Skip to main content

Author: Sheila Matthews

AbleChild Participates in Gun Violence Roundtable in Bridgeport, Connecticut

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

On June 29, 2015, AbleChild was one of two organizations that participated in an important Roundtable on gun violence, held in Bridgeport, Connecticut.  Mayor Bill Finch, Senator Richard Blumenthal, and Bridgeport Police Chief, Joseph Gaudett Jr., hosted the event in response to yet another community rocked by an attempted mass killing in Bridgeport, Connecticut that took the life of one and injured eight others.

Kenny Jackson of Street Safe, an organization that mentors young people, told the group, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people,” referring to Senator Blumenthal’s attempt to sue gun manufacturers, go after the NRA, and ban “illegal” weapons.  Jackson illustrated that it is the human element that his organization’s mission focuses on, including increased parental involvement and mentoring programs.

Jackson introduced several of his staff members who shared their stories about their own journeys through the criminal justice system. AbleChild is in agreement with one of the member’s experiences with a child he mentored in the Bridgeport public school system. The Street Safe member said the student was misdiagnosed with a psychiatric disorder, ADHD, and thought there was great need for increase numbers of parent advocates for families meeting in Individual Education Plans (IEP).

Mayor Finch indicated that over-diagnosing may be due to “cultural differences” and that this was not the first time he had heard of psychiatric misdiagnosing.  AbleChild believes over-diagnosing is the product of mass marketing of psychiatric drugs and the lack of informed consent.

AbleChild’s mission is informed consent regarding psychiatric diagnosing and the potentially deadly “treatment” that is recommended.  The DEA classifies many of the mind-altering psychiatric drugs as “controlled substances.”  The “treatments” are associated with increased risk of suicide and violence according to the Food & Drug Admistration’s Black box warning on the drug packaging.

Senator Blumenthal, one of the sponsors of the roundtable, explained his desire to propose legislation to ban the use of illegal guns termed straw purchases. AbleChild does not understand how Senator Blumenthal believes a ban on an already illegal process would reduce gun violence.

AbleChild pointed out the recent indictment of several Newtown police officers who were reportedly involved in the distribution of controlled substances and “illegal” guns (4 long guns), exactly what Senator Blumenthal is trying to ban.

Furthermore, on November 26, 2013, one day after the release of the report of the Sandy Hook tragedy, Senator Blumenthal held a roundtable discussion in Bridgeport with the intent to reduce gun violence .  According to Senator Blumenthal, “The report on the Newtown tragedy revived the memories of what gun violence did not only to the Newtown community but to all communities.”

So it appears to be the same old, same old.  It is all about guns and no personal responsibility. Despite the fact these roundtables have been held on several occasions, lawmakers and law enforcement refuse to look outside the possibilities that something or someone is responsible other than a gun.  And the violence will continue.

 

 

 

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

Written by Sheila Matthews on . Posted in Sandy Hook.

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.”

DCF Post-Newtown Mental Health Recommendations May Put Children at Risk

Written by Sheila Matthews on . Posted in Sandy Hook.

In response to the 2012 tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut’s Department of Children and Families (DCF), last Friday, unceremoniously unveiled its plan to overhaul the state’s mental health system for children.

The ten-page draft report provides no specific details about the shooting at Sandy Hook and, worse still, provides no substantiating information that the shooter, Adam Lanza, lacked mental health services. This is of interest as the “draft” report – DCF’s recommendations – focuses on “early identification and intervention” of children.

The implication, of course, is that the shooting could have been avoided had Lanza received appropriate mental health services. The problem with using the Sandy Hook Shooting as the impetus for these state-wide mental health changes, is that Lanza did receive mental health services from a very early age.

While the state has refused to release any detailed information about Lanza’s mental health treatment, the investigative record clearly reflects Nancy Lanza’s early, and continuous, efforts to provide to Adam mental health treatment. In fact, Lanza was “treated” at the Yale Child Study Center – which, coincidentally, also took a leading role in drafting these recommendations.

