children be given the type of dangerous psychotropic drugs identified in this report.
“These drugs are dangerous and there is no question that they kill children. Parents need to know the consequences. We fully expect this bill to pass through the legislature this year and we hope that the Governor will sign it into law. It is long past due,” Rep. Barreiro stated.
FLORIDA HOUSE REPRESENTATIVE GUS BARREIRO RELEASES REPORT DOCUMENTING 96 FLORIDA YOUTH SUICIDES LINKED TO PSYCHIATRIC MEDICATION
Florida State Representative Gus Barreiro will release a report on a study just completed which documents that 96 Florida children ages 18 and under who used psychotropic drugs, committed suicide over a five year period from 1999 to 2004.
This number represents an astounding 38% of the total youth suicides during that time period.
Rep Barreiro stated, “This report is significant in light of the September 2004 ‘Black Box’ warning given by the FDA for all antidepressant use in children due to the risk that they may cause suicidal behavior. This report suggests that the danger is even worse than indicated by the FDA.”
Additionally, in June 2005 an FDA advisory committee recommended placing warnings of suicidal behavior for children using the popular “ADHD” stimulant medications, which are being given to some 2.5 million children in America today. This report showed 36 children committed suicide while using these drugs, or with a history of using them.
The report states that the percentages may actually be higher as in some cases all information on use or prior history of use of psychiatric drugs was not available.
Rep. Barreiro intends to release the report and accompanying documentation to the press at a press conference at 12 noon, February 23, 2006 on the steps of the old Florida Capitol building. Rep. Barreiro will also be participating in a gathering at the same time and place of a coalition of human rights, education rights and youth rights organizations in support of a bill sponsored by Rep Barreiro in the Florida House and Sen. Victor Crist in the Florida Senate. The bills if passed will guarantee the right to full informed consent for parents whose children are referred for psychological type evaluations through the school system, which commonly result in recommendations that the children be given the type of dangerous psychotropic drugs identified in this report.
“These drugs are dangerous and there is no question that they kill children. Parents need to know the consequences. We fully expect this bill to pass through the legislature this year and we hope that the Governor will sign it into law. It is long past due,” Rep. Barreiro stated.
Friday, March 03, 2006
The Psychological Harm of TeenScreen
Commonwealth Education Organization Editorial in the state of Pennsylvania:
Much has been written about the use of TeenScreen in 9th and 10th grade as a tool for identifying potential suicide victims. A firestorm of objections has come from a cross-section of parents, political, educational, and health professional organizations – from Patch Adams to Phyllis Schlafly.
However, there is a disturbing aspect about the TeenScreen survey that has not been formally addressed by people opposing the use of this invasive screening test, and that is the impact of the questionnaire itself on the child.
For years, public relations experts and media specialist have known that besides gathering information, tests, surveys, and questionnaires also teach.
On the 10 minute TeenScreen “quick mental health check up” survey, a child sits in front of an impersonal computer screen answering questions about his or her worries, fears, family composition, interpersonal relationships, and even drug use.
Then, in an offhanded, abrupt manner, questions such as - Have you ever thought about killing yourself - appear. The unthinkable notion of killing oneself becomes a “thinkable” solution to his/her adolescent pain.
Killing oneself is further pounded into the adolescent psyche with an extended series of questioning on suicidal ideation:
§ Are you still thinking about killing yourself?
§ Have you seriously thought about killing yourself?
§ Have you thought of killing yourself for some time?
Preceding the “kill” questions, there is not one question that would seed hope in the child’s mind. Such questions might be:
§ Are you aware of the fact that your are not alone, and that many of your friends have the same worries and fears?
§ Are you aware of the fact that many of these feeling will pass as adults help you to learn to cope with adversity?
§ Did you know that there are trained professionals who can help you in private settings?
Dr. Arlene Seal, PhD, Clinical Psychologist, addresses the psychological harm of asking children such questions in her article, Questions, Questions: Do survey’s influence children? 1
The general purpose of any particular survey is evident by its questions. However, in addition to eliciting information, do the questions also influence the respondent? The simple answer is YES!”
First of all, the questions direct focus on the survey’s topics—making the respondent seriously think about them. Secondly, surveys can actually stimulate curiosity about those topics and spark possibilities of which the respondent was previously unaware.
The extent and the detail of the information pursued by the questions is related to the degree of influence that can impact the respondent’s thinking and affective behavior. The critical point..is what attitudes and potential behaviors are being stimulated by the awareness...In such surveys, children’s attention are directed to these negative behaviors and the manner of questions in many instances subtly sets the expectations in that direction…such surveys are actually socializing children INTO the problems that are intended to be prevented. (Emphasis added)
Not only do the questions set expectations in this negative direction, but they also “normalize” the behavior in the mind of the child. Can anyone say child abuse?
1 Seal, Arlene, PhD. ”Questions, Questions: Do surveys influence children?” Education Advocate, July/August 2000, Vol., No.4.
Much has been written about the use of TeenScreen in 9th and 10th grade as a tool for identifying potential suicide victims. A firestorm of objections has come from a cross-section of parents, political, educational, and health professional organizations – from Patch Adams to Phyllis Schlafly.
However, there is a disturbing aspect about the TeenScreen survey that has not been formally addressed by people opposing the use of this invasive screening test, and that is the impact of the questionnaire itself on the child.
For years, public relations experts and media specialist have known that besides gathering information, tests, surveys, and questionnaires also teach.
On the 10 minute TeenScreen “quick mental health check up” survey, a child sits in front of an impersonal computer screen answering questions about his or her worries, fears, family composition, interpersonal relationships, and even drug use.
Then, in an offhanded, abrupt manner, questions such as - Have you ever thought about killing yourself - appear. The unthinkable notion of killing oneself becomes a “thinkable” solution to his/her adolescent pain.
Killing oneself is further pounded into the adolescent psyche with an extended series of questioning on suicidal ideation:
§ Are you still thinking about killing yourself?
§ Have you seriously thought about killing yourself?
§ Have you thought of killing yourself for some time?
