Skip to main content

CT Parents’ Right Coalition to Discuss Opposition to Sandy Hook Advisory Commission’s Findings on Upcoming Radio Broadcast

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

Connecticut Parents’ Right Coalition (CPRC) members will discuss Sandy Hook Advisory Commission (SHAC) final report and questions surrounding the findings and their opposition to the recommendations.

(CPRC) was formed in response to legislation passed under “emergency rule” without public hearings in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook mass murder.

The (CPRC) Coalition includes 40,000 Connecticut parents and more than a dozen non-profit organizations.

Sheila Matthews of AbleChild will join Deborah Stevenson, a constitutional and education attorney and fellow member of the (CPRC) on the upcoming broadcast. Stevenson also spent ten years as a reporter and has appeared on several radio programs. In a recent interview, Stevenson described the goal of the (SHAC) recommendations to serve as a national model as ‘disturbing.’

This Saturday, July 18th at 5:30 PM Eastern Time on the Republic Broadcasting Network (RBN), Matthews and Stevenson will join Deana Spingola of Spingola Speaks.   The radio talk show focuses on current events, history, warfare, health issues, and other relevant topics.

Spingola is the author of “Screening Sandy Hook.” The book examines the role of psychiatric drugs in the school shooting incident and multiple other issues and theories.

 

Landmark Legislation: Consumer Protection MedWatch Phone Number Placed on Generic Prescription Drug Containers in Connecticut

Written by Able Child on . Posted in Lawmaking, MedWatch.

For immediate release: July 15, 2015
Contact Sheila Matthews, Cofounder AbleChild (203) 253-0329
Westport, Connecticut

Landmark Legislation: Consumer Protection
MedWatch Phone Number Placed on Generic Prescription Drug Containers in Connecticut

AbleChild is pleased to announce the passage of Connecticut SB 28, a bill that makes it mandatory for all generic prescription drug containers to carry the 1-800 MedWatch telephone number. This is a first-in-the-nation legislative action to provide this important consumer information and a landmark win for consumers in Connecticut. In February of 2015, AbleChild proposed an amendment to SB 28, taking the unique opportunity to propose this very specific protection on behalf of the consumers.

MedWatch is a drug safety reporting system made available to consumers to allow direct reporting of Adverse Drug Events to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Information provided to MedWatch, by consumers, provides a unique tool to the FDA by giving the federal agency the ability to identify adverse reactions and monitor prescription drugs. The information collected about adverse reactions is used to determine if FDA action is needed on a specific drug.

According to the FDA, it receives information on less than 1% of the actual adverse drug reactions (ADRs) from the consumers. Prescription drugs are currently responsible for killing more people annually than illegal drugs, and according to Tom Friden, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “It’s a big problem and getting worse.” Furthermore, according to the Medical Journal of Medicine, prescription drugs are responsible for 291 deaths every day.

Representative David Baram of Bloomfield, co-chairman of the General Law Committee, stated that, “The passage of legislation requiring the MedWatch information to be provided with prescription medications is a positive consumer bill.  I applaud Sheila Matthews for bringing this to our attention and helping us to pass this great consumer protection legislation.  Now consumers will have information on how they can report adverse prescription reactions so the manufacturers can review medication issues, and the FDA can re-evaluation safety concerns.  This is a major consumer protection that will help promote the safe use and manufacturing of medicines that many of us rely on to live productive lives.”

Senator Joe Markley, who also supported AbleChild’s efforts from the beginning said, “I’m delighted at the progress AbleChild has made in getting out the word on MedWatch, which will enhance the conversation on prescription drugs.  Reactions to these drugs differ dramatically, and it’s important that people who have a bad experience have a place to report what happened.  I hope we can do more to let people know about MedWatch, and to make them aware of the problems sometimes associated with certain prescription drugs.”

AbleChild’s amendment received bipartisan support and was unanimously passed on June 1, 2015. AbleChild would like to acknowledge and thank the cosponsors of this important consumer protection legislation, including Senator Joseph J. Crisco, 17th District, Representative Jonathan Steinberg, 136th District, Senator Joe Markley, 16th District, and the General Law Committee Chairman, Representative David A. Baram of the 15thDistrict.

