When No One Acts in the 21 Century, Losing Informed Consent

July 9th, 2015 | Legislation Alerts

Do not underestimate your power.

Shocking lobbyist’s bill moves quickly without public input. Informed Consent on the chopping block and a fast track to human experimentation.  AbleChild strongly opposes this proposed bill.

AbleChild encourages you to contact Chairman Fred Upton (R) and Diana DeGette (D) and your representative to voice opposition to H.R. 6.

Do not underestimate your power!  Call and Opposes H.R. 6!   Simply put it, I support informed consent and human rights and reject lobbyist’s dream bill H.R 6.

The 21st Century Cures Act
June 10, 2015

Interactive Guide to the #Cures2015 Legislation

WASHINGTON, DC – The House Energy and Commerce Committee recently voted 51-0 approving H.R. 6, the 21st Century Cures Act. This nonpartisan legislation is a product of more than a year of working with patients, advocates, researchers, innovators, and health care professionals to bring our nation’s laws up to speed with advances in medicine and technology. Over a year ago, Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) and Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) began the 21st Century Cures conversation to discuss the many incredible scientific advancements and breakthrough studies happening each day and how those can be used to find cures and therapies for the thousands of conditions and diseases without them.

The 21st Century Cures Act accelerates the discovery, development, and delivery of life saving and life improving therapies and transforms the quest for faster cures by:

Removing barriers to increased research collaboration.
Incorporating the patient perspective into the drug development and regulatory review process.

Measuring success and identifying diseases earlier through personalized medicine.
Modernizing clinical trials.

Removing regulatory uncertainty for the development of new medical apps.

Providing new incentives for the development of drugs for rare diseases.

Helping the entire biomedical ecosystem coordinate more efficiently to find faster cures.

Investing in 21st Century science and next generation investigators.

HR 6 helps keep and create jobs here at home.
– See more at: http://energycommerce.house.gov/press-release/21st-century-cures-act#sthash.C2XUUSwt.dpuf

 

Sandy Hook Advisory Member tells Associated Press “There’s been a misunderstanding”

BREAKING TODAY:

Associated Press filed its story on the press conference held on February 23, 2015 by 9 different parental rights groups who joined forces to oppose the Sandy Hook Advisory Commission Recommendations in the aftermath of the mass murder and suicide in Newtown, Connecticut.

AbleChild joined the newly formed “CT Parental Rights Coalition” and participated in the Press Conference along with the following organizations:

TEACH CT – The Education Association of Christian Homeschoolers of CT
NHELD-National Home Education Legal Defense
CHN-Connecticut Homeschool Network
Family Institute of Connecticut
Connecticut Against Common Core
Stop Common Core In New Milford
Quiet Corner Parents for Education
AbleChild
Student Data Privacy: A Voice For The Connecticut Children of P20 Win
Joined by Senator Markley

According to the Associated Press article, “Dr. Harold Schwartz, commission member and psychiatrist-in-chief at Hartford Hospital’s Institute for Living, said there’s been a misunderstanding of the report’s recommendations. He said the panel wanted to make sure that if a child was identified as having special needs while in public school, that his or her IEP plan be followed if they become home-schooled.”

According NBC CT  “The commission’s mission has been to change policies and laws in an effort to prevent another violent massacre like the one on Dec. 14, 2012 at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown that took the lives of 20 first graders and six staff members.”  The misunderstanding Dr. Schwartz should clear up is how any of these recommendations will “prevent another violent massacre.”

Recall, none of the mental health records have been made public despite multiple news organizations and AbleChild petitions via the Freedom of Information Act, (FOIA) Commission.  In the case of AbleChild, the FOI Commission deferred our argument to the court system; we declined that expensive course of action.

There is another  “misunderstanding” regarding the conflicting data released by the Child Advocate’s office and the Newtown Bee’s account of Adam Lanza’s school years at Newtown High School.  Clearly the Sandy Hook Advisory Commission (SHAC) has not shown any interest in clearly up these critical “misunderstandings.”

AbleChild would like to point out, the 10 bullet pointed recommendations in the NBC referenced article (linked above)  used the following language: Expand, Increase, Implement, Build, Identify.  These recommendations come with a very large price tag for taxpayers for subjective, dangerous screening methods that clearly missed Adam Lanza.

