Skip to main content

Connecticut State in Mental Health Denial

Written by Able Child on . Posted in Lawmaking, Sandy Hook.

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 Health – “Connecticut’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.

 

 

Who Decides Which People are Mentally Ill…Who Gets That Control?

Written by Sheila Matthews on . Posted in Sandy Hook.

The Ct.Post.com website ran an article yesterday titled, Sandy Hook Study Dragging, which on its face is one of the most biased and misinformed articles of “news” this writer has seen in some time.

As is so typical of the reporting in Connecticut, the Ct.Post.com uses the Sandy Hook shooting as an excuse to attack the gun lobby and cheerlead for increased mental health services in the state. The problem with this self-serving reporting is that there is absolutely no proof that Sandy Hook shooter, Adam Lanza, lacked good mental health services.

In fact, according to the records that have been made available, Lanza received abundant mental health care throughout his life. The problem for the Ct.Post.com, and other Connecticut “news” organizations, is that it hasn’t read the investigation of the shooting incident.

If anyone at the Ct.Post.com had read the investigation, it would have become clear that the last five years of mental health records for Adam Lanza do not exist. That’s right. Adam Lanza’s mental health records, since the age of 15, have been withheld from public review.

So how exactly has the Ct.Post.com come to the conclusion that based on the Sandy Hook shooting, and the subsequent investigation, that increased mental health services are needed or, for that matter, even desired by anyone other than the mental health and pharmaceutical industries?

The argument can, and should, be made that until Adam Lanza’s mental health records are made public and reviewed, that there should be no increases in mental health services. After all, is it not possible that Adam Lanza got the best mental health care that money could buy and maybe, just maybe, the mental health treatment he received needs to be scrutinized? Oops, can’t do that. Not on the agenda?

The Ct.Post.com article explains that “mental health screenings for buyers and sellers of firearms in Connecticut? Of course. Logic says no one would want a weapon in the hands of a mentally ill person.” Really? Let’s think about this for a moment.

Who decides which people are mentally ill? Who gets that control? If we go by the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) then just about anyone can be labeled “mentally ill.” The DSM so distorts and redefines human behavior that there is a mental illness for every human emotion, including grief and baby tantrums. So how about people who suffer from depression, ADHD, bi-polar, PTSD? Or how about people who are taking a psychiatric mind-altering drug which, at this point, includes 79 million Americans.

And, if these people are too mentally ill to own a fire arm are they also too mentally ill to drive an automobile (a deadly weapon), own knives or baseball bats, continue to serve in the armed forces? It’s easy to see the ridiculousness of such thinking, unless you’re the writer of the Ct.Post.com article.

Remember it is the mental health “guessperts” that tell people who suffering from mental illness that the drugs they prescribe actually “treat” the disorder. If that’s true, why would there be any problem with mentally ill people owning a firearm, so long as they’re getting the appropriate “treatment?” The mental health community can’t have it both ways. Either psychiatric drugs “work” and “treat” the disorder, or they don’t and that needs to be investigated.

The idea that the Ct.Post.com would even suggest supporting sweeping mental health increases and firearm restrictions, without even questioning what documentation exists to support it, is insulting to the taxpayers and voters in the state. Come on. Why not just say it up front. There is zero evidence that Adam Lanza lacked good mental health care, but it’s a great excuse for the mental health industry to expand its control over the lives of the people of Connecticut. At least that would be honest.

 

 

URGE CONGRESS TO DEFEAT ANY ATTEMPT TO INCREASE MENTAL HEALTH SPENDING

Written by Able Child on . Posted in Lawmaking.

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 Sandy Hook Advisory Commission and the Evidence of a “Convicted Offender.”

Written by Able Child on . Posted in Sandy Hook.

Last week the Sandy Hook Advisory Commission threw another crumb to the masses, letting them know that, well, even though they can’t get any of the records and documents they want, they’ll forge ahead and produce a report, making mental health recommendations, that has absolutely nothing to do with Adam Lanza’s mental health history.

In the seventeen months that it has taken the Commission to get to this point, it is interesting how it repeatedly complains about being unable to obtain mental health records relating to Adam Lanza. Okay. Got it. But what about the records the Commission does have access to?

Remember that the Commission enlisted the services of a law firm to make sense of, or “catalogue,” the State Police Report of the shooting, so making sense of the 6700 pages of investigative material should not have been too terribly taxing for the Commission. And if the Commission took the time to read the investigation, then they are aware of an interesting piece of physical evidence that may shed light on the motive behind the shooting.