Preceding the “kill” questions, there is not one question that would seed hope in the child’s mind. Such questions might be:
§ Are you aware of the fact that your are not alone, and that many of your friends have the same worries and fears?
§ Are you aware of the fact that many of these feeling will pass as adults help you to learn to cope with adversity?
§ Did you know that there are trained professionals who can help you in private settings?
Dr. Arlene Seal, PhD, Clinical Psychologist, addresses the psychological harm of asking children such questions in her article, Questions, Questions: Do survey’s influence children? 1
The general purpose of any particular survey is evident by its questions. However, in addition to eliciting information, do the questions also influence the respondent? The simple answer is YES!”
First of all, the questions direct focus on the survey’s topics—making the respondent seriously think about them. Secondly, surveys can actually stimulate curiosity about those topics and spark possibilities of which the respondent was previously unaware.
The extent and the detail of the information pursued by the questions is related to the degree of influence that can impact the respondent’s thinking and affective behavior. The critical point..is what attitudes and potential behaviors are being stimulated by the awareness...In such surveys, children’s attention are directed to these negative behaviors and the manner of questions in many instances subtly sets the expectations in that direction…such surveys are actually socializing children INTO the problems that are intended to be prevented. (Emphasis added)
Not only do the questions set expectations in this negative direction, but they also “normalize” the behavior in the mind of the child. Can anyone say child abuse?
1 Seal, Arlene, PhD. ”Questions, Questions: Do surveys influence children?” Education Advocate, July/August 2000, Vol., No.4.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Shhh-hh-h-h
The good Dr. Reading emphasized to his patient, Ms. Blanco, that she "shouldn't tell anybody" about his conduct, according to testimony in a Florida case that stripped him of his right to practice medicine. But she told someone anyway.
The word "medicine" should probably be in quotes, because he wasn't really practicing medicine. He was really a psychiatrist. It is always jarring to recall that psychiatrists have medical degrees. The only part of a medical degree a psychiatrist needs is the right to prescribe drugs. In medical schools they are famous as the ones who couldn't cut it in real medicine. Doctors know the type. They can't hack the surgery and they go crazy trying to help someone with an actual medical problem so they retreat to the theoretical and imaginary world of psychiatry where no patient ever really improves until they stop coming to therapy and get off their drugs.
Reading chaired the psychiatry department at the University of South Florida. The first official complaint came in 2003 when a female patient complained to police that she had been molested. Although she passed her lie detector test and he failed his, the case was dropped. Then other victims began to come forward.
Still it is remarkable what it takes to pierce the veil of medical authority. An allegation of rape or sexual harassment from any reputable young woman is taken seriously in most of the world, unless the accused is a psychiatrist. To overcome the altitude of that position in the legal arena, it usually takes a series of allegations. And in the end, the penalty is usually remarkably light. In this case, Reading lost his license, and was not convicted of any crime – allowing him to keep his pension.
But it’s not over. He now faces a series of civil suits re his psychiatric abuse.
The word "medicine" should probably be in quotes, because he wasn't really practicing medicine. He was really a psychiatrist. It is always jarring to recall that psychiatrists have medical degrees. The only part of a medical degree a psychiatrist needs is the right to prescribe drugs. In medical schools they are famous as the ones who couldn't cut it in real medicine. Doctors know the type. They can't hack the surgery and they go crazy trying to help someone with an actual medical problem so they retreat to the theoretical and imaginary world of psychiatry where no patient ever really improves until they stop coming to therapy and get off their drugs.
Reading chaired the psychiatry department at the University of South Florida. The first official complaint came in 2003 when a female patient complained to police that she had been molested. Although she passed her lie detector test and he failed his, the case was dropped. Then other victims began to come forward.
Still it is remarkable what it takes to pierce the veil of medical authority. An allegation of rape or sexual harassment from any reputable young woman is taken seriously in most of the world, unless the accused is a psychiatrist. To overcome the altitude of that position in the legal arena, it usually takes a series of allegations. And in the end, the penalty is usually remarkably light. In this case, Reading lost his license, and was not convicted of any crime – allowing him to keep his pension.
But it’s not over. He now faces a series of civil suits re his psychiatric abuse.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
TeenScreen
MENTAL HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL CONTROL
By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
February 20, 2006
NewsWithViews.com
In Part 25 of this series, I referred to TMAP (Texas Medication Algorithm Project) and TeenScreen. As an update on these, it is useful to look at the testimony of Ellen Liversidge to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on November 2, 2005. A speech pathologist and board member of AHRP (Alliance for Human Research Protection), Ms. Liversidge testified that "Dr. Peter Weiden, who is a member of TMAP expert consensus panel, has charged that the guidelines are based on opinions, not data, and that bias due to funding sources undermines the credibility of the guidelines since most of the guidelines' authors have received support from the pharmaceutical industry.
The invalid screening process of TeenScreen ensures that mostly healthy normal children will be brought into government subsidized mental health dragnet. Once children acquire a psychiatric label they may be branded for life. For example, between 55 and 60 percent of foster children in at least three states---Texas, Massachusetts and Florida---are on psychotropic drugs starting as young as age three....The diagnostic criteria upon which mental health screening instruments rest are scientifically invalid, vague and entirely open to subjective interpretation. TeenScreen was tested on 1,729 children in seven New York City schools using passive parental consent and teen active consent, which is legally invalid. TeenScreen is fraught with suggestive insinuations of failure and self-doubt.
Such questions can lead vulnerable teenagers to obsess about perceived inadequacies....By raising the possibility that suicide may be an option, and that's one of the questions, screening might lead to suicidal thinking....TeenScreen promoters fail to disclose that the risk for children who are screened to be falsely labeled as suicidal or mentally ill is 84 percent....AHRP opposes psychiatric screening of children without active, informed parental consent. Consent of parents must be documented and given voluntarily without a hint of coercion. TeenScreen has attempted to sidestep parental consent by claiming passive parental consent, which is invalid....According to its website, as of October 25th of this year (2005), TeenScreen is actively operating in 460 locations in 42 states and Washington, DC."