The Associated Press report interviewed Hamden Mayor Scott Jackson, the commission’s chairman.   “Mayor Jackson hopes the report will encourage homeschooling parents to seek help if their child has behavioral issues.”  “That language is actually intended to say, to remind parents who choose to homeschool, that you can still take advantage of everything that the school system has to offer,” he said. “It’s still a one-way swinging door. If they want it, all they have to do is ask.”

None of the Sandy Hook Advisory Commission’s recommendations focus on policies that reflect, “if they want it, all they have to do it ask.”  that would be an “opt in” policy. These mental health screenings are subjective and are conducted without parent consent.  In fact, they fail to meet the standards of an “opt out” policy.

The Commission failed to address the MEDWatch issue raised by Nancy Lanza with Yale Child Study Center in the State Police Report which should have been the focus to protect consumers seeking mental health services.  Remember, Yale Child Study center was the last known “treatment” center for Adam Lanza and they claim that Nancy Lanza was “non compliant” as she tried to report an “adverse drug event.”

Sandy Hook Commission Remedy Misfires & Injures Taxpayers and Children

January 19th, 2015 | Breaking News, Legislation Alerts

The good news is that the Sandy Hook Advisory Commission’s report finally will be released sometime in February. The bad news is that one can only wonder, after more than two years of considering “all” of the data, what additional information about Sandy Hook shooter, Adam Lanza, can be withheld from the people of Connecticut.

So far Lanza’s complete autopsy, medical and toxicology reports have been withheld from public review, as have his school and mental health records. Sure, the State Police released its report, which provides zero information about Lanza’s mental health history for the five years leading up to the shooting, and the public also has been provided a “story,” albeit confused and incomplete, by the Connecticut Office of the Child Advocate (OCA). But the only thing these reports have in common is the deliberate withholding of actual documentation to support the conclusions.

Now the Sandy Hook Commission intends to sell some narrative of events that “was really, really hard work,” that apparently will justify recommendations for massive increases in mental illness identification and treatment that, according to Commission Chairman, Jackson, “frankly will take a lot of effort and money to implement.”

Let’s not kid ourselves; the focus of the Commission always has been to recommend increased screening to identify mental illness in the schools. And, apparently, the Commission will recommend school-based psychological and social work teams that can recognize and react to mental health needs in children. In short, that equates to mental illness diagnosing and drugging.

This despite the fact that there is absolutely no data provided to the public that Adam Lanza had any mental health needs in the five years leading up to the shooting and, if he did, it certainly wasn’t the responsibility of the Connecticut school system to track him once he left the system.

In fact, the information provided by the OCA report is so convoluted that it’s difficult to follow, let alone believe. For example, Lanza’s educational and mental health records were reviewed and interviews were conducted with counselors, teachers and even Peter Lanza, yet despite more than a hundred pages of explanations of how the system dropped the ball with Lanza, nowhere does it make mention that despite his paralyzing mental illnesses, Lanza still made the Honor Roll from the eighth through the eleventh grade and graduated a year early.

How is it possible that everyone involved in the OCA report, including Lanza’s father, could miss this important information? Did anyone at the OCA actually review his school records? If the records were reviewed, then one can only surmise there was a deliberate withholding of any mention of Lanza’s superior academic achievements. Why?

But even this missing information is, well, academic. Based on what was provided in the OCA report, one can also assume that the Commission’s recommendations will provide no sanctions or penalties for the newly-formed army of psychologists and social workers who may fail the children and families of Connecticut.

In other words, there is no doubt, according to the OCA report, that the IEP “team” responsible for tracking Adam Lanza’s academic and psychological needs failed in their duties. The “team” did not follow the state statutes already on the books. Will there be some form of disciplinary action taken for such failures moving forward? The OCA made no such recommendations.

More importantly, what recommendations will the Commission provide to protect families from over-reaching and intrusive mental health providers? Given the fact that mental illness diagnosing is not based in science or medicine, making it completely subjective, will the Commission provide the parents of Connecticut some avenue of recourse?

It seems a legitimate recommendation. After all, if the state intends to gouge taxpayers for the mental illness services in its schools, then the state also must be prepared to accept responsibility for its failures. Given the known flaws in psychiatric diagnosing, there will be many.

