Skip to main content

Tag: Psychiatric Drugs

The Sandy Hook Advisory Commission and the Evidence of a “Convicted Offender.”

Written by Able Child on . Posted in Sandy Hook.

Last week the Sandy Hook Advisory Commission threw another crumb to the masses, letting them know that, well, even though they can’t get any of the records and documents they want, they’ll forge ahead and produce a report, making mental health recommendations, that has absolutely nothing to do with Adam Lanza’s mental health history.

In the seventeen months that it has taken the Commission to get to this point, it is interesting how it repeatedly complains about being unable to obtain mental health records relating to Adam Lanza. Okay. Got it. But what about the records the Commission does have access to?

Remember that the Commission enlisted the services of a law firm to make sense of, or “catalogue,” the State Police Report of the shooting, so making sense of the 6700 pages of investigative material should not have been too terribly taxing for the Commission. And if the Commission took the time to read the investigation, then they are aware of an interesting piece of physical evidence that may shed light on the motive behind the shooting.

As part of the State’s investigation of the shooting, a sealed and stamped white envelope addressed “For the young students of Sandy Hook Elementary School,” was removed from the Lanza home and entered into evidence.

Both finger print and DNA testing was performed on this sealed envelope. No finger prints were found on the envelope but, more importantly, Adam and Nancy Lanza were eliminated as possible contributors to the DNA found. A positive DNA profile was identified. Whose DNA was found?

According to the Police investigation “the DNA profiles from items #3G1 (swabbing of envelope flap) and #4-2S2 (swabbing .22 caliber cartridges) were searched against the Connecticut and National DNA Databases. On January 7, 2013, a hit was obtained with the Convicted Offender DNA profile from New York State Police Investigation Center DB#Y10011106A.”

Wow, the DNA of a “Convicted Offender” in New York was found on the envelope; that was found in the Lanza home; that was addressed to “the young students of Sandy Hook Elementary School.”

The obvious question is how did the DNA of a “Convicted Offender” in New York get onto the envelope, that was addressed to the “young students of Sandy Hook Elementary School,” that was found in the Lanza home? Who is this “Convicted Offender,” and what is his connection to Nancy and Adam Lanza and, for that matter, what is his connection to Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting?

More importantly, what was found inside this sealed and stamped envelope? Did a “Convicted Offender” write a letter to the “young students of Sandy Hook Elementary School?” It’s anyone’s guess. The State Police investigation does not provide any information about any follow up about the “Convicted Offender,” what was found in the sealed and stamped envelope, or how it could have gotten into the Lanza home. Why?

This is an important piece of evidence that may shed some light on the murderous actions of December 14, 2012. Why would the State Police believe it was of interest to list the sealed envelope as evidence, test it for finger prints and DNA, provide the results, but not provide any information about the contents of the envelope – even if the envelope was empty?

This evidence should be of interest to the Commission simply by virtue of the possibility that it may provide insight into a motive behind the attack. Has the Commission requested this information from the State Police? Will the Commission provide this information as part of its final report?

Only time will tell. But it sure seems like this is physical evidence that the Commission would find of some use.

 

 

 

 

The Mental Health Agenda of Sandy Hook

Written by Able Child on . Posted in Sandy Hook.

The 47 recommendations presented yesterday by the Task Force to Study the Provisions of Behavioral Health Services for Young Adults is nothing short of a never-ending mental health assault on the families of Connecticut. Forty-two of these recommendations benefit the psychiatric and drug industries, while only five address quality of service and human rights.

The most galling part of the 60-odd page report is that, while its recommendations are reportedly in response to the passage of P.A. 13-3, which was in response to the Sandy Hook shooting, nowhere in the report is there any information provided about Adam Lanza’s mental health.

In fact, on page 1 of the report, the Task Force writes, “among other issues, the event (Sandy Hook) focused attention on Connecticut’s behavioral health services for young adults and raised questions about the extent of their availability, accessibility, and affordability.” Why?

If the mental health legislation (P.A. 13-3) was passed in response to the shooting at Sandy Hook, wouldn’t the focus be on the mental health treatment Adam Lanza received? Wouldn’t the Task Force be interested in the 2007 “treatment” provided to Adam Lanza by the Yale Child Study Center, including Yale mental health providers who labeled Nancy Lanza as “non-compliant” because she refused to continue Adam on a psychiatric drug that was causing serious adverse effects?

One would think that if these increased mental health services were in response to the actions of Adam Lanza, then his mental health “treatment” would be the focus of any recommendations. Of course, given that the last five years of Lanza’s mental health history is missing from the State Police Investigation of Sandy Hook, it would be difficult for the Task Force to provide any real insight. But here’s the rub, the Task Force apparently didn’t even ask for mental health data on Adam Lanza. Why?