AbleChild also would like to extend our sincere gratitude to the entire General Law Committee staff for their assistance in navigating the often, complicated legislative process.

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

Written by Able Child on . Posted in Lawmaking.

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

 

Minnesota Reaches Out to AbleChild to Discuss New CT Law 1-800-MedWatch on “Prescription Drug Container Bill”

Written by Sheila Matthews on . Posted in Lawmaking.

On Thursday July 9th, at 7 pm Eastern time, AbleChild will be a guest on TS Radio Show with Marti Oakley.

Marti Oakley is a talk show host with a focus on state and national legislation. This is not the first time media has reached out to AbleChild regarding liberty in mental health.

This broadcast will focus on the recently passed “Prescription Drug Container Bill” that incorporated an AbleChild amendment to include the 1-800-MedWatch consumer reporting phone number directly on the containers. AbleChild will also discuss the legislative impact of the aftermath of Sandy Hook.

Senate Bill 28 “The Prescription Drug Container Bill” unanimously passed both the Connecticut House of Representatives and Senate.

The AbleChild amendment makes it mandatory for all generic prescription drug containers to carry the 1-800-MedWatch telephone number on the container.

MedWatch is a drug safety reporting system made available to consumers to allow direct reporting of Adverse Drug Events to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

This is a first-in-the-nation legislative action to provide this important consumer 1-800-MedWatch number directly on a prescription drug label, and a landmark win for consumers in Connecticut.

$400 Million in New Mental Health Services, But Still No Accountability

Written by Able Child on . Posted in Lawmaking.

The full-court press is on for increasing mental health services for children in the state, with a price tag of $400 million, so far. Given that there is zero science to support any psychiatric diagnosis being an actual brain abnormality, one can only surmise that mental illness will skyrocket and the $400 million is a drop in the bucket of the actual costs.  This time around will there be any real accountability?

As has become the norm, the Sandy Hook shooting incident is invoked in order to justify the massive increases, despite the public having no documentation to support that Adam Lanza was not receiving, or that he even needed, mental health treatment in the five years leading up to the shooting. To date, no documentation has been made public that would suggest Lanza was, or was not, receiving mental health treatment beyond the brief and unsuccessful stint at the Yale Child Study Center in 2007.

To assume that the children of Connecticut need increased mental health treatment and services, because of what occurred at Sandy Hook, simply is not supported by factual documentation. In fact, because no information about Lanza’s mental health, after 2007, has been made public, why isn’t it just as likely to assume he was receiving the best mental health services money could buy?

More interesting, though, is the fact that the enormous increase in mental health spending does little, to nothing, to provide any accountability of where and how the money will be spent. As far as AbleChild is aware, there is no legislative language that will make any data readily available to taxpayers interested in following the hefty mental health expenditures.

Is it of interest to the taxpayers whether there is a large increase in the number of children being diagnosed with a subjective psychiatric diagnosis? Is it of interest how many of the children newly diagnosed are then prescribed dangerous, even deadly, psychiatric drugs as “treatment?” Furthermore, without some kind of data collection system, how will the state actually know if the funding is going toward the intended purpose?

The state is not known for its willingness to make important information publically available, as is evident in the clamp-down on any specific mental health data relating to Sandy Hook shooter, Adam Lanza. Even when language is written into legislation, mandating data be publically accessible, there is no follow-through.

For example, Public Act 06-196* became effective in June of 2006. The Act mandated that the Department of Children and Families shall, within available resources and with the assistance of the University of Connecticut Health Center:

  • Establish guidelines for the use and management of psychotropic medications with children and youths in the care of the Department of Children and Families.
  • Establish and maintain a database to track the use of psychotropic medications with children and youths committed to the care of the Department of Children and Families.