Thomas Insel, the Director of the National Institute of Mental Health, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), psychiatry’s diagnosing manual, said “the weakness is its lack of validity” and “at best, a dictionary, creating a set of labels and defining each.”

Or maybe it was Dr. Allen Frances, professor emeritus of psychiatry, Duke University, and chairman of the task force to revise the DSM-IV, who said it best. The DSM5 “will dramatically expand the realm of psychiatry and narrow the realm of normality – converting millions more people from being without mental disorders to being psychiatrically sick.”

If the state accepts the Commission’s reported recommendations there is little doubt that the number of school children being labeled as mentally ill will skyrocket. This psychiatric onslaught of the state’s children seems odd given the fact that it has yet to be explained how the school system is responsible for the actions of a former student, five years after graduating from the system.

Connecticut Consumers Need Some Avenue of Relief in Mental Health

January 4th, 2015 | Breaking News, Legislation Alerts

As is typical of “crisis management” by elected officials, the Connecticut legislature responded to the Sandy Hook tragedy without full knowledge of the facts of the incident with ill-advised mental health recommendations that do nothing to protect consumer rights.

In April of last year, the Task Force to Study the Provision of Behavioral Health Services for Young Adults, established pursuant to Public Act 13-3, put forth yet-to-be-approved mental health recommendations that, for all intents and purposes, would institute cradle to grave mental health diagnosing, yet provided no avenue for consumer input.

In other words, the public may be subjected to extremely intrusive mental health services, but will have no way to voice opposition to possible inaccuracies and wrongs committed by the service providers.

For example, the Task Force writes on page xi, number 45, that “…given the current understanding of mental illness to be a biological disease.” This is just wrong. The fact is there is no scientific/medical data to support this statement for any psychiatric diagnosis, including ADHD, depression, schizophrenia, or the alleged bi-polar disorder. Believing in, and having proof of, a psychiatric “disease” is two very different things.

However, regardless of the misinformation provided by the Task Force about what is and isn’t a mental “disease,” the recommendations, if instituted, do not provide consumers the ability to hold service providers responsible. What transpired between Nancy Lanza and the Yale Child Study Center actually is a good case in point.

Recall that Nancy Lanza sought treatment services for Adam Lanza at the Yale Child Study Center beginning in October 2006 – six years prior to the shooting incident. As part of the “treatment” provided, Adam was diagnosed by Yale as suffering from a “profound Autism Spectrum Disorder” and “obsessive compulsive disorder” and then was “treated” with the mind-altering antidepressant, Celexa.

Nancy Lanza “immediately” called the service provider at Yale Child Study Center, complaining about what she believed to be serious adverse reactions to the psychiatric drug. Specifically, Nancy Lanza advised Yale that Adam was “unable to raise his arm” and attributed this adverse reaction to the drug Adam had been prescribed.

Rather than take Lanza seriously and consider that the drug may be implicated in the adverse drug event, the Yale clinician “attempted to convince Nancy Lanza that the medication was not causing any purported symptoms which Adam might be experiencing” and labeled Lanza as “non-compliant.”

Was Nancy Lanza provided information about the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) MedWatch System? No. Had Lanza been provided this basic adverse drug reporting information, at a minimum, the FDA would have been given important information in the event of a future drug review.

Additionally, was Lanza advised by Yale Child Study Center that she could file a complaint with the Connecticut Department of Public Health (DPH)? The record makes no mention of providing any such information.

And, to add insult to injury, there is the case of Dr. Paul Fox, Adam Lanza’s longtime psychiatrist who, ironically, six months prior to the shooting incident at Sandy Hook, voluntarily surrendered his license to practice in New York and Connecticut and destroyed his patient records prior to fleeing the U.S. to live in New Zealand.

Despite destroying all of his patient medical records and, in the case of Adam Lanza, Fox destroyed those records almost two years too early, there is absolutely no recourse. A clear violation of Connecticut State law, but no action is prescribed to deal with such flagrant violations. No fines, no penalty, nothing.