Given the complete lack of interest in the mental health “treatment” of Adam Lanza – the reported reason behind the push for increased mental health services in Connecticut – one can only assume there is another agenda.

Without getting into too much detail, what becomes immediately clear is that the Task Force is hell-bent on “early recognition, assessment, intervention and treatment of childhood and adolescent behavioral health disorders.” In other words, because of Adam Lanza’s mental health (which no one seems remotely interested in) Connecticut’s preschoolers and adolescents need to be screened for mental disorders, and the sooner the better.

To insure that the State’s preschoolers are properly screened and “treated,” the Task Force is recommending truckloads of taxpayer dollars to pay for an army of mental health guessperts to identify these alleged mental disorders. It doesn’t matter that no psychiatric disorder is based in science. It doesn’t matter that the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), the premier mental health agency in the world, admits on its website that science doesn’t know what causes any psychiatric disorder, the Task Force cannot stop itself from passing on the fraud.

For example, on page xi of the report, the Task Force recommends to “increase the age of majority to 18 years old for making decisions regarding one’s mental health and substance abuse treatment, given the current understanding of mental illness to be a biologic disease.”

Sure, that may be the State’s and the Task Force’s “understanding” of mental illness, but it’s wrong. Continuing to spew this disinformation does not help those suffering, and certainly raises questions about the Task Force’s understanding of mental illness and the reported “treatment” options.

The most important section of this report comes as part of the human rights issues. The Task Force, apparently unwilling to tackle the issue, passes off the discussion of forced psychiatric care onto “a separate Task Force,” which also would address the use of psychiatric drugs on children who refuse such treatment.

The Task Force’s unwillingness to address these important issues does not, however, stop it from recommending to “…provide aggressive outpatient services, shy of forced medication, to clients with severe illness in Connecticut.”

Mental health “treatment” always comes back around to psychiatric drugging and, perhaps, that is the reason the Task Force deliberately steered clear of Adam Lanza’s mental health history. After all, if it were revealed that Lanza received the best mental health care possible, what reason would there be to increase mental health services within the state?

Worse, still, if it were revealed that Lanza actually received quality mental health care, then it’s quite possible that the mental health community’s “treatment” may actually come under fire. In the end, though, without any information about Adam Lanza’s mental health, these are 47 mental health recommendations too many.

 

 

 

 

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?

 

Connecticut Fails to Meet Deadline on Sandy Hook Mental Health Gun Bill

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

The problem with instituting sweeping, costly and invasive mental health legislation is that there always are unintended consequences. The State of Connecticut, when passing Public Act 13-3, apparently didn’t consider that there are two sides to every story. And when it comes to “mental health” there most definitely is another side beyond the mental health we-need-early -intervention-to-help-those-suffering mantra.

A case in point is the recent report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, which found that more than 10,000 toddlers between the ages of 2-3 are being medicated for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, ADHD.   Worse still, these data are limited and the experts believe the problem is actually much worse on a national level.

But to fully grasp the insanity of drugging 2-3 year olds with highly addictive mind-altering drugs, let’s consider a few important pieces of information about this age group. First, the average weight for male toddlers at three years is 29.5 pounds and females is 28.4 and, by this age, only 80 percent of the child’s brain has fully developed.

Developmentally 2-3 year olds are learning to arrange things in groups, putting things in size order, remembering what they did yesterday, recognizing themselves in the mirror and learning to say please and thank you. Yes, great strides, but still the brain is not fully developed.

Now let’s consider the ADHD diagnosis. This alleged mental disorder is all about behavior.  Regardless of what the American Psychiatric Association, APA, believes, the National Institutes of Mental Health, NIMH, makes it clear on its website that “scientists don’t know what causes ADHD.” There is no test known to man that can detect ADHD as a biological/genetic abnormality.

Because the  APA has no proof of any abnormality that is the alleged ADHD, they have compiled a list of “abnormal” behaviors that apparently make up the diagnosis, including “is often easily distracted,” “is often forgetful in daily activities,” “often does not seem to listen when spoken to directly,” etc.  After considering the list of 18 criteria that make up the alleged mental disorder, ADHD, one has to wonder what child doesn’t repeatedly do most, if not all, of these behaviors.

Nevertheless, now, let’s consider the ADHD “treatment” most commonly used – Ritalin (methylphenidate) and Adderall (amphetamine). Methylphenidate is a schedule II drug and, as such, is considered by the federal government to be one of the most addictive. It also is considered by the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA,  “to produce discriminative stimulus effects similar to cocaine, which substitute for each other and for cocaine in a number of paradigms, and chronic high-dose administration of either drug in animals produces psychomotor stimulant toxicity including weight loss, stereotypic movements and death, and in clinical studies, they produce behavioral, psychological, subjective and reinforcing effects similar to cocaine.”

