Skip to main content

Tag: Mental Health

Let’s Look at Mental Health “Treatment” – Not Increase It

Written by Sheila Matthews on . Posted in Lawmaking.

 This is in response to the op-ed by Lloyd I. Sederer, Md. A Defining Moment for Mental Health in America.  Dr. Sederer begins his mental health cheerleading piece with the mention of the massacre in Newtown, Ct., stating that “…too little has been done so far to make a difference for those whose fates lies ahead.”

This statement couldn’t be more wrong.  Since the Sandy Hook shooting, thirty-seven states have instituted some form of increased mental health services and, in Connecticut, increased mental health legislation was passed without public input and without even having a completed investigative report of the incident.

Lawmakers in Connecticut, and throughout the U.S., acted in typical crisis management mode and instituted increased mental health services without even knowing if the evidence from the shooting called for such measures.

The fact is the “investigation” of the Sandy Hook shooting does not provide one detail about the medical or mental health records for the last five years of Adam Lanza’s life.  Adam Lanza’s mental health records end in 2007, (five years prior to the shooting incident) after he experienced serious adverse reactions to two antidepressants while being treated at the Yale Child Study Center.

Worse still, Nancy Lanza made mental health professionals aware of both of the drug adverse reaction events and was labeled, by those treating her son, to be “non-compliant” because she refused to continue to subject her son to the harmful psychiatric drug “treatment.”

Mental health’s continued use of the Sandy Hook incident is unacceptable and irrelevant because there is no evidence to support that Adam Lanza was not receiving the best mental health money could buy.  If one uses the available mental health data for Adam Lanza, they would find that Lanza had been receiving mental health services and treatment since the age of six.

Dr. Sederer uses this op-ed to beg support for Congressman Tim Murphy’s mental health legislation (H.R.3717) which for all practical purposes is all about “screening” the children of America for early identification of mental illness.  Ooohh paahlease!

Let’s look at the facts. Nearly 79 million Americans are taking at least one psychiatric drug, including 41 million people taking antidepressants, which includes 7.5 million children between the ages of 6-17.  One in five American adults take at least one psychiatric drug and, according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), prescription drug abuse is the fastest growing drug problem in the U.S., with 250 million prescriptions for antidepressants being written in 2010.

Despite the fact that there are 22 international regulatory warnings on psychiatric drugs, citing effects of mania, hostility, violence and even homicidal ideation, the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) MedWatch system reveals that between 2004 and 2012, the federal drug agency received more than 14,000 reports on psychiatric drugs causing violent side effects.

The problem with Dr. Sederer’s support of Representative Murphy’s mental health legislation is that it continues to sell the myth that psychiatric disorders are based in science/medicine and, therefore, can be effectively treated.  It just isn’t true. Psychiatric diagnosing is not based in science or medicine and it is completely subjective.

Because there is no evidence that any psychiatric disorder has a biological cause, and the pharmaceutical companies admit that they do not understand how the drugs used as “treatment” actually work in the brain, it seems that there’s a whole lot of mental health guessing going on.

Rather than continue to legislate increased mental health services, isn’t it time to seriously look at the data and start asking tough questions about the “treatment” the mental health industry is peddling?  And rather than support Rep. Murphy’s legislation to increase mental health services that clearly are not working, there is another bill pending in Congress that actually protects children, H.R. 4518 the Parental Protection Act.

 

 

Is Increased Drugging of the Nation’s Children Really the Answer?

Written by Able Child on . Posted in Lawmaking.

The Connecticut Mirror ran an op-ed yesterday by Marcy Hoyland titled Detect mental health problems early to prevent violence, that reads like an infomercial for the American Psychiatric Association (APA).

While no one could fault Hoyland for caring about the emotional and behavioral problems of the nation’s youth, the solution recommended by Hoyland is to identify mental illness early in order to get treatment before things get worse.

Sounds good. But the problem is that identifying mental illness is completely subjective. There is not one psychiatric mental disorder that is based in science/medicine. There is no objective, confirmable abnormality that is a psychiatric disorder.