Dr. Paul Fox and even the clinicians at Yale Child Study Center are proof that consumers need an avenue of relief. AbleChild believes that lawmakers have a responsibility to provide some level of protection to consumers, especially in light of the overwhelming number of mental health recommendations being considered.

Particularly important is the recommendation listed on page xi, number 44, where it is the intent to scale up “Assertive Treatment Programs that provide aggressive outpatient services, shy of forced medication…”

Clearly the intent of the Task Force recommendations is to severely ramp up mental health “treatment,” which almost always includes psychiatric medication. Nowhere in these recommendations are suggestions for legislative measures that will provide consumers some avenue of relief, alternative treatment options, or information about reporting adverse reactions to prescribed drugs.

Ablechild takes exception to the increased mental health recommendations on a number of levels, including the fact that, given the numerous problems surrounding the mental health “care” Adam Lanza received, the State obviously cannot enforce the laws already on the books. Increasing mental health services without consumer protections in place certainly cannot be called responsible legislative action.

Connecticut State in Mental Health Denial

The recent July 9th Ct. Mirror article, Children Stuck in Crisis, accomplishes the intended purpose of deceptively convincing the people of Connecticut that there’s a severe mental health services crisis in the state.

On the surface, the article’s author, Arielle Becker, provides a compelling scenario of the state’s youth failing to get the needed mental health care and forced to rely on emergency room services. The problem with the presentation is Becker’s failure to address a key piece of information in the reported mental-health-crisis-puzzle – the increased psychiatric drugging of Connecticut’s children.

The entire article focuses on the specific case of Peter, a 6 foot, 220 pound 13-year old, who apparently has been in the care of mental health professionals for many years of his young life. Peter is described as having “psychiatric issues and a developmental disorder that places him on the autism spectrum.”

Becker does not provide any details about Peter’s psychiatric history, including information such as when he first was diagnosed with a psychiatric mental disorder, the number of specific mental disorders he has been labeled with and, most importantly, which mind-altering psychiatric drugs he has been prescribed during his young life.

These are not unimportant questions, especially when one considers the known adverse reactions associated with most psychiatric drugs. For example, antidepressants carry the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) “Black box” warnings for increased risk of suicidality. Other known adverse reactions associated with antidepressants include aggressive and abnormal behavior, hallucinations, mania and psychosis.

Other psychiatric chemical “treatments” include anti-anxiety and antipsychotic drugs, which also carry such adverse reactions as hostility, confusion, hallucinations, agitation, restlessness and tremors.

Becker, in an attempt to get to the bottom of this mental health services crisis explains that “some mental health care providers link it to an increase in the number of children with mental health needs…others see a greater willingness to recognize problems because awareness of mental illness has grown.”

What obviously is missing from the list of reasons for the “crisis” is the increased prescribing of dangerous psychiatric drugs. In fact, the only mention of any psychiatric drug “treatment” comes at the end of the article when Becker finally reveals that Peter was seen by psychiatrists at the Institute of Living and “his medication was changed.” That’s it. Pathetically, that is the extent of the conversation about psychiatric drugging.

But the lack of important information doesn’t end there. Becker also does not provide any information about all the previous failed attempts to “fix” Connecticut’s broken mental health system. For example, in 2008, lawmakers attempted mental health fixes through the President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental HealthConnecticut’s Mental Health and Transformation State Incentive Grant.”

This $13 million dollar “fix,” as explained by Project Director, Pat Rehmer, as “Transformation efforts and activities are broad based and far reaching as they have been implemented across multiple state agencies offering the state’s citizens an array of accessible services and supports that are culturally responsive, person and family-centered.”

Certainly sounds like this “fix” should have helped Peter but, alas, it is another costly, failed mental health Band aid. Not surprisingly, this “transformation” also did not address the ever-increasing use of psychiatric drugs for “treatment” of Connecticut’s children.

Is it any wonder, then, that the “crisis” not only exists, but is worsening? The people of Connecticut still are not getting accurate information, and it is these omissions that render this article irrelevant in the debate for increased mental health services.

Ignoring important information does not benefit those who are suffering, nor does it help those in a position to make the necessary, and deadly serious, changes that are needed.