Given the documented problems Nancy Lanza experienced with the Yale Child Study Center, after reporting adverse psychiatric drug reactions Adam was experiencing, Ablechild is concerned about the conflict of interest in having Yale participate in any mental health recommendations.

In fact, Ablechild would argue that it is a conflict of interest for any of the “stakeholders” who may benefit financially from any of the recommendations and would suggest that the complete list of “stakeholders” be made publicly available before any funding is appropriated.

Ablechild also is concerned that DCF strategies include training on infant mental health competencies. Psychiatric diagnosing is completely subjective – not based in science – and, therefore, is dependent on verbal responses, making the psychiatric diagnosing of infants questionable at best.

Because the DCF recommendations revolve around “early identification and intervention” and much of the focus is to train school personnel in the identification of mental illness, Ablechild has put together a list of recommendations that it believes are not only appropriate, but necessary in the face of DCF’s sweeping mental health recommendations.

  • Restore Informed Consent to parents, including the full disclosure about the subjectivity of psychiatric diagnosing and the dangers associated with recommended psychiatric drug “treatments.”
  • Dismantle the Behavioral Health Oversight Committee, which is heavy with vendors appointed by Governor Malloy, and eliminate the “stakeholder” monopoly. There are too many conflicts of interest among those who will profit from the recommended changes.
  • Restore speech, language and educational evaluations as the first and most important behavioral health evaluation on point of entry.
  • Fully fund the 2001 law to track the number of children prescribed psychiatric drugs within the state mental health care system and make it publicly available.
  • Increase and fund access to natural and alternative mental health treatment.
  • Set up investigative committee to track children within state care who are solicited into drug clinical trials.
  • Make public all medical/mental health records of children who died while in state care to insure accountability.
  • Require complete toxicology tests in all suspected suicide deaths of children in state care and make findings publicly available.
  • Make available to all parents of school-age children the ability to “opt-in vs opt-out” of mental health screening.
  • Require DCF staff and all state mental health care professionals be educated in the FDA MedWatch System.

Too much of DCF’s mental health recommendations for the state’s children revolve around increased identification and “treatment,” with no discussion of alternatives to dangerous and potentially deadly side effects of psychiatric drug “treatments.” There is too much at stake to allow these all-encompassing recommendations without some kind of public disclosure of the large numbers who certainly will be affected.

It’s bad enough that the drive for increased mental health services is based on the shooting at Sandy Hook, which, to date, no publicly available information to support the need for the increased services has been provided. But forcing parents to submit their children to mental health screening, without providing all information about the potential dangers is adding insult to injury.

Short of implementing the necessary safeguards that Ablechild recommends, parents and children in Connecticut may be subjected to unnecessary and even harmful mental health services and may border on human rights violations.

 

 

 

 

 

Is the CT Governor’s Sandy Hook Commission at Variance with the Police Report?

Written by Sheila Matthews on . Posted in Sandy Hook.

What will it take to get a report from the Sandy Hook Advisory Commission? Apparently the immediacy of the task has faded, as the Commission did not find it necessary to have a meeting in July.

On one level the Commission’s lack of urgency seems understandable, as the state long ago passed sweeping mental health legislation, so one can only speculate about what additional recommendations can be made that haven’t already been instituted.

Recall that the Commission was the pet project of Governor Dannel P. Malloy to reportedly get to the bottom of what might have driven Sandy Hook shooter, Adam Lanza, to commit such a heinous attack. That was the plan eighteen months ago.

Since its inception, the Commission has whined about the lack of funds, the need for lawyer assistance in cataloguing the Sandy Hook investigation in order to understand the nearly 6700- page report, its inability to get a hold of Lanza’s mental health records and a host of other difficulties.

However, despite these stumbling blocks, the up side is that the Commission has had the opportunity to speak with Peter Lanza about his son’s mental health, they have met with victim family members and had access to records that the public, so far, has been denied. So, where’s the Commission’s report? What are the Commission’s conclusions?

