Skip to main content

Tag: NIMH

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

Written by Sheila Matthews on . Posted in Violence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

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

Written by Able Child on . Posted in Lawmaking.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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