 

 

URGE CONGRESS TO DEFEAT ANY ATTEMPT TO INCREASE MENTAL HEALTH SPENDING

A recent “E-News” bulletin by the pharmaceutical supported National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) urged Congress to pass legislation to “improve” mental health care in America. The bulletin urges its members to contact their U.S. Representatives to “reinforce our commitment to action.” Nonsense. This is totally industry driven, with no public support.

NAMI members were provided information about two bills currently pending in Congress: The Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act (HR 3717) introduced by Congressman Tim Murphy (R-PA) and the Strengthening Mental Health in our Communities Act of 2014 (HR 4574) introduced by Congressman Barber.

Both of these bills benefit the ever-growing mental health/psychiatric industry and pharmaceutical companies, and both pieces of legislation use shooting incidents as the impetus for Congressional action. Murphy’s bill apparently is in response to the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School and Barber’s is in response to the 2011 Tucson mall shooting where Congresswoman Giffords and also Congressman Barber were victims.

“Improved mental health” is the mantra of both bills, suggesting that mental health care in America is subpar. So let’s look at what mental health information is available for both of these shootings.

According to media reports the Tucson shooter, Jared Loughner, had, in his junior year of High School, broken up with a girlfriend and was dealing with the death of his grandfather. Loughner was seen by psychiatrist, was diagnosed with depression and prescribed medication.

Although it is reported that Loughner never took the prescribed medication, it was at this time that friends began to notice a change in Laugher’s behavior. It also is reported that Loughner never showed any signs of violence or displayed any kind of threatening behavior…until the shooting.

Fast forward to the Sandy Hook shooting. It is reported that the 20-year old shooter, Adam Lanza, suffered from OCD and a profound form of Autism. This data reflects Lanza’s mental health status as a 15-year old, literally five years prior to the shooting. The State Police Report of the incident provides no mental health data about the mental health treatment Lanza may have received in the five years leading up to the shooting.

Five years before the shooting, Lanza was “treated” at the Yale Child Study Center and was prescribed two antidepressants, Celexa and Lexapro, and reportedly experienced serious adverse reactions to both drugs. That is the extent of the known mental health treatment Lanza received.

Both of these shooters had access to mental health professionals, both were diagnosed with psychiatric mental disorders and both received prescriptions for psychiatric drugs. What part of America’s mental health system failed them? Both sought out mental health services and both received the apparent recommended mental health treatment.

Psychiatric diagnosing is completely subjective, and psychiatrists are the first to admit that they are unable to predict whether a patient will become violent. In the case of Lanza, Yale Child Study Center’s, Dr. Robert King, reported “while I was concerned clinically with his rigidity and social constriction, I noted nothing in (the shooter) which would have made this unfortunate outcome foreseeable.”

According to Rep. Murphy, a clinical psychologist, “civil rights concerns are misplaced. When you’re in jail, homeless or in a coffin, what rights do you have?” That is an excellent question, but not for the reasons Rep. Murphy is using.

Ablechild sued the state of Connecticut to obtain the medical/mental health records, toxicology and autopsy report for Lanza. The state denied the request on the grounds that Ablechild was not a “stakeholder.” As a deceased person, Lanza has no rights and, therefore, his records should be made public.

Ablechild urges its Members and all interested parties to write to their Members of Congress demanding that not one more dime of taxpayer money be appropriated for increased mental health services until:

Federal legislation is enacted that in the case of mass shootings (2 or more) the toxicology, medical/mental health and autopsy reports of the perpetrator(s) are released for public review.

Federal legislation is enacted that would make it mandatory that mental health
data, including prescription drug information (regardless of age), is made
public in cases of mass killings (2 or more).

Federal legislation is enacted to set up a national database to collect information
on criminal acts and psychiatric drug history at the time of arrest.

While Representatives Murphy and Barber clearly are concerned about the state of the nation’s deteriorating mental health treatment services, with 70 million Americans taking at least one psychiatric mind-altering drug, there is a much larger discussion that both pieces of legislation fail to address.

With one-in-five Americans receiving mental health services in the form of psychiatric drugs, and what appears to be increasing numbers of violent acts, is it possible that the problem lies in the kind of mental health “treatment” being provided? Rather than rush to increase costly mental health services, perhaps an in-depth look at the “services” being provided is a better use of time and taxpayer funds.