As part of the State’s investigation of the shooting, a sealed and stamped white envelope addressed “For the young students of Sandy Hook Elementary School,” was removed from the Lanza home and entered into evidence.

Both finger print and DNA testing was performed on this sealed envelope. No finger prints were found on the envelope but, more importantly, Adam and Nancy Lanza were eliminated as possible contributors to the DNA found. A positive DNA profile was identified. Whose DNA was found?

According to the Police investigation “the DNA profiles from items #3G1 (swabbing of envelope flap) and #4-2S2 (swabbing .22 caliber cartridges) were searched against the Connecticut and National DNA Databases. On January 7, 2013, a hit was obtained with the Convicted Offender DNA profile from New York State Police Investigation Center DB#Y10011106A.”

Wow, the DNA of a “Convicted Offender” in New York was found on the envelope; that was found in the Lanza home; that was addressed to “the young students of Sandy Hook Elementary School.”

The obvious question is how did the DNA of a “Convicted Offender” in New York get onto the envelope, that was addressed to the “young students of Sandy Hook Elementary School,” that was found in the Lanza home? Who is this “Convicted Offender,” and what is his connection to Nancy and Adam Lanza and, for that matter, what is his connection to Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting?

More importantly, what was found inside this sealed and stamped envelope? Did a “Convicted Offender” write a letter to the “young students of Sandy Hook Elementary School?” It’s anyone’s guess. The State Police investigation does not provide any information about any follow up about the “Convicted Offender,” what was found in the sealed and stamped envelope, or how it could have gotten into the Lanza home. Why?

This is an important piece of evidence that may shed some light on the murderous actions of December 14, 2012. Why would the State Police believe it was of interest to list the sealed envelope as evidence, test it for finger prints and DNA, provide the results, but not provide any information about the contents of the envelope – even if the envelope was empty?

This evidence should be of interest to the Commission simply by virtue of the possibility that it may provide insight into a motive behind the attack. Has the Commission requested this information from the State Police? Will the Commission provide this information as part of its final report?

Only time will tell. But it sure seems like this is physical evidence that the Commission would find of some use.

 

 

 

 

The Mental Health Agenda of Sandy Hook

Written by Able Child on . Posted in 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.

 

 

 

 

More Delays on Sandy Hook Reports

Written by Able Child on . Posted in Sandy Hook.

The Sandy Hook Advisory Commission, SHAC, and the State Child Advocate’s office still have produced no reports and the deadlines continually come and go with virtually no interest on the part of Governor Malloy or state lawmakers.

What is of interest, though, is the complete run-around and disconnect by those involved in producing the reports. For example, last week Ablechild contacted Hamden Town Mayor and SHAC Chairman, Scott Jackson, regarding the status of releasing the commission’s final report. Mayor Jackson’s secretary reported that the commission was meeting every Friday in the Governor’s office.

Upon contacting the Governor’s office, Ablechild was advised by Associate General Counsel to the Governor, Eleanor Michael, that “minutes from the January and February 2014 Sandy Hook Advisory Commission meetings can be found at the following link.” Michael further explains, “as the website reflects, the last meeting of the Commission was held on February 28, 2014.”

Contrary to Mayor Jackson’s secretary, the Commission is not meeting every Friday in the Governor’s office and apparently has not held a meeting since February 28th of this year. And, according to the Commission’s website, of the nineteen meetings held between January of 2013 and February of 2014, transcripts are provided for only four of these meetings.

Given the secrecy surrounding the entire Sandy Hook investigation, it seems completely normal that the public would not be provided actual transcripts of these meetings. But it does fly in the face of Mayor Jackson’s promise that “there will be a written account that can serve as a record of the Commission’s activities and will detail what the Commission investigated, why it investigated issues, and how it reached consensus on recommendations.”

As for the State Child Advocate’s office, recall that Ablechild was advised in late April that the Advocate’s office had, in February of this year, received the requested records for Adam Lanza and it would be at least two months before the Advocate’s office would complete its report.

Last week, however, Assistant Child Advocate, Faith Von Winkel, advised Ablechild that the report may not be completed for another year, explaining that the apparent reason for the delay is because multiple children were killed. This makes no sense.