To date, AbleChild is unaware of any database that would readily provide the information subject to the Act. Why? The public should not have to spend hours, or days, hunting through every state agency to obtain this important information… or whether the database even exists. And this Act has been around for nearly a decade.

Based on what clearly is a failure on the part of state agencies to track this information, what makes taxpayers believe there will be a “better” accounting of the $400 million allocated for new mental health services?

After all, by anyone’s measure, $400 million is a lot of money. Certainly the public deserves some accounting of how the money is spent. Along with all the hype associated with the new mental health services programs, will lawmakers act responsibly and institute a program that will actually track the numbers of children being diagnosed and drugged? And, more importantly, will that information be made publically available on a yearly basis?

Don’t count on it. The state is great at telling the taxpayer what mental health services are needed, but it has a pathetic track record when it comes to accounting for the hundreds-of-millions spent on mental health services.

* Public Act 04-238

An Act Concerning Child Poverty and the Use of Psychotropic Medications with Children and Youth in State Care

Sec. 17a-21a. Guidelines for use and management of psychotropic medications. Database established. The Department of Children and Families shall, within available resources and with the assistance of The University of Connecticut Health Center, (1) establish guidelines for the use and management of psychotropic medications with children and youths in the care of the Department of Children and Families, and (2) establish and maintain a database to track the use of psychotropic medications with children and youths committed to the care of the Department of Children and Families.

(P.A. 04-238, S. 2; P.A. 06-196, S. 112.)

History: P.A. 06-196 made technical changes, effective June 7, 2006.

 

 

 

 

Sandy Hook Commission Remedy Misfires & Injures Taxpayers and Children

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

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.

Informed Consent Needs to Grow in Brooklyn

Written by Able Child on . Posted in Lawmaking.

Recently, it has come to AbleChild’s attention from a New York grandmother, who filed a report with AbleChild in September that a public school district in Brooklyn, NY does not feel that U.S. Law -Title 20 1232h, Protection of Pupil Rights (Hatch) Amendment applies to them. AbleChild has long endorsed this law and its complimentary supported amendment letter (Hatch) because both directly support informed consent rights regarding psychological testing in public schools throughout this nation.

Title 20 U.S. Code 1232h- Protection of Pupil Rights gives the power to the parent to refuse any survey, analysis, or evaluation that reveals information concerning mental or psychological problems of the student or the student’s family, or their beliefs. This Right to Refuse applies to all subjective psychological evaluations, surveys and questionnaires that are used to diagnose our children with a mental health disorder.

“Both Title 20 and Hatch give parents not only the right to make critical decisions regarding their children within education, but provides for safeguards to ensure that a parent can raise their children in the way they believe is appropriate, label and drug free”, said Patricia Weathers, AbleChild Cofounder and mother of two boys. Weathers went further by stating that, “Schools should not be allowed to make decisions regarding mental health services, psychiatric diagnoses or psychiatric drug “treatment” for children. Schools should stick to education. Parents always have the right to refuse any and all of these and should not be told they are “non compliant”. Parents have the right to choose as part of informed consent.”

“This grandmother reached out to AbleChild because her request to her grandson’s school for an educational evaluation to determine if he was in need of special services was denied.  She was told that she was “non-compliant” when she refused the psychological portion of the evaluation on her grandson.  She tenaciously advocated for her grandson’s educational needs by printing out both Title 20 and The Hatch Amendment and submitting them to her grandson’s school. As per her account of the matter, “The school seemed unaware of the law and uninterested in learning about my right to refuse the psychological portion of the evaluation. I had to insist that both the law and the amendment letter that I filled out were submitted into my grandson’s file because the school psychologist didn’t think that I had the right to put anything into his school file.”

AbleChild questions whether the school district is actually ignorant of the law or is banking on an uneducated parent/caregiver who doesn’t question authority or know his or her rights. Either way, this incident demonstrates that much more awareness needs to be given at both the educational and parental level on informed consent regarding mental health and education.

For more information on AbleChild, to report your own experiences with these issues, support a parent’s right to choose and refuse, or join this organization, please visit www.ablechild.org.