 

 

 

The Mental Health Agenda of Sandy Hook

The 47 recommendations presented yesterday by the Task Force to Study the Provisions of Behavioral Health Services for Young Adults is nothing short of a never-ending mental health assault on the families of Connecticut. Forty-two of these recommendations benefit the psychiatric and drug industries, while only five address quality of service and human rights.

The most galling part of the 60-odd page report is that, while its recommendations are reportedly in response to the passage of P.A. 13-3, which was in response to the Sandy Hook shooting, nowhere in the report is there any information provided about Adam Lanza’s mental health.

In fact, on page 1 of the report, the Task Force writes, “among other issues, the event (Sandy Hook) focused attention on Connecticut’s behavioral health services for young adults and raised questions about the extent of their availability, accessibility, and affordability.” Why?

If the mental health legislation (P.A. 13-3) was passed in response to the shooting at Sandy Hook, wouldn’t the focus be on the mental health treatment Adam Lanza received? Wouldn’t the Task Force be interested in the 2007 “treatment” provided to Adam Lanza by the Yale Child Study Center, including Yale mental health providers who labeled Nancy Lanza as “non-compliant” because she refused to continue Adam on a psychiatric drug that was causing serious adverse effects?

One would think that if these increased mental health services were in response to the actions of Adam Lanza, then his mental health “treatment” would be the focus of any recommendations. Of course, given that the last five years of Lanza’s mental health history is missing from the State Police Investigation of Sandy Hook, it would be difficult for the Task Force to provide any real insight. But here’s the rub, the Task Force apparently didn’t even ask for mental health data on Adam Lanza. Why?

Given the complete lack of interest in the mental health “treatment” of Adam Lanza – the reported reason behind the push for increased mental health services in Connecticut – one can only assume there is another agenda.

Without getting into too much detail, what becomes immediately clear is that the Task Force is hell-bent on “early recognition, assessment, intervention and treatment of childhood and adolescent behavioral health disorders.” In other words, because of Adam Lanza’s mental health (which no one seems remotely interested in) Connecticut’s preschoolers and adolescents need to be screened for mental disorders, and the sooner the better.

To insure that the State’s preschoolers are properly screened and “treated,” the Task Force is recommending truckloads of taxpayer dollars to pay for an army of mental health guessperts to identify these alleged mental disorders. It doesn’t matter that no psychiatric disorder is based in science. It doesn’t matter that the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), the premier mental health agency in the world, admits on its website that science doesn’t know what causes any psychiatric disorder, the Task Force cannot stop itself from passing on the fraud.

For example, on page xi of the report, the Task Force recommends to “increase the age of majority to 18 years old for making decisions regarding one’s mental health and substance abuse treatment, given the current understanding of mental illness to be a biologic disease.”

Sure, that may be the State’s and the Task Force’s “understanding” of mental illness, but it’s wrong. Continuing to spew this disinformation does not help those suffering, and certainly raises questions about the Task Force’s understanding of mental illness and the reported “treatment” options.

The most important section of this report comes as part of the human rights issues. The Task Force, apparently unwilling to tackle the issue, passes off the discussion of forced psychiatric care onto “a separate Task Force,” which also would address the use of psychiatric drugs on children who refuse such treatment.

The Task Force’s unwillingness to address these important issues does not, however, stop it from recommending to “…provide aggressive outpatient services, shy of forced medication, to clients with severe illness in Connecticut.”

Mental health “treatment” always comes back around to psychiatric drugging and, perhaps, that is the reason the Task Force deliberately steered clear of Adam Lanza’s mental health history. After all, if it were revealed that Lanza received the best mental health care possible, what reason would there be to increase mental health services within the state?

Worse, still, if it were revealed that Lanza actually received quality mental health care, then it’s quite possible that the mental health community’s “treatment” may actually come under fire. In the end, though, without any information about Adam Lanza’s mental health, these are 47 mental health recommendations too many.

 

 

 

 

Connecticut Fails to Meet Deadline on Sandy Hook Mental Health Gun Bill

The problem with instituting sweeping, costly and invasive mental health legislation is that there always are unintended consequences. The State of Connecticut, when passing Public Act 13-3, apparently didn’t consider that there are two sides to every story. And when it comes to “mental health” there most definitely is another side beyond the mental health we-need-early -intervention-to-help-those-suffering mantra.