Hoyland suggests that “by identifying individuals with risk factors to chronic diseases, such as diabetes and heart disease, we can treat these people in a way to keep them healthy for as long as possible. The same is true of mental health care.”  Actually, given that psychiatric diagnosing is subjective, it isn’t at all the same.

The fact is diabetes and heart disease are not diagnosed by the patient answering questions about their behavior. Unlike psychiatric diagnosing, medical tests are utilized to determine these actual medical conditions.  There are no medical tests – urine or blood tests, MRI or CAT scans – used to diagnose mental disorders.

And, of course, the decades long theory of the alleged chemical imbalance remains just that…a theory.  There is no test to determine the chemical levels in the brain, making it impossible to know whether the chemicals are in, or out, of balance or, for that matter, what “normal” levels may be.

Hoyland throws in a few interesting statistics to make her case for early detection, including the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) estimate that one in five children in the U.S. has a mental health “issue” and 70 percent of those individuals do not receive care. Sounds dire. But the reality is that the U.S. is diagnosing and drugging its youth at record speed.

Consider for moment a recent study by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)  that more than 11 percent of American school children now are diagnosed with ADHD, 7.5 percent of children ages 6-17 are being prescribed psychiatric mind-altering drugs for emotional and behavioral problems and “over the last two decades, the use of medication to treat mental health problems has increased substantially among all school-aged children.”

The fact is that mental health “treatment” in America primarily consists of the use of powerful mind-altering drugs. According to a study by IMS Health nearly 79 million Americans are taking at least one psychiatric drug, including nearly seven-and-a-half million children between the ages of 6 and 17.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has placed “Black box” warnings on many of these psychiatric mind-altering drugs because the federal agency has concluded that the drugs may actually cause suicidality and the drug makers warn of violent behavior, mania, psychosis and a host of other serious behavioral adverse reactions.

One can only assume that Hoyland was not aware of these data and, perhaps, is why she advocates that schools should have people who are trained to subjectively diagnose mental illness so they can identify your child and get them the “treatment” they need.

This is a frightening thought.  One cannot help but envision these suggested “trained” mental health “people” stalking the halls of the nation’s schools eagerly looking for “abnormal” behaviors that can be “treated.”

Even more frightening is Hoyland’s support of Congressional legislation that would “provide access to school-based comprehensive mental health programs.”  In other words, more mental health diagnosing and more drugs for the nation’s youth.

Of course the bigger question is what rights do parents have once these school mental health guesters “identify” the child’s mental health problem? Hoyland appears to assume that parents will be thrilled to get the psychiatric “help” they’re told their child needs. That isn’t necessarily so and the case of Justina Pelletier, being held hostage by Boston Children’s Hospital, is a perfect example of how parents can lose their rights once psychiatry makes a subjective diagnosis.

U.S. Representative Steve Stockman (R-TX) introduced legislation, H.R. 4518, The Parental Protection Act, that will address these issues, cutting off funds to medical institutions that conduct greater than minimal risk research on wards of the state, deny First Amendment rights to parents and wards of the state, and take children away from parents over disagreements on subjective diagnoses.  As Ablechild’s mission is about informed consent, we wholeheartedly support this legislation.

Furthermore, while Hoyland is advocating for increased mental health in the nation’s schools, one cannot help but ask why isn’t anyone getting better?  Will the mental health community not be satisfied until every American is diagnosed with a mental disorder and drugged?

The recent stabbing in Milford, Ct., may be a good example of mental health’s “treatment” success.  News reports state that the alleged suspect “had ADHD and other mental issues…he took strong medicine for it and other things, too.”

Having specific information about the psychiatric drugs this teenager had been prescribed would be helpful in trying to understand the violent behavior, especially given the FDA’s “Black box” warnings on most of the psychiatric drugs.

Hoyland  begins the op-ed with a reference to the ever-increasing number of school shootings in America, then suggests the reason for the problem is the lack of mental health treatment among the nation’s school-age children, yet fails to even address the connection between the prescribed psychiatric drugs and violence.