Ablechild Board Member Featured Speaker Risperdal-Gynecomastia Litigation

Written by Able Child on . Posted in Interviews, Lawmaking.

Ablechild is pleased to announce that one of its founding board members, Derek Braslow, will be a featured speaker concerning the Risperdal-Gynecomastia litigation at the National Mass Torts Made Perfect Conference in Las Vegas, on October 10, 2014.

Derek has long been an advocate for America’s children and is looking forward to updating some of the nation’s pre-eminent trial attorneys on preparations for the first Risperdal trial, scheduled for November 3, 2014 in Philadelphia.

“Gynecomastia, or the swelling of breast tissue in males,” says Braslow, “can be a devastating consequence of taking Risperdal – especially to young boys going through adolescence.”  “Risperdal was not approved for any indication for children or adolescents until October 2006, and thereafter, only for limited indications in that age group – yet many doctors did and continued to prescribe Risperdal off-label for this age group – without appreciating the actual benefits and risks of this psychotropic drug.”

Risperidone is an “atypical antipsychotic,” so called because these drugs are chemically different from and have different side effects than the older antipsychotic medications. While science does not understand the exact mechanism of Risperidone, it is believed that Risperidone affects the way the brain works by blocking the receptors on some of the brain’s nerves, thus altering communication normally done by chemical neurotransmitters.

Johnson & Johnson received FDA approval for Risperdal (their brand name for Risperidone) in 1993 for the treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder in adults only. It was later approved in 2006 for irritability associated with autism in children. Despite not being approved for children and adolescents for any indication prior to 2006, it was promoted “off-label” for a variety of mental health conditions, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), anxiety, sleep difficulties, depression, Tourette syndrome, stuttering, and obsessive-compulsive disorders.

In addition to causing Gynecomastia, Risperdal carries the risk of other serious side effects as well, including suicidality, heart failure, stroke, uncontrollable movements, diabetes, and neuroleptic malignant syndrome.

Ablechild couldn’t be more pleased that Derek will be the featured speaker on such an important issues affecting so many of today’s youth.

Acknowledgement of Governor Rowland on Informed Consent

Written by Able Child on . Posted in Lawmaking.

Ablechild acknowledges the recent conviction of former Gov. John G. Rowland, but equally must acknowledge his courageous actions in 2001 when he championed and signed legislation (Public Act 01-124), An Act concerning recommendations for and refusal of the use of psychotropic drugs by children and utilization review determinations related to mental and nervous conditions, effective on October 1, 2001, the Governor signed the bill on June 28, 2001.

The Connecticut public act was the first of its kind throughout the country and spurred a 2003 federal bill, The Child Medication Safety Act 2003, to protect children and their parents from being coerced into administering a controlled substance in order to attend school, and for other purposes.

Governor Rowland also was responsible for the 2003 administrative action that prohibited the prescribing of the antidepressant, Paxil, for a six-month review period, for use with foster care children. This followed the October, 2003, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issuance of a suicide warning on Paxil and other antidepressants causing suicidal ideation in children. Since then the FDA has placed “black box” warnings (the most serious drug warning) on all antidepressants due to the increased risk of suicidality in children.

Most importantly, Governor Rowland instructed Theodore S. Sergi, the Commissioner of Education to issue a letter to Ablechild on May 21, 2001 that states, “the State Department of education does not endorse any checklist nor recommend treatment of services for ADHD.”

Prior to Governor Rowland’s signature on this landmark legislation, workshops were held in New Haven, Connecticut, sponsored by Yale Child Study Center among other Yale divisions and Pfizer, SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals, Wyeth-Lederle, entitled, “Workshop on Strategies for Drug Development and Trials in Children” May 19-21, 1997.

The Conference Workshop Summary, simply put:, “by overlooking pediatric markets and disease, the pharmaceutical industry is disregarding an important long-term source of revenue, missing opportunities for therapeutic cures and for creating long-term product loyalty. Most important however is that the therapeutic dividend of the Human Genome Project, which has fueled much of the pharmaceutical biotechnology boon since 1993, will not be realized in pediatric patients.”