A case in point is the recent report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, which found that more than 10,000 toddlers between the ages of 2-3 are being medicated for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, ADHD.   Worse still, these data are limited and the experts believe the problem is actually much worse on a national level.

But to fully grasp the insanity of drugging 2-3 year olds with highly addictive mind-altering drugs, let’s consider a few important pieces of information about this age group. First, the average weight for male toddlers at three years is 29.5 pounds and females is 28.4 and, by this age, only 80 percent of the child’s brain has fully developed.

Developmentally 2-3 year olds are learning to arrange things in groups, putting things in size order, remembering what they did yesterday, recognizing themselves in the mirror and learning to say please and thank you. Yes, great strides, but still the brain is not fully developed.

Now let’s consider the ADHD diagnosis. This alleged mental disorder is all about behavior.  Regardless of what the American Psychiatric Association, APA, believes, the National Institutes of Mental Health, NIMH, makes it clear on its website that “scientists don’t know what causes ADHD.” There is no test known to man that can detect ADHD as a biological/genetic abnormality.

Because the  APA has no proof of any abnormality that is the alleged ADHD, they have compiled a list of “abnormal” behaviors that apparently make up the diagnosis, including “is often easily distracted,” “is often forgetful in daily activities,” “often does not seem to listen when spoken to directly,” etc.  After considering the list of 18 criteria that make up the alleged mental disorder, ADHD, one has to wonder what child doesn’t repeatedly do most, if not all, of these behaviors.

Nevertheless, now, let’s consider the ADHD “treatment” most commonly used – Ritalin (methylphenidate) and Adderall (amphetamine). Methylphenidate is a schedule II drug and, as such, is considered by the federal government to be one of the most addictive. It also is considered by the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA,  “to produce discriminative stimulus effects similar to cocaine, which substitute for each other and for cocaine in a number of paradigms, and chronic high-dose administration of either drug in animals produces psychomotor stimulant toxicity including weight loss, stereotypic movements and death, and in clinical studies, they produce behavioral, psychological, subjective and reinforcing effects similar to cocaine.”

The DEA sums up Methylphenidate and Amphetamine use this way: “this data means that neither animals nor humans can tell the difference between cocaine, amphetamine or methylphenidate when they are administered the same way at comparable doses. In short, they produce effects that are nearly identical.”

In a nutshell, 2-3 year old toddlers are being labeled with an alleged mental illness that is not based in science or medicine and then “treated” with extremely addictive, mind-altering drugs before their brains are even fully formed.

Did legislators really consider the implications of Public Act 13-3, which pushes for early identification and screening for mental illness in the state’s children? Was even one expert allowed to testify before any committee, making lawmakers aware of the above facts?  No.

More importantly, according to Public Act 13-3, a Task Force was established to consider all of the mental health provisions and report back to the Legislature and the Governor.  Not surprising, this report, which was due no later than February 1st of this year, still has not been completed.

These Task Force recommendations may provide some guidance on just how intrusive the mental health provisions are. For example, at what age will Connecticut’s legislators decide early intervention and screening is inappropriate and harmful? Public Act 13-3 allows for “Mental Health First Aid Training” as part of in-service training for educators.  If a child is labeled with a mental illness through this early intervention and mental health screening, what rights are afforded to parents who refuse to accept this “help?”

Does this mental health intervention end at the school-age level or will the State continue to legislate mental health screening to include toddlers and preschoolers?    Given that nearly 8 million American children between the ages of 6-17 currently are taking at least one mind-altering, psychiatric drug, it is clear what mental health’s “treatment” consists of.  Yes, there are consequences for ill-advised and uninformed legislation.

 

 

 

Sign Petition for Congressional Hearings on Military Suicides

May 9th, 2014 | Legislation Alerts

Ablechild’s mission is informed consent regarding the psychiatric labeling and drugging of children.  In support of any measures that will bring attention to psychiatric abuses in this regard, Ablechild is pleased to support The Citizens Commission on Human Rights, CCHR, petition for Congressional hearings into the epidemic of military suicides.

Though Ablechild focuses on the rights of children and families, the same system of psychiatric abuses are occurring in the military and we heartily support any legislative measures that would also protect our fighting troops.