Mental health screening is also promoted as identifying ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder) and ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder). However, serious warnings have accompanied drugs used to treat these. According to Evelyn Pringle's article, "ADHD Drugs---Cash Cow For Pharma" (LAWYERS AND SETTLEMENTS, February 13, 2006): "In a February 6, 2006, letter to acting FDA commissioner, Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach, U.S. Senator Charles Grassley pointed out that in September of 2005, the FDA had issued an alert to healthcare professionals regarding the use of Strattera (ADHD drug), after reviewing data showing an increase in suicidal thoughts in 12 separate studies, and directed Eli Lilly, to 'revise the labeling...to include a boxed warning and additional warning statements regarding an increased risk of suicidal thinking in children and adolescents.'
As an added pressure, Sen. Grassley asked for a complete list of names of participating panel members and a complete list of conflict disclosures for both the February 9-10, 2006, advisory committee and the March 22, 2006, Pediatric Advisory Committee....At the February 10 FDA advisory committee hearing, it was reported by Dr. Andrew Mosholder, a medical officer in the FDA's Office of Drug Safety, that about 2.5 million children in this country, between the ages 4 and 17, currently take ADHD drugs....In 1991, schools began receiving educational grants of $400 annually for each ADHD child." Could this financial incentive be one of the reasons for the increase in children placed upon ADHD drugs?
The day before the FDA advisory committee hearings began, ABC News on February 8, 2006, covered an Associated Press report, "FDA reports 51 deaths of attention drug patients," by Andrew Bridges who revealed that "deaths of 51 U.S. patients who took widely prescribed drugs to treat Attention Deficit Disorder prompted regulators to start watching for heart attacks, high blood pressure and other problems in 2004, a report released on Wednesday said.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration staff did not say the drugs were responsible for the fatalities, but they urged close monitoring for 'the rare occurrence of pediatric sudden death during stimulant therapy.'...The information was released one day ahead of an FDA advisory panel meeting on how best to study potential risks from the drugs, which include Shire Pharmaceuticals Group Plc's Adderall and Novartis AG's Ritalin....Use of drugs to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, was controversial before the cardiac issue emerged, with many doctors and parents arguing the medicines are overprescribed....Through 2003, 24 deaths were reported from 1999 through 2003 among U.S. patients who took Adderall for ADHD, the FDA staff report said....Another 16 deaths were reported through 2003 in U.S. patients who took Ritalin or other ADHD drugs known as methylphenidates, the report said."
Further concerning ADHD, Vicky Dunkle (representing Ablechild of Pennsylvania) on February 10, 2006, had written testimony presented to the FDA that her daughter (Shaina) died on February 26, 2001, from drug toxicity. She wrote: "Parents are simply not being given the facts on these psychiatric labels and the recommended drugs' inherent dangers. Parents are all too frequently being pressured into placing their child on these psychotropic drugs by their child's school....We were never given full informed consent. We were never told that the label ADHD itself was both subjective and controversial or that the drug prescribed had many dangerous risks including death.
Desipramine was the drug given to my daughter and we were led to believe this drug was safe and effective in what was described to us as her 'treatment.' We were never informed that this drug was not FDA approved for children of Shaina's age, lacking both safety and effectiveness....Shaina died due to Desipramine toxicity. Little also did we know that we would be reading proof that there had been prior child deaths as far back as 1990 from this one drug. My husband (Steve) and I believed and trusted in the professionals and they only helped me bury our child at 10 years old....What is clear and definite to both my husband and me now is that if we would have been given the right information we would have NEVER placed our daughter on this drug.
If we had been informed correctly on the lack of objective testing used to determine this psychiatric label and the lack of science to back it as a true 'disease,' we would have NEVER placed our daughter on any drugs. We ask this panel to take the time to review the real risks involved in placing children on these drugs and ask yourselves, 'What if it had been my child or family member who was to die from one of these drugs prescribed?' 'What if I wasn't told the facts?' 'How would I feel?' More importantly, 'Does Death as a side effect outweigh any possible benefits?' At the very least, this panel must do something regarding the violation of informed consent rights occurring with the widespread use of these drugs being prescribed to children."
Testifying in person before the FDA was Clinton Libbey, an Ablechild volunteer, who told the hearing panel: "As a concerned parent, I investigated the drugs that were being considered for my son, many of which are being reviewed by this panel currently. What I found was misinformation and distortions pertaining to both the subjective psychiatric labels being assigned to our children and the drugs being prescribed to them....When dealing with drugs that have known side effects, the oath of first do no harm must be transformed to first do no harm without full informed consent....This is especially the case when the treatment may cause the one side effect that is irreversible---Death....I, for instance, was misinformed when several medical doctors told me that no one has died as a result of taking these drugs provided that they are taken in accordance with the dosage guidelines....Upon further investigation, I found parents who had lost their children due to these drugs with autopsy reports directly linking ADHD drugs with their children's deaths.
The fact is that children have died even though dosage recommendations on an approved label were strictly adhered....As a society, we must disclose potential side effects prior to treatment in order to guarantee an individual's right to full informed consent....While many say that there needs to be more research on these drugs, I, with the parents that make up Ablechild, many of whom are victims of the effects of these drugs, find that stronger warning labels and stiffer guidelines regulating full disclosure would be a more appropriate step. Furthermore, Medwatch filings should be mandatory for adverse reactions within the pediatric population....Please don't allow another child to lose her or his life without at least warning their parents."
According to Evelyn Pringle's article mentioned above, "On February 10, 2006, the Drug Safety and Risk Management advisory committee (of the FDA) said that ADHD drugs should carry the strongest warning label that they may be linked to an increased risk of death and injury." Pringle went on to warn that "for school age children, these drugs are providing a spring-board into early addiction."
--
Dennis Laurence Cuddy, historian and political analyst, received a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (major in American History, minor in political science). Dr. Cuddy has taught at the university level, has been a political and economic risk analyst for an international consulting firm, and has been a Senior Associate with the U.S. Department of Education.