If Hoyland is really concerned about finding an answer to the increased number of violent acts, isn’t it time to consider that there may actually be a problem with the mental health “treatment” being provided?

 

 

 

 

State Child Advocate Still Investigating Sandy Hook Shooter

Written by Able Child on . Posted in Sandy Hook.

State Child Advocate Still Investigating Sandy Hook Shooter

 Although the State Police Report of the shooting incident at Sandy Hook Elementary provided zero information about the motive for the murderous actions of Adam Lanza, there still is an on-going investigation by the State’s child advocate’s office that may provide additional clues.

In March of 2013, the child advocate’s office requested Lanza’s school records, including report cards, attendance records, any individualized education plans, minutes of any meetings with specialized teams, psychological reports or evaluations, suspension and expulsion records, nursing and social work reports, and any correspondence with his family.

That’s a lot of information and much of it may provide a glimpse into not only the kind of mental health treatment Lanza received while attending school, but whether or not he even received state mental health care benefits. Hopefully, unlike the State Police Report, the public may learn something about the last five years of Lanza’s life.

As everyone now is fully aware, the State Police Report provides no information about Lanza’s mental health treatment for the five years leading up to the shooting incident. This complete lack of mental health information did not, however, stop state legislators from implementing costly increases in mental health services throughout the state.

Worse still, even if there had been information about Lanza’s mental health treatment in the investigative report, it would not have made a difference to lawmakers, as they passed the legislation, with no public input, seven months prior to the release of the investigative report on Sandy Hook.

Faith Vos Winkel, the Assistant Child Advocate, advised Ablechild that they received the records in February of this year and it would be at least two months before the report would be completed.

The state Office of the Child Advocate investigates child deaths and, in this instance, to collect information “to say, what are the lessons potentially to be learned here,” Vos Winkel has been quoted as saying.

Yes, what are the lessons of Sandy Hook? It’s hard to know given the complete shutdown of specific information about Lanza’s mental health treatment, including what drugs Lanza had been prescribed over the course of the last five years of his life.

The state Police Report provides information that in 2007 Lanza was prescribed Celexa. But in a recent New Yorker Magazine article by Andrew Solomon, the public was made aware that Lanza also had been prescribed a second antidepressant, Lexapro.

Nancy Lanza reported that Adam experienced severe adverse reactions to both drugs and was essentially blown off by mental health care providers and labeled as being “non-compliant” because she refused to continue to subject her son to the drugs.

According to an interview conducted by the Newtown Bee with Assistant Child Advocate, Faith Vos Winkel, the child advocate’s office “subpoenaed many records, not just school documents.”

That’s great. The question, though, is will the public be allowed to review these documents? Will the child advocate’s report be a carbon copy of the previous investigations of the shooting incident, where the public is entitled only to the opinion of those who write the report, rather than having access to the actual documents in order to make an informed decision?

Only time will tell.  But Ablechild will alert its members of any updates and, of course, provide the report for review when it becomes publically available.

 

 

The Sandy Hook Investigation and the “YALE Folder.”

Written by Sheila Matthews on . Posted in Sandy Hook.

Since the mental health bombshell released last week by the Connecticut State Police that Adam Lanza’s psychiatrist, Dr. Paul Fox, had destroyed Adam Lanza’s records, had sex with patients, and moved to New Zealand, additional questions about Lanza’s mental health treatment are surfacing.

Nancy Lanza had written an email to Dr. Fox on February 1, 2007, advising him that she wished Fox to “take the lead role” in treatment he would be receiving at the Yale Child Studies Center.

The State Police report reveals that the YALE Child Studies Center had evaluated and treated Lanza from October 2006-February 2007. Given that Lanza’s mental health records abruptly end in February of 2007- four months after beginning treatment with the Yale Child Studies Center- one has to wonder what happened.

More odd is that the treatment at Yale reportedly ended just six days after Nancy Lanza’s email to Fox, asking him to “take the lead.”