The Child Advocate’s office is not reviewing multiple files of the children killed at Sandy Hook but, rather, is focusing on the records of Adam Lanza. Von Winkel further advised Ablechild that “we cannot put out a report that in any way would hurt the families of Sandy Hook.”

Seriously? What part of Adam Lanza’s school and mental health records would “hurt” the families of Sandy Hook? The same argument can be made that the families are being hurt because the Child Advocate’s office has failed to provide information that may have contributed to Lanza’s deadly actions.

But this really is a moot point until both the SHAC and the Child Advocate’s office provide the reports repeatedly promised, but continually delayed. The question that needs to be addressed is why, eighteen months after the shooting, those tasked with providing the reports have failed to produce them?

Did Psychiatric Drugs Play a Role in Plaskon’s Violent Behavior?

Written by Sheila Matthews on . Posted in Violence.

The alleged “Prom day” killer, Christopher Plaskon, is a snap shot of the future result of Connecticut’s increased mental health services.  The 17 year-olds defense apparently will be that his “mental health” caused his murderous actions – not the dangerous psychiatric drugs he obviously has been taking for some time.

Early reports of Plaskon’s behavior included information that he had been taking drugs to treat the alleged ADHD.  What psychiatric drugs? When was the teenager first diagnosed? Had he been further diagnosed with additional “mental illnesses?”  Which diagnoses?  How many psychiatric drugs had the teenager been prescribed during his young life?  Had Plaskon been taking a “cocktail” of psychiatric drugs?  All of these questions are important to understanding Plaskon’s violent actions.   Here’s why.

The teenager is mentally ill. He suffers from one or more psychiatric disorders.   This is the mental health community’s mantra and “ace in the hole.”   Despite there being zero scientific or medical data to support even one psychiatric “disorder” being an abnormality of the brain (objective, confirmable abnormality), the mental health community’s psychiatric labeling goes unchecked, opening the flood gates for prescribing dangerous psychiatric drug “treatments.”

According to recent news reports, Plaskon is being “treated” with two mind-altering psychiatric drugs – an anti-anxiety drug and also an anti-psychotic.  How long has Plaskon been taking these drugs? Had the teenager been prescribed the mind-altering drugs prior to his murderous actions?

For the sake of argument, let’s assumed Plaskon was being “treated” with both the anti-anxiety and anti-psychotic drugs prior to the stabbing.  Had he, like the Santa Barbara shooter, been prescribed the anti-anxiety drug, Xanax?  What are some of the known serious adverse reactions associated with anti-anxiety drugs like Xanaz?  Confusion, hallucinations, unusual thoughts or behavior, thoughts of suicide or hurting yourself, aggression, hostility and decreased inhibitions are some of the more serious adverse reactions associated with this class of drug.

What about the adverse reactions associated with anti-psychotic drugs?  Like so many of the psychiatric drug “treatments,” known adverse reactions associated with antipsychotic drugs include increased anxiety, depression and suicidal thoughts, to name a few.

Given the known adverse reactions associated with these psychiatric drugs, and withdrawal from them, it seems fair to suggest that it’s possible that Plaskon’s violent behavior may have been a result of one or more of the adverse reactions associated with these psychiatric drugs.

Will Plaskon’s psychiatric drug use even be made part of the trial? If history is any indication, probably not. The mental health community, which cannot prove even one of its alleged mental disorders is an abnormality of the brain and,  which, the state of Connecticut has warmly embraced will effectively and without scrutiny argue the worsening of Plaskon’s mental disorders.

As Ablechild’s mission is one of informed consent, we cannot help but wonder if Plaskon’s parents were made aware of the complete subjectivity of psychiatric diagnosing or, for that matter, advised of the possible known adverse reactions associated with any psychiatric drugs their son may have been prescribed.  This information can be easily verified by the informed consent document parents should sign when the diagnosis is made, like the one linked.

Because of the state’s ill-informed rush to institute costly, increased mental health services in Connecticut, and being fully aware that mental health “treatment” largely consists of prescribing psychiatric drugs, Ablechild believes that the state has an obligation to insure that parents and families are fully informed on both of these issues.

It’s one thing to tell consumers that the mental health increases are being instituted  to help those who are “suffering.” But without providing all the information about psychiatric diagnosing and the risks associated with psychiatric drugs, the state is nothing more than a shill for the mental health community and pharmaceutical industry.

 

 

 

Sandy Hook Police Investigation Reveals Two GPS Models in Mass Murders

Written by Able Child on . Posted in Sandy Hook.