Cuddy has also testified before members of Congress on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice. Dr. Cuddy has authored or edited twenty books and booklets, and has written hundreds of articles appearing in newspapers around the nation, including The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and USA Today. He has been a guest on numerous radio talk shows in various parts of the country, such as ABC Radio in New York City, and he has also been a guest on the national television programs USA Today and CBS's Nightwatch.
By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
February 20, 2006
NewsWithViews.com
In Part 25 of this series, I referred to TMAP (Texas Medication Algorithm Project) and TeenScreen. As an update on these, it is useful to look at the testimony of Ellen Liversidge to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on November 2, 2005. A speech pathologist and board member of AHRP (Alliance for Human Research Protection), Ms. Liversidge testified that "Dr. Peter Weiden, who is a member of TMAP expert consensus panel, has charged that the guidelines are based on opinions, not data, and that bias due to funding sources undermines the credibility of the guidelines since most of the guidelines' authors have received support from the pharmaceutical industry.
The invalid screening process of TeenScreen ensures that mostly healthy normal children will be brought into government subsidized mental health dragnet. Once children acquire a psychiatric label they may be branded for life. For example, between 55 and 60 percent of foster children in at least three states---Texas, Massachusetts and Florida---are on psychotropic drugs starting as young as age three....The diagnostic criteria upon which mental health screening instruments rest are scientifically invalid, vague and entirely open to subjective interpretation. TeenScreen was tested on 1,729 children in seven New York City schools using passive parental consent and teen active consent, which is legally invalid. TeenScreen is fraught with suggestive insinuations of failure and self-doubt.
Such questions can lead vulnerable teenagers to obsess about perceived inadequacies....By raising the possibility that suicide may be an option, and that's one of the questions, screening might lead to suicidal thinking....TeenScreen promoters fail to disclose that the risk for children who are screened to be falsely labeled as suicidal or mentally ill is 84 percent....AHRP opposes psychiatric screening of children without active, informed parental consent. Consent of parents must be documented and given voluntarily without a hint of coercion. TeenScreen has attempted to sidestep parental consent by claiming passive parental consent, which is invalid....According to its website, as of October 25th of this year (2005), TeenScreen is actively operating in 460 locations in 42 states and Washington, DC."
Mental health screening is also promoted as identifying ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder) and ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder). However, serious warnings have accompanied drugs used to treat these. According to Evelyn Pringle's article, "ADHD Drugs---Cash Cow For Pharma" (LAWYERS AND SETTLEMENTS, February 13, 2006): "In a February 6, 2006, letter to acting FDA commissioner, Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach, U.S. Senator Charles Grassley pointed out that in September of 2005, the FDA had issued an alert to healthcare professionals regarding the use of Strattera (ADHD drug), after reviewing data showing an increase in suicidal thoughts in 12 separate studies, and directed Eli Lilly, to 'revise the labeling...to include a boxed warning and additional warning statements regarding an increased risk of suicidal thinking in children and adolescents.'
As an added pressure, Sen. Grassley asked for a complete list of names of participating panel members and a complete list of conflict disclosures for both the February 9-10, 2006, advisory committee and the March 22, 2006, Pediatric Advisory Committee....At the February 10 FDA advisory committee hearing, it was reported by Dr. Andrew Mosholder, a medical officer in the FDA's Office of Drug Safety, that about 2.5 million children in this country, between the ages 4 and 17, currently take ADHD drugs....In 1991, schools began receiving educational grants of $400 annually for each ADHD child." Could this financial incentive be one of the reasons for the increase in children placed upon ADHD drugs?
The day before the FDA advisory committee hearings began, ABC News on February 8, 2006, covered an Associated Press report, "FDA reports 51 deaths of attention drug patients," by Andrew Bridges who revealed that "deaths of 51 U.S. patients who took widely prescribed drugs to treat Attention Deficit Disorder prompted regulators to start watching for heart attacks, high blood pressure and other problems in 2004, a report released on Wednesday said.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration staff did not say the drugs were responsible for the fatalities, but they urged close monitoring for 'the rare occurrence of pediatric sudden death during stimulant therapy.'...The information was released one day ahead of an FDA advisory panel meeting on how best to study potential risks from the drugs, which include Shire Pharmaceuticals Group Plc's Adderall and Novartis AG's Ritalin....Use of drugs to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, was controversial before the cardiac issue emerged, with many doctors and parents arguing the medicines are overprescribed....Through 2003, 24 deaths were reported from 1999 through 2003 among U.S. patients who took Adderall for ADHD, the FDA staff report said....Another 16 deaths were reported through 2003 in U.S. patients who took Ritalin or other ADHD drugs known as methylphenidates, the report said."
Further concerning ADHD, Vicky Dunkle (representing Ablechild of Pennsylvania) on February 10, 2006, had written testimony presented to the FDA that her daughter (Shaina) died on February 26, 2001, from drug toxicity. She wrote: "Parents are simply not being given the facts on these psychiatric labels and the recommended drugs' inherent dangers. Parents are all too frequently being pressured into placing their child on these psychotropic drugs by their child's school....We were never given full informed consent. We were never told that the label ADHD itself was both subjective and controversial or that the drug prescribed had many dangerous risks including death.
Desipramine was the drug given to my daughter and we were led to believe this drug was safe and effective in what was described to us as her 'treatment.' We were never informed that this drug was not FDA approved for children of Shaina's age, lacking both safety and effectiveness....Shaina died due to Desipramine toxicity. Little also did we know that we would be reading proof that there had been prior child deaths as far back as 1990 from this one drug. My husband (Steve) and I believed and trusted in the professionals and they only helped me bury our child at 10 years old....What is clear and definite to both my husband and me now is that if we would have been given the right information we would have NEVER placed our daughter on this drug.
If we had been informed correctly on the lack of objective testing used to determine this psychiatric label and the lack of science to back it as a true 'disease,' we would have NEVER placed our daughter on any drugs. We ask this panel to take the time to review the real risks involved in placing children on these drugs and ask yourselves, 'What if it had been my child or family member who was to die from one of these drugs prescribed?' 'What if I wasn't told the facts?' 'How would I feel?' More importantly, 'Does Death as a side effect outweigh any possible benefits?' At the very least, this panel must do something regarding the violation of informed consent rights occurring with the widespread use of these drugs being prescribed to children."