More importantly, will the Commission address the obvious problems within the State Police investigation? Have the members thoroughly considered the physical evidence that screams for answers?

Specifically, has the Commission made an effort to obtain additional information about the sealed, stamped envelope found in the Lanza home and addressed “For the young students of Sandy Hook Elementary School?” DNA testing of the envelope revealed that Nancy and Adam Lanza were ruled out as DNA contributors. The DNA did, however, match that of a convicted offender in New York.

Has the Commission addressed this issue? Has the Commission been made aware of the contents of that envelope and, if so, will that information be made available to the public? Clearly, one cannot help but wonder if the information found in this envelope may shed some light on the motive behind the attack.

The envelope was of great importance to the State Police. Out of the thousands of pieces of paper removed from the Lanza home, it was this piece of evidence that was finger printed and tested for DNA. Why? Is the Commission even curious about the envelope’s contents?

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that whatever the Commission recommends it will be costly. One only need recall Public law 13-3, passed in the wake of Sandy Hook and based on no supporting documentation. That legislative nonsense cost the taxpayers millions and not one lawmaker is capable of accurately describing Adam Lanza’s mental health care in the five years leading up to the shooting incident.

But the Commission, apparently, has taken a hiatus from its important task and the people of Connecticut will just have to cool their jets, left to wonder what the impact of the Commission’s recommendations may be on their wallets. If history is any indication, it doesn’t look pretty.

Newtown Massacre & The Courant’s Endorsement of McKinney

Written by Sheila Matthews on . Posted in Sandy Hook.

According to the August 2nd article in the Hartford Courant titled McKinney Over Foley in Republican Primary for Governor, McKinney is the paper’s choice to remain in the Capitol because, among other things, in immediate aftermath of Sandy Hook, McKinney voted for the controversial and intrusive gun safety bill.

The Hartford Courant has thrown its endorsement to McKinney because the Senate Minority leader ignored the Republican base and voted with the Democrats where, “he could engage in the process and try to influence the drafting of the law.”

It is unclear how McKinney influenced that legislation and, actually, it would be of some interest to the voters to know what specific role McKinney played in crafting the sweeping legislative language. While the gun restrictions are repugnant to many, Ablechild is more concerned about the other legislative measures included, specifically the costly increases in mental health services forced on taxpayers.

Recall that the legislation in question was hurriedly passed with little or no public input. More importantly, the investigative report on Sandy Hook had not been completed at the time of the vote and, therefore, lawmakers, including McKinney, literally were writing legislation based on the passions of the moment, not on supporting data.

In fact, a year-and-a-half later, there still is no data to support the costly mental health measures passed in that legislation. There is no publicly available evidence that Adam Lanza lacked mental health services. Frankly, there is no information publicly provided about Adam Lanza’s mental health treatment after 2007 – five years prior to the shooting. Is this information not important to McKinney or even the Courant?

Given the obvious lack of information about Lanza’s mental health, does it not seem irresponsible that lawmakers, including McKinney, would rush the passage of costly mental health legislation? After all, there is a projected $1.4 billion deficit next year. How much of this deficit includes the newly passed increased mental health services?

Ablechild appreciates McKinney’s experience and could have used his “influence” when it sued the state for the release of Adam Lanza’s medical/mental health records and toxicology report. But there was no support from McKinney or any lawmaker. There was no, nor is there any, interest on the part of lawmakers to obtain any data about Adam Lanza’s mental health treatment leading up to the shooting.

Yes, McKinney’s 15-years of experience is helpful, but how effective is that experience if those legislative efforts are not based in documentable necessity? One cannot help but wonder how many other legislative measures were passed with McKinney’s “influence” that were based on zero supporting information?

For that matter, one has to wonder why the Hartford Courant, clearly aware of the lack of documentation regarding Adam Lanza’s mental health, continually fails to address this point. Additionally, is it not odd that, prior to the release of the investigative report, the Courant was all over the shooting at Sandy Hook but has failed to report on investigative details that scream for answers.