The last report from the Yale Child Studies Center in February 2007 was that Nancy Lanza had decided to discontinue the prescribed antidepressant, Celexa, as she believed Adam was experiencing an adverse reaction to the drug.

Is it possible that after more than ten years of seeking mental health assistance for Adam that Nancy Lanza decided to just stop, especially since by all accounts Lanza’s condition was getting worse, not better?

Other than prescribing mind-altering drugs, what other treatment did Lanza receive at the Yale Child Studies Center?  Was Lanza participating in a clinical study of some kind?

It’s difficult to know, as there simply is no information made available about Lanza’s mental health after his brief treatment at the Yale Child Studies Center.

Given Nancy Lanza’s documented devotion to obtaining mental health services for Adam, it seems bizarre that the State Police report fails to provide information about the last five years of mental health records.

In light of the article dated June 30, 2013 by The Hartford Currant, stating that the paper had access to Lanza’s medical records from birth to age 18, it becomes more curious that the official State Police report would fail to make these records public.

 

Presidential Executive Orders in Mental Health: A History of Failures

Written by Sheila Matthews on . Posted in Lawmaking.

Numerous Presidential Executive orders and millions in appropriations for Mental Health in Connecticut have produced nothing but failure and may actually be harmful. Hundreds-of-millions more tax dollars have been promised with no hope of real change.   Despite the enormous amount of money being funneled into mental health, the big return seems to be little more than semantics – merely changing words rather than policy.

The State of Connecticut was one of 13 States to receive a federal “mental health transformation” grant under President Bush. The grant was issued as an executive order to “transform” the broken mental health system and was funded through 2010.  And, what was the return on the investment?  Connecticut suffers the largest mass murder/suicide in United States history within years of this “new improved mental health delivery system.”

Patricia Rehmer, the Commissioner of Mental Health in Connecticut, touts on her resume the fact she had oversight of the $13.7 million granted to Connecticut to then revamp the mental health delivery system.  Ablechild participated in all the committee hearings on that grant and called for disclosure to the consumer on the link between the increased risk of suicide, violence and psychiatric drugs.  Ablechild encouraged the State to educate the public on the MEDWATCH program, and to provide alternatives to psychiatric drugs and forced mental health services.  Ablechild also wrote to then Governor Rell requesting an accounting of how the funds were distributed and whether the public would be advised of the results. The Governor denied Ablechild’s request.

Despite tens-of-millions poured into the State’s mental health system with little or no accountability as to how those funds were spent, in the wake of Sandy Hook, President Obama has promised another $100 million thru an executive order to “make it easier to access mental health services.”  That’s great. But what happened to the $13.7 million from President Bush’s grant?

Are you doing the math?  Are you following the insane process?

On December 20, 2012, within weeks of the Sandy Hook shooting, Senator Scott Frantz stated on WCBS to Bureau Chief Fran Schneidau that mental health providers will get a “slight boost” in the wake of the shootings and will have no funding cuts despite the fact that, “it has not been determined if there was direct connection between that and the massacre.”

Recall that Lanza’s mental health, educational records, and full toxicology report are being withheld from the public by the state of Connecticut.

The push, apparently, is to use this $100 million dollars to improve access to mental health services. However, according to the Hartford Courant’s article of June 20, 2013, Adam Lanza’s Medical Records Reveal Growing Anxiety” Lanza did have access to mental health services for many years. Lanza had been “screened” and released as not being a harm to himself or others.

Ablechild is taking the lead in calling for Lanza’s records to be made public, which will be crucial during the upcoming Connecticut legislative session.  The goal is to protect public safety and stop the mismanagement of taxpayer funds.  Is the increased mental health helping or hurting the public? Not everyone is convinced that more money spent on mental health access will have a positive effect – at least, to date, the State cannot prove that the tens-of-millions spent so far has shown any improvement.