As part of this petition drive, Ablechild recommends that our members view CCHR’s new documentary, The Hidden Enemy, which exposes the abuses of psychiatry on the nation’s military forces.

PLEASE join Ablechild in supporting this petition for Congressional hearings into the link between psychiatric drugs and the epidemic of military suicides by signing the petition located on the right side of page.

Regardless of What NAMI Believes Inaccurate Information Harms Mentally Ill

May 7th, 2014 | Blog, Legislation Alerts

The author of the op-ed of May 6, 2014, “Mental health treatment is not perfect, but it can be life-saving,” still is disseminating false information about many things, including the cause of mental illnesses.

First, to be clear, in none of these op-ed exchanges has Ablechild ever suggested that anyone should not be entitled to seek treatment.   Quite the contrary.  But Ablechild believes that accurate information about the cause of mental illness is absolutely necessary for those who are suffering.  To continue to disseminate misinformation about the cause of mental illness is a disservice to those who are desperately looking to the medical and scientific community for help.

Again, specifically, the author states, “…there is ample evidence from many research facilities that conduct brain research that mental illness is a biological disease.”  Okay. Which mental illness has been proven to be a biological disease? Please, for the public’s sake, provide the verifiable, indisputable, scientific data for the mental illness that has a biological cause.

The author makes an inaccurate, blanket statement about “ample evidence,” yet fails to provide the supporting data for even one alleged mental disorder, leaving the reader to accept the inaccurate information on the author’s belief, and then places the burden of proof on the reader to do the confirming research.

This information is blatantly wrong. If there is “ample evidence from many research facilities that conduct brain research that mental illness is a biological disease,” then let’s have it. This should be easily documentable and, one would think, the author would be eager to provide such demonstrative, groundbreaking, data.

In fact, the National Institute of Mental Health, NIMH, provides no definitive information about the cause of any mental disorder:

Depression: “Most likely, depression is caused by a combination of genetic, biological, environmental and psychological factors.”

Bipolar Disorder: “Scientists are studying the possible causes of bipolar disorder. Most scientists agree that there is no single cause.”

ADHD: “Scientists are not sure what causes ADHD.”

Schizophrenia: “Experts think schizophrenia is caused by several factors.”

Despite the author’s obvious lack of information about what the nation’s top mental health experts have to say about the cause of any mental illness, the author further attempts to support her inaccurate statement by using the State of Connecticut’s mental health parity standard stating the “state law acknowledged many years ago when it instituted parity for mental health treatment that mental illness is biological in nature.”

Like NAMI, the Connecticut legislature may believe that “mental illness is biological in nature,” but there is no scientific/medical evidence to prove this. Ablechild challenges the state to provide the conclusive and scientifically verifiable evidence that mental illness – any mental illness – has a biological cause.

In fact, if NAMI is testifying before the state about this inaccurate information – that mental illness is a biological disease – then it is no wonder that the state would pass mental health parity.  But inaccurate information is inaccurate information regardless of who utters it.

As to the author’s assertion that NAMI is not funded by the pharmaceutical industry, there is ample evidence to the contrary. An October 2009 article in the New York Times titled “Drug Makers Are Advocacy Group’s Biggest Donors,” reports that “a majority of the donations made to the National Alliance on Mental Illness, one of the nation’s most influential disease advocacy groups, have come from drug makers…”

In fact, the New York Times obtained information from U.S. Senator Charles E. Grassley, which revealed that between 2006-2008 NAMI received $23 million from drug makers and the executive director of NAMI, Michael Fitzpatrick, said “for at least the years of 07, 08 and 09, the percentage of money from pharma has been higher than we have wanted it to be.”

Ablechild reiterates that there is no definitive scientific data to support that any mental disorder has a biological cause.  False statements, like these made by the author, must be addressed because the public, especially those suffering from emotional and behavioral problems, deserve the truth in order to make informed decisions.

In the meantime, Ablechild wants to thank the Connecticut Mirror for allowing this important debate on mental health, and we urge the public to support federal legislation, H.R.4518  which actually protects parents and families from psychiatric abuses.

 

Page 1 of 212
Website Design by Chroma Sites