The State Police Report of the Sandy Hook shooting has revealed some interesting inconsistencies about the Garmin GPS system that investigators examined to provide a snap shot of Adam Lanza’s whereabouts, months and days, before the shooting.    

Ablechild long has believed that the entire medical/mental health history of Sandy Hook shooter, Adam Lanza, was needed in order to make informed decisions about the future of the State’s mental health services.  Despite suing the State, in early 2013, for these records, including Lanza’s autopsy and toxicology results, the State denied the organization’s request, explaining that, as a 501c3, Ablechild was not an “interested party.”

Nevertheless, in an effort to try and understand the deadly actions of Lanza, and perhaps glean some mental health information, that may shed some light on the circumstances surrounding the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Ablechild has painstakingly combed through the entire (thousands of pages) State Police Report of the incident.  The documentation regarding what is reported to be Adam Lanza’s GPS system is confusing, at best.

The first report of the “Examination of GPS (Garmin Nuvi 200)” is dated May 11, 2013 (File ending in 59, Book 3, #0051670) and the investigating officer is Michael Mudry, who explains that he is tasked with examining the Garmin Nuvi 200 that was seized from the Lanza residence.

Officer Mudry further explains in this report that the GPS was originally seized by the Eastern District Major Crime Squad (EDMC), turned over to the FBI for extraction and Mudry burned a CD-R of the information for his examination of the GPS.  Officer Mudry also explains in this report that in February of 2013, he contacted a customer service representative at Garmin, who provided detailed information about ” the Garmin Nuvi 200…”

In another report regarding Lanza’s GPS (File ending in 59, Book 8, #001180469) dated August 29, 2013, Officer Mudry explains that the contents of a white plastic garbage bag found in the closet of Lanza’s bedroom include “one -Garmin Nuvi .”

Now, in a September 11, 2013 report (File ending in 59, Book 2, # 00171468) by Officer John Kimball, the Garmin Nuvi 200 suddenly and inexplicably is being identified as a “Garmin Nuvi Model 550) – that’s right a “550.”  Officer Kimball explains that his supervisor has asked him to examine the GPS that was seized from the Lanza home, but “it was later learned that Detective Michael Mudry already has examined the GPS.”

Officer Kimball acquiesces to officer Mudry’s report, which is part of this file.  This is where it gets interesting. Officer Mudry explains in this report that on July 31, 2013, he was assigned by Sgt. DeCesare “the task of examining a Garmin Nuvi Model 550 Global Positioning System (GPS) device which had been removed from a 2010 Honda Civic (Connecticut Passenger Plate: 872YEO) located at the Sandy Hook Elementary School.”

Weirder still, Officer Mudry no longer is relying on the FBI extraction data, as claimed in the May 11, 2013 report but, rather, “upon first examination, I determined the device battery was dead. I used a Mini-USB cable to connect the Garmin to my department Hewlett Packard laptop computer. In addition to powering the unit, this method allowed me to inspect the internal memory of the GPS device from my laptop.”

So in this report Officer Mudry is actually connecting the Garmin Nuvi Model 550 device – not the Garmin Nuvi 200 data extraction obtained from the FBI – to his computer for his examination. Furthermore, the GPS was “removed from the 2010 Honda Civic located at Sandy Hook Elementary School,” not seized from the Lanza home as reported in the May and August reports.

In a “Summary for Sergeant Michael DeCesare,” which still is part of this same report, Officer Mudry advises “I have begun going through the Garmin Nuvi Model 550 GPS device removed from Lanza’s 2010 Honda Civic (Ct Plate: 872YEO).”

If Officer Mudry was examining a “Garmin Nuvi Model 550,” why would he contact Garmin customer service for information about a “Garmin Nuvi 200?”  For that matter, why would the FBI be examining a “Garmin Nuvi 200” if the 550 was actually removed from Lanza’s car?

Certainly one would expect these detectives are capable of determining the accurate model number of the evidence they’re examining.  So which is it? Was the Garmin 200 or 550 removed from the Lanza home or Lanza’s Honda Civic at the school?

According to Officer Mudry’s report (depending on how one decides which Garmin device was examined, and from where the device was seized) the “journey” data provided by police, from whatever Garmin, ends on December 13, 2012 – the day before the shooting.