Testifying in person before the FDA was Clinton Libbey, an Ablechild volunteer, who told the hearing panel: "As a concerned parent, I investigated the drugs that were being considered for my son, many of which are being reviewed by this panel currently. What I found was misinformation and distortions pertaining to both the subjective psychiatric labels being assigned to our children and the drugs being prescribed to them....When dealing with drugs that have known side effects, the oath of first do no harm must be transformed to first do no harm without full informed consent....This is especially the case when the treatment may cause the one side effect that is irreversible---Death....I, for instance, was misinformed when several medical doctors told me that no one has died as a result of taking these drugs provided that they are taken in accordance with the dosage guidelines....Upon further investigation, I found parents who had lost their children due to these drugs with autopsy reports directly linking ADHD drugs with their children's deaths.
The fact is that children have died even though dosage recommendations on an approved label were strictly adhered....As a society, we must disclose potential side effects prior to treatment in order to guarantee an individual's right to full informed consent....While many say that there needs to be more research on these drugs, I, with the parents that make up Ablechild, many of whom are victims of the effects of these drugs, find that stronger warning labels and stiffer guidelines regulating full disclosure would be a more appropriate step. Furthermore, Medwatch filings should be mandatory for adverse reactions within the pediatric population....Please don't allow another child to lose her or his life without at least warning their parents."
According to Evelyn Pringle's article mentioned above, "On February 10, 2006, the Drug Safety and Risk Management advisory committee (of the FDA) said that ADHD drugs should carry the strongest warning label that they may be linked to an increased risk of death and injury." Pringle went on to warn that "for school age children, these drugs are providing a spring-board into early addiction."
--
Dennis Laurence Cuddy, historian and political analyst, received a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (major in American History, minor in political science). Dr. Cuddy has taught at the university level, has been a political and economic risk analyst for an international consulting firm, and has been a Senior Associate with the U.S. Department of Education.
Cuddy has also testified before members of Congress on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice. Dr. Cuddy has authored or edited twenty books and booklets, and has written hundreds of articles appearing in newspapers around the nation, including The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and USA Today. He has been a guest on numerous radio talk shows in various parts of the country, such as ABC Radio in New York City, and he has also been a guest on the national television programs USA Today and CBS's Nightwatch.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Now He Has Three Names
Now his name is Richard Edgar Henderson, Jr. We'll bet it was once "Richard Henderson" or "Dick Henderson". But as soon as you are charged with murder, you get three names. We're not sure why.
In 2001, Richard Edgar Henderson, Jr. took a gun to school with him at age 16. It was a felony. But he didn't go to jail. Instead they sent him off to mental health counselors. He's in jail now, though. Because on Thanksgiving Day in 2005 he killed his parents, his grandmother and his 11-year-old brother.
But wait! Richard Edgar Henderson, Jr. (or Dick, or whatever his name is) was already a handful when they pulled him in on the gun charge. He hadn't killed anybody, though. Let's follow the thought through.
In 2001: Dick takes a gun to school, gets caught. There is evidence that he is a disturbed young man. The judge sends him off to a mental health program. That should have helped him with his problems, right?
In 2005: He pulled out his gun and shot his family. Whoa! Guess the mental health program didn't do much good!
But the side note that caught our eye was a conversation between Dick and the judge, as reported in Florida's Herald Tribune:
"Have you ever been treated for any mental illness?" the judge asked.
"Yes, your honor, depression."
"Are you seeing a doctor right now for that?"
"Yes."
Henderson said he'd been seeing a doctor for several months.
He was taking a medication called BuSpar.
"It takes away my depression, gives me . . . me energy so I can do stuff."
Henderson also said he was taking sleeping pills.
"I put it under my tongue so I can sleep at night," he said.
So... Dick -- or Richard Edgar Henderson, Jr. (take your pick) was newly on psychiatric drugs -- for several months.
This is the pattern we see again and again. People are a little nuts, go to the psychs, get psych drugs, then they start killing and committing suicide and it all goes into the deep end real fast. This daffy situation is going to looked at with some mirth and amazement by future generations reading history books somewhere down the line.
"They did what?"
"They took disturbed people, and ordered them sent off to supposed experts who couldn't do them any good, then they gave them psychiatric drugs and made killers out of them."
"You're kidding?"
"Nope. They did that."
In 2001, Richard Edgar Henderson, Jr. took a gun to school with him at age 16. It was a felony. But he didn't go to jail. Instead they sent him off to mental health counselors. He's in jail now, though. Because on Thanksgiving Day in 2005 he killed his parents, his grandmother and his 11-year-old brother.
But wait! Richard Edgar Henderson, Jr. (or Dick, or whatever his name is) was already a handful when they pulled him in on the gun charge. He hadn't killed anybody, though. Let's follow the thought through.
In 2001: Dick takes a gun to school, gets caught. There is evidence that he is a disturbed young man. The judge sends him off to a mental health program. That should have helped him with his problems, right?
In 2005: He pulled out his gun and shot his family. Whoa! Guess the mental health program didn't do much good!
But the side note that caught our eye was a conversation between Dick and the judge, as reported in Florida's Herald Tribune:
"Have you ever been treated for any mental illness?" the judge asked.
"Yes, your honor, depression."
"Are you seeing a doctor right now for that?"
"Yes."
Henderson said he'd been seeing a doctor for several months.
He was taking a medication called BuSpar.
"It takes away my depression, gives me . . . me energy so I can do stuff."
Henderson also said he was taking sleeping pills.
"I put it under my tongue so I can sleep at night," he said.
So... Dick -- or Richard Edgar Henderson, Jr. (take your pick) was newly on psychiatric drugs -- for several months.
This is the pattern we see again and again. People are a little nuts, go to the psychs, get psych drugs, then they start killing and committing suicide and it all goes into the deep end real fast. This daffy situation is going to looked at with some mirth and amazement by future generations reading history books somewhere down the line.
"They did what?"