For example, Dr. Hank Schwarts, psychiatrist-in-chief of the Institute of Living in Hartford said in regard to mental health issues, “to write a report now, with what we have, would almost be embarrassing.”http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-ed-state-police-drag-feet-on-newtown-report-20131224,0,6056179.story

 

NEWTOWN ONE YEAR LATER, THE MISSING LINK

Written by Sheila Matthews on . Posted in Sandy Hook.

In one of a long string of mass murders ending with the killer committing suicide, Sandy Hook, Newtown grabbed the attention of the entire world on December 14, 2012 when yet another mental health client went on a killing spree.

President Obama went to Newtown, Connecticut during the time families were mourning the loss of their children and before their burials.  The President took to the stage at the Newtown High School blocks from the deadly killings and delivered a powerful, moving heartfelt speech where he began to launch a very targeted campaign.  The President said, “We as a nation, we are left with some hard questions.”

As Steve Peoples from the Associated Press writes in his article, Year after Newtown, Gun control Groups keep hope”, “A divided Congress denied President Barack Obama’s calls for change.”  The Associated Press article describes the movement being led by President Obama.  What is not mentioned in the article, this political movement is being built on the backdrop of mourning parents, a failed investigation, a State unwilling to release the shooter’s mental health and special education records, with an incomplete release of a toxicology summary.

The AP report discloses a battle plan of a national operation backed by an alliance of well-funded organizations set up to pressure Congress ahead of next fall’s elections. The groups are sending dozens of paid staff into key states, enlisting thousands of volunteer activists preparing to spend tens of millions of dollars against politicians who stand in the way of their goals.

As the Cofounder of Ablechild, during a Fox News interview with Douglas Kennedy in the aftermath of the Red Lake massacre, Douglas Kennedy asked me, “What do you want?”  I responded, “A federal hearing into to link between psychiatric drugs and school shootings”.

We are not alone in asking the hard question. In Congresswoman Betty McCollum’s home district town hall meeting in Minnesota, again the same question, “What is the link to the shootings and the psychiatric drugs?”

The Congresswoman’s response is stunning. She said that the CDC, the Center for Disease Control, has a “rule” that prohibits the Congress from studying the link between psychiatric drugs and mass shootings. (video 39.30).

Is that true? No.

The CDC is a federal agency under the Department of Health and Human Services.  It certainly doesn’t have the power of “rule” making over Congress.

Ablechild reached out for clarification to her office regarding her comments on this CDC rule.  We received back an article about President Obama and gun control that had nothing to do with our quest for clarification on the CDC rule.  We were asked to put our request in writing; we did and as of yet have not received a response.

Congresswoman McCollum’s home State of Minnesota on March 21, 2005 suffered a killing spree called the “Red Lake Massacre” that occurred in two places on the Ojibwa Red Lake reservation.

A 16 year old, Jeffrey Wiese killed his grandfather, a tribal police officer and his grandfather’s girlfriend at their home, before going to Red lake Senior High School where he killed seven people, and wounded five others, then committed suicide.

According to relatives the teenager was taking the antidepressant Prozac, 20 milligrams 3 times a day.

Congresswoman McCollum has a great opportunity to respond to her district and push for federal hearings on mass murders and their link to psychiatric drugs.

Ablechild will continue to push for these federal hearings.  We plan to participate in the upcoming Connecticut February short legislative session to ensure the toxicology panels at the medical examiner’s office are updated and include clinical trial drugs, as well as to obtain a transparent policy  regarding toxicology reports, mental health records, and the associated link to mental health treatments in the aftermath of mass murders and suicides.

This type of legislation will ensure the public has the compelling data that already exists allowing the public to fully participate in the legislative process and to produce life saving public policies.

We agree with President Obama, it is time to ask hard questions.  We, however, don’t think it is a time to build a political movement, pass executive orders giving more funding to an unregulated and unaccountable mental health industry without asking the hard questions.  This is a vital pubic health and safety issue.

We encourage Congresswoman McCollum along with her district voters to help us obtain those federal hearings and welcome her response on our inquiry.