Skip to main content

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.

 

 

 

 

 

Sandy Hook Advisory Commission Becomes Irrelevant

Written by Able Child on . Posted in Sandy Hook.

What’s the point of the Sandy Hook Advisory Commission? According to the recent article in the New Haven Register, Sandy Hook report unlikely to include analysis of gunman, the Commission has spent twenty-months preparing a report that apparently will not specifically address the mental health treatment received by Sandy Hook shooter, Adam Lanza.

While it’s not surprising that the Commission has decided that “our report is not going to be a deconstruction of Adam Lanza,” this announcement is embarrassing. The Commission was set up by Governor Dannel P. Malloy to make recommendations about a host of issues, including mental health care in Connecticut, based on the tragic incident at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

Without specifically addressing Adam Lanza’s mental health treatment leading up to the shooting, one can only speculate whether this entire exercise is simply fulfilling a prearranged mental health and gun control agenda.

Ablechild certainly understands the difficulties associated with obtaining Lanza’s mental health records, as our non-profit sued the state for the records and was arbitrarily denied, based on the state’s opinion that we were not stakeholders. Ablechild, of course, would argue that everyone in the state and throughout the country is a “stakeholder.”

But what are the odds that the state would refuse to provide this information to a Commission set up by the Governor for the specific reason of understanding the shooter’s state of mind at the time of the shooting? It defies all reason and, therefore, makes any “recommendations” of the Commission irrelevant.

For that matter, what are the odds that Peter Lanza, father of the shooter, would deny the Commission information about his son’s mental health? After all Lanza opened up to The New Yorker magazine, providing specific information about Adam’s antidepressant use. The Commission admits that it met with Peter Lanza. If not Adam’s mental health, what exactly was discussed? Really, what could Lanza offer other than information about Adam’s mental health?

Moreover, Advisory Commission Chairman, Hamden Mayor Scott Jackson, explained that although a request was made, the state’s Child Advocate office apparently failed to deliver information about Lanza’s mental health. Is it possible that the Commission could not lean on the Governor to make this happen? It simply defies logic that a state agency would deny the Governor’s request, unless, of course, the Governor, and the Commission, simply has no interest in getting to the answers that might have contributed to Lanza’s violent behavior.

Commission Chairman, Jackson, says the report would “not be an intellectual exercise.” Is this a joke? Based on the fact that the Commission apparently has no intention of including Lanza’s mental health records, “intellectual” is the last thing this report could be called. A waste of time, energy and resources seems a more appropriate description of the Commission’s efforts.

In fact, there seems little reason to even attach the words Sandy Hook as part of the Commission’s title. It should, at this point, simply be referred to as the Governor’s Gun Conrol and Increased Mental Health Advisory Commission.

Without any discussion of Adam Lanza’s mental health treatment, leading up to the shooting, no one can claim the Commission’s report has any relationship to the murderous actions that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

The families of the victims and people of Connecticut should be disgusted. They will pay the bill and bear the brunt of the Commission’s baseless “recommendations.” Ultimately, though, one has to wonder what is the “state secret” surrounding Adam Lanza’s mental health treatment?

 

 

Is Sandy Hook Father Asking the Wrong Questions?

Written by Able Child on . Posted in Sandy Hook.

In a recent article in the pressherald.com, father of Sandy Hook victim Avielle Richman, Dr. Jeremy Richman, is looking for answers, saying “we’re scientists. We ask ‘why’ for a living.” So one can only wonder why he’s failed to ask the questions that scream for answers.

As the father of one of the victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting, Dr. Richman is on a broad, all encompassing mission to understand the workings of the brain of those who commit violent acts. Clearly this is a noble cause. But Ablechild cannot help but wonder what action Dr. Richman has taken to understand the murderous behavior of his child’s killer, Adam Lanza.

Specifically, it is well known that Ablechild sued the state of Connecticut in order to have Lanza’s medical/mental health records, autopsy and toxicology reports released for public review. Ablechild was denied this request as the state randomly concluded the non-profit was “not a stakeholder.” Ablechild believes that we all are stakeholders.

But it seems impossible that the state would deny a request by the family of one of the victims. Clearly the Richman’s would be considered “stakeholders.” Did Dr. Richman contact Ablechild to lend his support in these efforts? No. Has Dr. Richman ever requested that the state release this important information? Ablechild is unaware of any of the victim’s families requesting this information be made public.

It is no secret that Lanza had mental health issues. The problem, though, is that the State Police investigation of the shooting incident provides no information about Lanza’s mental health “treatment” after 2007 – five years prior to the shooting.

The public is aware that Lanza was “treated” at the Yale Child Study Center for OCD and was prescribed two antidepressants – Celexa and Lexapro – experiencing serious adverse reactions to both psychiatric drugs, as reported by his mother. But that was five years prior to the shooting.

What mental health “treatment” did Lanza receive after his “treatment” at Yale? It seems unrealistic that this grieving father would initiate this daunting brain campaign without having investigated every possible lead for answers about the man who killed his daughter.

After all if Lanza had been receiving mental health “treatment” prior to the shooting that consisted of psychiatric drugs, that information may be useful in understanding Lanza’s violent behavior. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has placed “Black box warnings” on all antidepressants as they may cause suicidal ideation and a host of other adverse reactions, including mania, psychosis and hallucinations.

Prior to the shooting was Lanza prescribed one or several psychiatric drugs to “treat” his OCD? Nobody knows. This information has not been made public. Has Dr. Richman made an effort to meet with Peter Lanza to glean information about Adam’s mental health “treatment?”

As a neuroscientist who has worked with pharmaceutical companies, Dr. Richman cannot ignore the fact that psychiatric drugs may actually cause violent behavior and, thus, information about Lanza’s mental health “treatment” may actually help understand his violent behavior. Failing to request specific, detailed information about Lanza’s mental health history seems odd.