"They took disturbed people, and ordered them sent off to supposed experts who couldn't do them any good, then they gave them psychiatric drugs and made killers out of them."
"You're kidding?"
"Nope. They did that."
Friday, January 27, 2006
The attack on Big Tobacco was kid stuff
The attack on Big Tobacco was kid stuff. Whether you're for or against smoking and tobacco, you can't ignore the fact that the cigarette industry was gutted by the lawsuits over the last decades that portrayed the tobacco industry as willing to lie cheat and bring enormous economic and political pressure to push their products over the dead and dying bodies of their customers. Whether the outcome is just or not (maybe it was just but overdone -- I don't know) it worked. Smoking is no longer done in polite society. I remember a time when you could smoke anywhere. Elevators were a no-no because of some kind of "safety" excuse, but people carried lit cigarettes on elevators too. Conference rooms, restaurants, movie theatres, business offices, airplanes, were all candidates for a place to light up. There was no slightest thought, in most cases, whether you had to ask. If you were polite, you would try your best to make sure the other guy didn't sit in your smoke. Somehow, into that culture, enough of a shock was injected to change the culture. Now smokers quietly skulk off to the outdoors or their own homes and cars to light up. Lighting up a cigarette on an airplane (most of which are still outfitted with ashtrays at every seat) will get you an emergency landing and an unpleasant interview with the Homeland Security people at the very least, and probably a lot more trouble than that.
Now along comes the real villain. The cigarette companies are pikers. This is the 500-lb. gorilla of evil corporate cultures -- Big Pharma.
This writer is not anti-corporation or anti-corporate America. But there is such a thing as a bad guy. And in the corporate world, Big Pharma is a bad guy. It's like an intractable trouble-maker in the world of basketball, or a priest who likes little boys. It doesn't reflect on all basketball players or all priests, but this particular one is bad to the bone. And people are starting to figure it out. Especially those that work in the legal machine that brought down Big Tobacco. As seemingly normal people suddenly run out and shoot their friends or hang themselves in the garage after taking drugs that are supposedly designed to help with sanity, the bereft survivors and the lawyers who know how to put together class action lawsuits are teaming up for a wave of lawsuits that could be more like a tsunami.
And whether or not you liked what they did to Big Tobacco, you gotta admit this one is justice. How long ago did America turn its sober face on the story of the Columbine School massacre in Colorado, by two boys who were on psychiatric drugs, or the Prozac mother who drowned her own children, or the 12-year-old who shot his grandparents then burned the house down, or the Zoloft-laced wife of comedian Phil Hartman who inexplicably shot him, then herself. The list is very long, and growing daily. Big Tobacco might give you lung cancer eventually, but it was nothing like this.
But Big Pharma isn't going down without a fight. And the latest punch is a drug-industry sponsored law that is wending its way through congress shielding Big Pharma from state-level lawsuits. The specious argument is that because Big Pharma meets the requirements of a federal agency (the FDA) in producing their drugs, they can only be sued in a federal court. Read about it in this article by Stephen Pizzo.
Clever they are. Safe they seem. But Yoda say they will not be able to put it off forever. The actual crime here is enormous. There are individuals who have covered up the ill effects of these drugs very energetically and systematically for years and years while people died. It amounts to multiple counts of manslaughter, potentially. It's the simple truth. Sooner or later the house of cards is going to collapse.
Now along comes the real villain. The cigarette companies are pikers. This is the 500-lb. gorilla of evil corporate cultures -- Big Pharma.
This writer is not anti-corporation or anti-corporate America. But there is such a thing as a bad guy. And in the corporate world, Big Pharma is a bad guy. It's like an intractable trouble-maker in the world of basketball, or a priest who likes little boys. It doesn't reflect on all basketball players or all priests, but this particular one is bad to the bone. And people are starting to figure it out. Especially those that work in the legal machine that brought down Big Tobacco. As seemingly normal people suddenly run out and shoot their friends or hang themselves in the garage after taking drugs that are supposedly designed to help with sanity, the bereft survivors and the lawyers who know how to put together class action lawsuits are teaming up for a wave of lawsuits that could be more like a tsunami.
And whether or not you liked what they did to Big Tobacco, you gotta admit this one is justice. How long ago did America turn its sober face on the story of the Columbine School massacre in Colorado, by two boys who were on psychiatric drugs, or the Prozac mother who drowned her own children, or the 12-year-old who shot his grandparents then burned the house down, or the Zoloft-laced wife of comedian Phil Hartman who inexplicably shot him, then herself. The list is very long, and growing daily. Big Tobacco might give you lung cancer eventually, but it was nothing like this.
But Big Pharma isn't going down without a fight. And the latest punch is a drug-industry sponsored law that is wending its way through congress shielding Big Pharma from state-level lawsuits. The specious argument is that because Big Pharma meets the requirements of a federal agency (the FDA) in producing their drugs, they can only be sued in a federal court. Read about it in this article by Stephen Pizzo.
Clever they are. Safe they seem. But Yoda say they will not be able to put it off forever. The actual crime here is enormous. There are individuals who have covered up the ill effects of these drugs very energetically and systematically for years and years while people died. It amounts to multiple counts of manslaughter, potentially. It's the simple truth. Sooner or later the house of cards is going to collapse.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Mothers Who Kill
The following statement was issued by the Citizen's Commission on Human Rights:
MOTHERS WHO KILL
Dear Friends,
As civilized people we have fundamental agreements that define the type of world in which we live and the type of people who we are. One of the, if not the most, fundamental agreements has to do with the state of Motherhood. Motherhood is an institution sacred to those of all faiths, or no faith. Mothers would rather face harm themselves than let anything happen to their child. So, anything that would contribute to a mother harming their own child must indeed be evil - the stuff of nightmares, found in science fiction and horror movies.
Well, such a thing does exist - and not just in fiction. It has infiltrated real life and the lives of many people around us. It is the most horrible thing that we could confront, and confront it we must. To avert future tragedies, we must know: what could turn a loving mother into a murderer? What could possibly induce a mother to kill her own child?