“The sessions will be devoted to the new FDA regulations concerning drug testing in children. In addition, the workshop will address two issues traditionally seen as the major roadblocks to developing drugs for children identification of pediatric markets and therapeutic trials.”

Despite former Governor Rowland’s recent conviction, Ablechild cannot help but acknowledge his courage and commitment at a time when the well-being of so many of the state’s children hung in the balance and still does. We thank Governor Rowland for protecting informed consent when it comes to what the sponsors of the workshop term “roadblocks”- in more basic terms – “labeling and drugging” our children.

We wish him well through his journey in the Connecticut justice system; Ablechild has been there in defense of parents and children trapped within the powerful psychiatric and drug industry’s well-financed grip in all three branches of our government.

 

Teachers Trained to Promote Mental Illness?

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

The July 24th article in the Connecticut Mirror, by Arielle Levin Becker, titled Moms of children with mental illness share their pain, tell their stories, push for change, while anecdotal, the article provides little in the way of bolstering the cry for increased spending on mental health services. It does, however, provide three sentences that are at the heart of the mental health debate.

Becker writes “But they also note that there are differences between mental illness and physical conditions.” “There is no x-ray or blood test for most mental illnesses… there is subjectivity in the treatment of mental illness…”

First, it’s important to be clear: there is no x-ray, blood test, urine test, MRI or CAT scan that can detect any abnormality in the brain that is any alleged psychiatric disorder. It is not a case of “most mental illnesses,” there are, in fact, no objective tests to detect any alleged mental illness.

Even Keith Stover, an apparent lobbyist for the Connecticut Association of Health Plans, and was interviewed for the article, is confused about psychiatric diagnosing. According to Stover, “there’s rarely a clear diagnostic test that leads to an exact treatment protocol.”

There’s nothing “rarely” about it. Other than a doctor’s opinion of one’s behavior there are no diagnostic tests that lead to either an exact diagnosis or an exact treatment protocol. Psychiatric diagnosing is completely subjective and the pharmaceutical companies have no idea how the drugs work in the brain to treat any alleged psychiatric disorder.

The fact that insurance companies are required to cover treatment for psychiatric disorders is interesting in, and of, itself. Imagine for a moment that a doctor files a claim on behalf of a patient for heart surgery but provides absolutely no objective tests that an abnormality actually exists. The first question from the insurer would be “where’s the tests to show this procedure is necessary?”

And, adding insult to injury, given that there is no scientific or medical proof that any abnormality in the brain exists for any alleged mental illness, there continues to be an onslaught of demands for increased mental health screening, earlier and younger.

Along with the demands for increased screening comes even greater demands to an already over burdened educational system with training teachers and other school personnel on mental illness and the “stigma” associated with it. Ablechild believes that children should be sent to school to be educated not medicated.

More than that, though, what exactly will these educators, who are not doctors, be taught about mental illness? Will educators be provided with accurate information about the subjectivity of psychiatric diagnosing, which actually leads to the stigmatization when the child is labeled with an alleged mental disorder? Is this “training” intended only to promote the “treatment” of mental illness? More importantly, will educators be taught to identify adverse drug reactions and how to report these drug reactions to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) by using the MEDWATCH adverse drug reporting system? And, who bares the cost of all of this mental health educating? The taxpayers?

Since the tragic incident at Sandy Hook, the state has poured millions of dollars into increased mental health services and, sadly, none of that legislation was based on any investigative information that the shooter, Adam Lanza, lacked mental health services.

In fact, based on the information that was made publicly available, Lanza was the poster child of mental health services and, perhaps, it is the services he received that may have contributed to his actions. Lawmakers, though, did not even consider this option.

Ablechild believes that a much greater review of the subjectivity of psychiatric diagnosing needs to be done before more taxpayer funds are allocated for increased mental health services. Because the question that one cannot help ask is if the mental health “treatment” being prescribed to Connecticut’s youth is working, why isn’t anyone getting better?