Furthermore, has Dr. Richman, or any of the victim family members, requested information about the sealed, stamped envelope found in the Lanza home addressed “for the Young Students of Sandy Hook Elementary School?” Does Dr. Richman, or any of the victim families, know what was inside that envelope? Have the family members questioned the State Police about how the DNA of a convicted offender from New York was found on that envelope, while Adam and Nancy Lanza’s DNA was eliminated?   Do the family members wonder why, out of thousands of pieces of paper removed from the Lanza home, this particular envelope was fingerprinted and tested for DNA? What made this piece of evidence so important?

Additionally, has Dr. Richman, or any family members, questioned the State Police about the oddities of the ballistics report. For example, have any the family members raised questions about the weapon used to kill Nancy Lanza – the Savage Mark II rifle? Testing revealed the weapon has no fingerprints or DNA from Adam Lanza, but does have DNA for some unknown person.

Dr. Richman’s desire to understand the workings of the human brain of those who commit violent acts is a noble cause, but one cannot help wonder why Dr. Richman, and the other family members, appear to have no interest in the mental health records of the man who killed their loved ones or, for that matter, the ever increasing number of oddities in the official investigation of the shooting.

Ablechild believes these are basic questions that may help provide the answers that Dr. Richman is seeking and, also, make sense of the millions of dollars that were immediately appropriated by the State Legislature for increased mental health services.

 

 

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.

 

Sandy Hook: Grief Shared, Answers Denied.

Written by Able Child on . Posted in Sandy Hook.

In response to the commentary which ran in the Hartford Courant on July 27th,tilted Our Grief Denied: The Twisted Cruelty of Sandy Hook Hoaxers, Ablechild understands Mr. Pozner’s frustrations with those who suggest there is more than is being admitted to in regard to the 2012 tragic events at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

While Mr. Pozner believes the “hoaxers” intend to draw more people into “this destructive tale of misinformation,” one could argue that the investigation, itself, is partly responsible for the nagging questions about what transpired on that dreadful day.

Almost immediately Ablechild believed that public disclosure was necessary in order to understand the motive behind the brutal attack and, in the spring of 2013, Ablechild sued the state to obtain Adam Lanza’s medical/mental health and toxicology records. The state denied Ablechild’s request based on an arbitrary ruling that the non-profit was not a stakeholder.

In December of 2013, the investigative report was released and Ablechild has since read (several times) each and every page of the heavily redacted report. There are numerous oddities within the investigative report that scream for answers and, more importantly, leave one questioning why investigators failed to follow leads and provide the public with all the investigative material.

First, why is the public (including the victim’s families) being denied disclosure of Lanza’s medical/mental health records and toxicology report? It is natural to assume that there would be some interest on the part of the victim’s families to want to know what drove Lanza to this deadly act. This information might shed some light on those questions. A year and a half later this information still is a mystery.

Additionally, in regard to investigative questions, one cannot help but wonder what the odds are that 148 bullets/bullet fragments were extracted from the crime scene and none – zero – can be matched to the barrel of the Bushmaster Rifle reportedly used in the shooting incident.

More bizarre is the stamped envelope that was retrieved from the Lanza home and addressed “For the young students of Sandy Hook Elementary School.”   This envelope was tested for fingerprints and DNA. Both Nancy and Adam Lanza were eliminated as contributors, but a DNA “hit” was made and it belongs to a known convicted felon in New York.

What was in the envelope and how did the DNA of a convicted felon find its way onto the envelope and into the Lanza home? It’s anyone’s guess because the State Police did not feel it was necessary to answer those questions in the report.

One also has to wonder how it is possible that the weapon used to kill Nancy Lanza- the Savage Mark II rifle – does not have any fingerprints or DNA for Adam Lanza, but the cartridges of the weapon tested does have a DNA “hit” for some unknown person.

It also is curious that the ballistic tests done on the only two weapons reportedly used in the shooting – the Bushmaster Rifle and the Glock 10mm – came up with interesting findings, including “No positive identification could be made to any of the bullet evidence submissions…”

There also is the issue of the Garmin Nuvi information provided to track Lanza’s whereabouts leading up to the shooting. Based on the investigation, there are two Garmin Nuvi models – a 550 and a 200. Which one was actually taken into custody? Reports are provided for both the 550 and the 200.

The questions surrounding this investigation are too numerous to go into in one piece, but the point, of course, is that there are too many questions. There is too much stonewalling, beginning with the redaction of so much of the report. And the investigative information that was provided is, frankly, shoddy.

Certainly one can sympathize with Mr. Pozner’s need to grieve, but the nation was drawn into this horrific event with the families and also is trying to make sense of such a senseless act. Moreover, enormous amounts of money have been appropriated in the aftermath of Sandy Hook to increase mental health services throughout the nation. These costly legislative measures were passed based on absolutely no information that Adam Lanza lacked mental health services and, in fact, based on the investigative report, it appears it is quite the opposite.

Mr. Pozner cannot ignore that Sandy Hook spawned a nation-wide attack on the 2nd Amendment rights of every American, and many of the families have been outspoken supporters of these efforts. While Ablechild holds no opinion on this issue, it seems unrealistic on the part of the victim’s families to so publicly support these restrictive efforts and not expect those who oppose the issue to question the facts that caused the action.

Based just on these two legislative measures, mental health and gun control, it seems unreasonable that the public would simply ignore the facts of this investigation. It is unclear whether or not Mr. Pozner read the entire investigation, but Ablechild believes the families of the victims deserve better. Questioning the investigation isn’t the problem. An inadequate investigation is the problem.

 

 

 

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?

 

 

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.

 

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.