Statistical analyses, medical studies and studies of individual cases have shown that psychiatric drugs and other psychiatric practices create insanity and cause violence. People who have become violent, usually for the first time, after psychiatric treatment are reported in the newspapers with alarming frequency. Each of those cases was in psychiatric hands before committing his or her crime of violence. Each was a psychiatric failure. And each was victimized by destructive psychiatric practices capable of pushing persons toward violence.
A 1988 study documented the tendency of a major tranquilizer to increase hostile and violent behavior. According to the study, many persons who had no prior history of violence, “were significantly more violent while on [this drug.]” And a March 2004 FDA Public Health Advisory warned, “Anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility, impulsivity, akathisia [severe restlessness], hypomania [abnormal excitement, mild mania] and mania [psychosis characterized by exalted feelings, delusions of grandeur and overproduction of ideas], have been reported in adult and pediatric patients being treated with antidepressants…both psychiatric and non-psychiatric.”
These are only two studies of many linking psychiatric drugs to new aggressive behaviors in those taking them.
A New Zealand report stated that withdrawal from psychoactive drugs can cause new physical symptoms. Antidepressants, according to the report, can create “agitation, severe depression, hallucinations, aggressiveness, hypomania [abnormal excitement] and akathisia [severe restlessness].”
Using bogus labels with no medical or scientific diagnoses to back them up, psychiatrists are turning emotionally stressed mothers, who turn to them for help, into monsters who murder their own children.
October 2005: Relatives described Lashaun Harris as a devoted and loving mother whose life began spiraling out of control when she was labeled with a “mental illness” two years previously. A 23-year-old overwhelmed single mother, she sought help after the birth of her third child. She fell into the wrong hands, and they turned her into a killer.
Harris was labeled as “schizophrenic,” hospitalized and put on the same anti-psychotic drug that was the subject of the 1988 study linking it to increased hostile and violent behavior. Recently, she had stopped taking the drug - without medical supervision, and despite warnings that abrupt withdrawal can create new symptoms. Soon after, Harris stripped her three children naked, hoisted them over a safety rail and plunged them into San Francisco Bay's chilly waters.
November 2004: Dena Schlosser cut off the arms of her 11-month-old daughter, killing her. Schlosser had seen a psychiatrist and was hospitalized for “post-partum depression.”
October 2003: Rebekah Amaya, a 32-year-old Colorado woman, drowned her two kids in the bathtub. She had previously received mental health treatment.
May 2001: Texas mother Andrea Yates methodically drowned all five of her children in the family bathtub. Mrs. Yates had several suicide attempts, psychiatric treatments and was on antidepressants and antipsychotics. CCHR Texas obtained independent medical assessments of Mrs. Yates’ medical records. Science consultant Edward G. Ezrailson, Ph.D. reported that the cocktail of drugs prescribed to Mrs. Yates caused involuntary intoxication. The “overdose” of one antidepressant and “sudden high doses” of another “worsened her behavior,” Ezrailson said. This “led to murder.”
November 1997: Christina Riggs, a nurse, smothered her two children in their beds. Before suffocating her older child, she injected him with potassium chloride, the chemical used in death penalty executions. She had been prescribed an antidepressant after her marriage broke up.
October 1994: Susan Smith, a South Carolina mother, drowned her two children by driving her car into a lake. She had undergone family counseling and had been hospitalized in 1988 after her second suicide attempt.
No violation of human rights is greater than that which causes a mother kill her own child. No family should have to live through the horrors and traumas experienced by the Harris, Schlosser, Amaya, Yates, Riggs or Smith families.
From as early as 1990, CCHR asked the US Federal Drug Administration (FDA) for the inherent dangers in psychiatric drugs to be made evident to doctors, patients and patient families. CCHR worked exhaustively to make this data known. Finally the FDA issued the first “black box” warning for a psychiatric drug in October 2004.
This was followed by another 16 warnings and alerts from the FDA and other medical and regulatory agencies around the world. The recent CCHR White Paper, Report on the Escalating International Warnings on Psychiatric Drugs, documents each of these warnings, as well as providing recommendations for non-psychiatric treatments for those with emotional distress.
It is vital that CCHR increase their actions in making known the brutal and terrifying practices that are psychiatry and today’s “mental health care” system now, before they turn more mothers into killers. We are the only group in existence that can accomplish this. Contribute now and help the final stages of the museum renovation and reconstruction. The museum is the core of our message that psychiatry is the industry of death, and that we will not allow any more innocent people to become gruesome statistics of their failures to “help.” We are willing to do whatever it takes, but we need your donations to make this possible. Help get us back into our headquarters and the museum open and spreading the word that psychiatry kills.
You CAN make the difference. Defend and help save families from psychiatric drugs and despair. We need you to play a vital role in making known the dangers of these psychiatric “treatments.” We appreciate any donation you can contribute to this action. But, please, donate generously - otherwise, we will be paying the cost with our children. We must act now if we are to succeed. And we can succeed.
For donations of $2,500 or more, you can still be included on the museum Donor Wall.
It is imperative that we reach as many parents, groups, allies, policy makers and media as possible in order to bring about further safeguards and action by the voting body necessary for getting such psychiatric treatment outlawed.
Click here to donate online, or call 1-800-869-2247.
Or mail a check to:
CCHR International
6616 Sunset Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90028
Sincerely,
Samantha Garcia
CCHR International
Note: This letter is copyrighted with all rights reserved. Photocopying, telefaxing, e-mailing, reproduction, distribution or quotation are strictly prohibited without the written permission of CCHR.
Copyright © 2005 Citizens Commission on Human Rights. All Rights Reserved. Citizens Commission on Human Rights, CCHR and its logo are trademarks and service marks owned by Citizens Commission on Human Rights International.
MOTHERS WHO KILL
Dear Friends,
As civilized people we have fundamental agreements that define the type of world in which we live and the type of people who we are. One of the, if not the most, fundamental agreements has to do with the state of Motherhood. Motherhood is an institution sacred to those of all faiths, or no faith. Mothers would rather face harm themselves than let anything happen to their child. So, anything that would contribute to a mother harming their own child must indeed be evil - the stuff of nightmares, found in science fiction and horror movies.