This isn’t a small issue.  Here’s why.  If the Garmin Nuvi Model 550 was removed from Lanza’s Honda Civic located at Sandy Hook Elementary School, then one would expect the “journey” data would reflect Lanza’s travel to Sandy Hook Elementary School on the morning of December 14th. It doesn’t.

Given the seriousness of this investigation, it is difficult to accept that law enforcement is unable to provide accurate and consistent reporting of important physical evidence.

But for Ablechild’s purposes, the information gleaned, from whichever Garmin, reveals dozens of “journey” entries, including numerous trips to the now well-known movie theatre where Adam Lanza utilized the “Dance, Dance Revolution” game.

In fact, what is odd about these “journey” hits is that it appears that Lanza was not the “recluse” the public has been led to believe, considering that he often would arrive at the theatre sometimes as early as 1:00 a.m. and not return home until dawn.  What is odd about these particular “journey” hits is that the theatre closes by 2:00a.m.  No explanation is provided as to what Adam Lanza was doing during these early morning hours.

There are other “journey” hits that may suggest Adam Lanza may have been traveling to these locations for some kind of mental health treatment.  Several of the “journey” hits are locations where behavioral and cognitive health centers are located. Another location is a private school that offers Mandarin lessons which, reportedly, Adam was taking.

Of course, because the State Police Report fails to provide any mental health data for the last five years of Adam Lanza’s life, it’s anyone’s guess what Adam Lanza’s mental health status is and whether his travel “journey” data has any connection to mental health treatment.

 

Poster boy, Tj – 8 year old, used in op-ed to sell more mental illness in CT

Written by Able Child on . Posted in Lawmaking.

More mental illness screening, more mental illness care, more mental illness services, more mental illness diagnosing, and more mental illness treatment.  This is what the op-ed of May 26th titled:  Review of Children’s mental healthcare is vital, demands, yet nowhere in the piece does the writer discuss the psychiatric drug “therapy” utilized in mental health’s “treatment” regimen for T.J., the subject of the piece.

Reportedly eight year-old T.J. was diagnosed with the alleged brain abnormality, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, ADHD, because he had problems focusing in school and was hyperactive.  T.J. received mental health services in another state.  At what age did T.J. first receive these “services?”  The writer does not say.

What exactly were those “services?”  Was T.J. “treated” with Ritalin or Adderall? Both highly addictive drugs and, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA  nearly identical to cocaine. Or, perhaps, T.J. had been prescribed the “non-stimulant” drug Strattera, a Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor, SSRI.

SSRI’s are the most commonly prescribed form of antidepressant, yet approved by the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, for the “treatment” of the alleged ADHD.  Ironically, it also is the FDA who plastered “Black Box” warnings – the agency’s most serious warning – on these drugs because they may cause abnormal thoughts and suicidal behavior in children.

Remember it is the National Institute of Mental Health, NIMH, that openly admits scientists have no idea what causes the alleged ADHD.  And the pharmaceutical companies openly admit on the product packaging that they don’t know how the drugs work in the brain to “treat” the alleged ADHD.  Frankly this drug “treatment” is one big guessing game, and the kids, at extremely young ages, are being used as guinea pigs.

This is the problem with crying for more mental illness services. There is no science to support even one psychiatric diagnosis. There is no known objective, confirmable abnormality that is a psychiatric diagnosis.  It is completely subjective.  The American Psychiatric Association, APA, merely has gathered lists of behaviors and randomly decided they equate to some mental illness that needs to be “treated.”

Columbine, Aurora. Co., and Sandy Hook, to name a few, all were the result of young men with long histories of mental health “treatment.” Now in the wake of yet another mass murder in Santa Barbara, where the shooter openly discusses his years-long psychiatric “treatment,” it seems incredible that the state of Connecticut is rushing to implement increased mental illness services when, in fact, lawmakers should be investigating the very dangerous psychiatric drugs used as “treatments.” To paraphrase the lyrics of Pink Floyd’s The Wall, “hey, psychiatrists, leave them kids alone!”

At the end of the day, PA-13-178  which the op-ed writer “endorses,” is based on the recommendations made by mental health vendors who clearly have a horse in the race. Lawmakers should acknowledge the obvious conflict of interest and mandate that these vendors will not benefit from their increased mental illness services recommendations.

If these mental illness vendor “stops” are not put in place, where will the power to label the state’s children as “abnormal,” and drug them into submission, end?

 

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

Written by Sheila Matthews on . Posted in Lawmaking, Sandy Hook.

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.