Specifically, is the Courant not interested in the oddity of the envelope found in the Lanza home, addressed “for the young children of Sandy Hook Elementary” and, of which, the DNA of a known offender in New York was obtained. Is the Courant not interested in what information was contained in the stamped, addressed envelope? Is there no interest by this reporting entity as to how this piece of evidence found its way into the Lanza home?

It’s one thing for lawmakers to ignore investigative material, but when a leading press organization blatantly fails to report on important investigative details, the people of the state truly are not being served.

 

Yes, Senator Murphy, it is “Disgraceful”

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

Ablechild finds it interesting and disturbing that Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn) felt compelled to chastise the handling of the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 crash site, as reported by The Hill “Twitter Room” “all you need to know about the character of Ukrainian rebels is the disgraceful way they are handling crash site, bodies.”

Clearly there is much to be desired about what has, so far, transpired regarding the response to that horrific crash, but one also must wonder why Senator Murphy has not displayed the same concern about the handling of the investigation much closer to home – the mass killing at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

First, as many are aware, Ablechild believed that Adam Lanza’s toxicology, medical and mental health records were key to understanding the motive for the attack and sued the state for those records. Claiming that Ablechild was not a stake holder in the case, the request was denied. Despite hundreds of millions of dollars being spent on increased mental health services in Connecticut, there is no information publicly available that supports Adam Lanza’s lack of mental health services.

Given that Sen. Murphy believes that the investigation in the Ukraine is “disgraceful” because of the handling of the investigation, one might also find the state’s stonewalling on Lanza’s mental health records is equally “disgraceful.”

Additionally, since the release of the State Police investigation in December of 2013, information has been made public that raises interesting questions about the shooting incident. For example, how is it possible that the State Police report would list two different Garmin Nuvi models (200 or 550) being found either in Lanza’s Honda Civic parked in front of the school or found in Lanza’s bedroom closet? This is important information for which no clarification has been provided.

Furthermore, what about the envelope taken from the Lanza home which was addressed “for the young students of Sandy Hook Elementary School?” Given that the DNA found on the envelope and affixed stamp is neither Adam or Nancy Lanza’s, but does match that of a convicted felon in New York, wouldn’t Senator Murphy be interested in this oddity?

More importantly, is it wrong to wonder why Sen. Murphy, or any other Connecticut legislator, aren’t interested in what was found in the envelope of a convicted felon that was addressed to “the young students of Sandy Hook Elementary School or how, for that matter, the DNA of a convicted felon in New York even ended up on this envelope?

More odd, why isn’t Sen. Murphy interested in the fact that this particular piece of physical evidence made it into the State Police report but was not mentioned by State’s Attorney, Stephen Sedensky? And, as a side note, is it possible that Sen. Murphy doesn’t find it even remotely odd that not one of the bullets reportedly fired from the Bushmaster Rifle match the barrel of that weapon?

Of course, Ablechild appreciates Sen. Murphy’s concern for the tragic situation in the Ukraine, but we can’t help but wonder why there are no “tweets” from the Senator about a flawed investigation in his own backyard.

 

Interview on Mental Health Recommendations in Gun Bill PA 13-3

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

Sheila Matthews

Sheila Matthews is co-founder of AbleChild. Matthews was the first mother to testify on behalf of the first state Law prohibiting school personnel from recommending psychotropic drugs. Matthews advocated to remove dangerous antidepressants from use on foster care children/wards of the state of Connecticut and was instrumental in providing data for the groundbreaking 20/20 investigation with Diane Sawyer. In response to the Shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Matthews lead the fight for transparency, petitioning the State of Connecticut, through the Freedom of Information Act, for Disclosure of Lanza’s medical/mental health and toxicology records.  As the co-founder of Ablechild, Matthews regularly meets with lawmakers, on legislative measures, including incorporating language for the MedWatch Reporting System to be made part of all health care provider education. Matthews has been featured on media outlets including CNN, FOX, and Time Magazine and is a regular guest expert on numerous national and international radio shows regarding informed consent as it pertains to psychiatric labeling and drugging.

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.