Well, such a thing does exist - and not just in fiction. It has infiltrated real life and the lives of many people around us. It is the most horrible thing that we could confront, and confront it we must. To avert future tragedies, we must know: what could turn a loving mother into a murderer? What could possibly induce a mother to kill her own child?
Statistical analyses, medical studies and studies of individual cases have shown that psychiatric drugs and other psychiatric practices create insanity and cause violence. People who have become violent, usually for the first time, after psychiatric treatment are reported in the newspapers with alarming frequency. Each of those cases was in psychiatric hands before committing his or her crime of violence. Each was a psychiatric failure. And each was victimized by destructive psychiatric practices capable of pushing persons toward violence.
A 1988 study documented the tendency of a major tranquilizer to increase hostile and violent behavior. According to the study, many persons who had no prior history of violence, “were significantly more violent while on [this drug.]” And a March 2004 FDA Public Health Advisory warned, “Anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility, impulsivity, akathisia [severe restlessness], hypomania [abnormal excitement, mild mania] and mania [psychosis characterized by exalted feelings, delusions of grandeur and overproduction of ideas], have been reported in adult and pediatric patients being treated with antidepressants…both psychiatric and non-psychiatric.”
These are only two studies of many linking psychiatric drugs to new aggressive behaviors in those taking them.
A New Zealand report stated that withdrawal from psychoactive drugs can cause new physical symptoms. Antidepressants, according to the report, can create “agitation, severe depression, hallucinations, aggressiveness, hypomania [abnormal excitement] and akathisia [severe restlessness].”
Using bogus labels with no medical or scientific diagnoses to back them up, psychiatrists are turning emotionally stressed mothers, who turn to them for help, into monsters who murder their own children.
October 2005: Relatives described Lashaun Harris as a devoted and loving mother whose life began spiraling out of control when she was labeled with a “mental illness” two years previously. A 23-year-old overwhelmed single mother, she sought help after the birth of her third child. She fell into the wrong hands, and they turned her into a killer.
Harris was labeled as “schizophrenic,” hospitalized and put on the same anti-psychotic drug that was the subject of the 1988 study linking it to increased hostile and violent behavior. Recently, she had stopped taking the drug - without medical supervision, and despite warnings that abrupt withdrawal can create new symptoms. Soon after, Harris stripped her three children naked, hoisted them over a safety rail and plunged them into San Francisco Bay's chilly waters.
November 2004: Dena Schlosser cut off the arms of her 11-month-old daughter, killing her. Schlosser had seen a psychiatrist and was hospitalized for “post-partum depression.”
October 2003: Rebekah Amaya, a 32-year-old Colorado woman, drowned her two kids in the bathtub. She had previously received mental health treatment.
May 2001: Texas mother Andrea Yates methodically drowned all five of her children in the family bathtub. Mrs. Yates had several suicide attempts, psychiatric treatments and was on antidepressants and antipsychotics. CCHR Texas obtained independent medical assessments of Mrs. Yates’ medical records. Science consultant Edward G. Ezrailson, Ph.D. reported that the cocktail of drugs prescribed to Mrs. Yates caused involuntary intoxication. The “overdose” of one antidepressant and “sudden high doses” of another “worsened her behavior,” Ezrailson said. This “led to murder.”
November 1997: Christina Riggs, a nurse, smothered her two children in their beds. Before suffocating her older child, she injected him with potassium chloride, the chemical used in death penalty executions. She had been prescribed an antidepressant after her marriage broke up.
October 1994: Susan Smith, a South Carolina mother, drowned her two children by driving her car into a lake. She had undergone family counseling and had been hospitalized in 1988 after her second suicide attempt.
No violation of human rights is greater than that which causes a mother kill her own child. No family should have to live through the horrors and traumas experienced by the Harris, Schlosser, Amaya, Yates, Riggs or Smith families.
From as early as 1990, CCHR asked the US Federal Drug Administration (FDA) for the inherent dangers in psychiatric drugs to be made evident to doctors, patients and patient families. CCHR worked exhaustively to make this data known. Finally the FDA issued the first “black box” warning for a psychiatric drug in October 2004.
This was followed by another 16 warnings and alerts from the FDA and other medical and regulatory agencies around the world. The recent CCHR White Paper, Report on the Escalating International Warnings on Psychiatric Drugs, documents each of these warnings, as well as providing recommendations for non-psychiatric treatments for those with emotional distress.
It is vital that CCHR increase their actions in making known the brutal and terrifying practices that are psychiatry and today’s “mental health care” system now, before they turn more mothers into killers. We are the only group in existence that can accomplish this. Contribute now and help the final stages of the museum renovation and reconstruction. The museum is the core of our message that psychiatry is the industry of death, and that we will not allow any more innocent people to become gruesome statistics of their failures to “help.” We are willing to do whatever it takes, but we need your donations to make this possible. Help get us back into our headquarters and the museum open and spreading the word that psychiatry kills.
You CAN make the difference. Defend and help save families from psychiatric drugs and despair. We need you to play a vital role in making known the dangers of these psychiatric “treatments.” We appreciate any donation you can contribute to this action. But, please, donate generously - otherwise, we will be paying the cost with our children. We must act now if we are to succeed. And we can succeed.
For donations of $2,500 or more, you can still be included on the museum Donor Wall.
It is imperative that we reach as many parents, groups, allies, policy makers and media as possible in order to bring about further safeguards and action by the voting body necessary for getting such psychiatric treatment outlawed.
Click here to donate online, or call 1-800-869-2247.
Or mail a check to:
CCHR International
6616 Sunset Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90028
Sincerely,
Samantha Garcia
CCHR International
Note: This letter is copyrighted with all rights reserved. Photocopying, telefaxing, e-mailing, reproduction, distribution or quotation are strictly prohibited without the written permission of CCHR.
Copyright © 2005 Citizens Commission on Human Rights. All Rights Reserved. Citizens Commission on Human Rights, CCHR and its logo are trademarks and service marks owned by Citizens Commission on Human Rights International.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)