The DEA sums up Methylphenidate and Amphetamine use this way: “this data means that neither animals nor humans can tell the difference between cocaine, amphetamine or methylphenidate when they are administered the same way at comparable doses. In short, they produce effects that are nearly identical.”

In a nutshell, 2-3 year old toddlers are being labeled with an alleged mental illness that is not based in science or medicine and then “treated” with extremely addictive, mind-altering drugs before their brains are even fully formed.

Did legislators really consider the implications of Public Act 13-3, which pushes for early identification and screening for mental illness in the state’s children? Was even one expert allowed to testify before any committee, making lawmakers aware of the above facts?  No.

More importantly, according to Public Act 13-3, a Task Force was established to consider all of the mental health provisions and report back to the Legislature and the Governor.  Not surprising, this report, which was due no later than February 1st of this year, still has not been completed.

These Task Force recommendations may provide some guidance on just how intrusive the mental health provisions are. For example, at what age will Connecticut’s legislators decide early intervention and screening is inappropriate and harmful? Public Act 13-3 allows for “Mental Health First Aid Training” as part of in-service training for educators.  If a child is labeled with a mental illness through this early intervention and mental health screening, what rights are afforded to parents who refuse to accept this “help?”

Does this mental health intervention end at the school-age level or will the State continue to legislate mental health screening to include toddlers and preschoolers?    Given that nearly 8 million American children between the ages of 6-17 currently are taking at least one mind-altering, psychiatric drug, it is clear what mental health’s “treatment” consists of.  Yes, there are consequences for ill-advised and uninformed legislation.

 

 

 

Adam Lanza’s Psychiatrist’s Ethics Violations Raise Questions About the Legislature’s Controversial Mental Health Increases

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

One has to wonder.  If the State legislature had been aware of the details of the investigation into Adam Lanza’s psychiatrist, Dr. Paul Fox, prior to passing sweeping, costly mental health legislation, PA 13-3, would the vote have gone the same direction?

Let’s consider for a moment the facts of Dr. Fox’s surrender of his license to practice medicine in not only Connecticut but, also, New York.  Ablechild recently requested and received the publicly available investigative file on the circumstances surrounding Adam Lanza’s psychiatrist’s fall from psychiatric grace and, perhaps, his decision to flee the country.

The State Department of Public Health received a complaint about Dr. Fox from Yale New Haven Hospital in March of 2012.  A female patient of Dr. Fox had reported detailed information about a “consensual” sexual relationship with Dr. Fox and, by April of 2012, the State Department of Public Health had begun its investigation.

The investigative documents are, in a word, sickening.  The 59-year old Fox had engaged in a sexual relationship with a 19-year old patient he supposedly was “treating” for mental illness.  Dr. Fox had become the patient’s counselor while employed at Western Connecticut State University Counseling Center and when fired from the University for “ethics” violations, continued to “treat” the patient at his Brookfield office.

In substantiating the sexual relationship, the patient provided detailed documentation, including an inordinate number of written references by Dr. Fox about his private parts, and information about other female patients that reportedly had sexual relationships with the psychiatrist – one threatening to bring a malpractice suit against him.  Given the psychiatrist’s apparent proclivity for being sexually active with his female patients, one can only surmise he may qualify as a serial sexual predator.

More importantly, during Dr. Fox’s “treatment” of this 19-year old patient, he not only was prescribing numerous – “three or four” – psychiatric mind-altering drugs, but also was providing the patient with free drug samples (page 69 of report).  According to the patient’s mother, “she was turning into a zombie.”

Dr. Fox billed the mother’s insurance for the patient’s drug “treatment,” but when the psychiatrist and the patient “became friends” Fox no longer billed for “counseling services.”(page 68 of report)

The “consensual sexual relationship” between a 59-year old doctor and 19-year old patient lasted about two years, with the good doctor ending with a note saying “please don’t contact me.”  Absolutely pathetic!

But why is this investigation of Dr. Fox important and what does it have to do with Adam Lanza and the State’s rush to institute increased mental health services?

First, this investigation raises red flags about the public’s right to know when doctors/psychiatrists are fired for “ethics” violations from a State University, tasked with providing mental health services for teenagers.  Furthermore, was Western Connecticut State University aware of Dr. Fox’s sexual relationships with students at the university and, if so, did the university file a report with the Department of Public Health or any state oversight agency?

Additionally, on December 17, 2012 (three days after the Sandy Hook incident) police conducted a telephone interview with Dr. Fox, who is living in New Zealand, inquiring about his “treatment ” of Adam Lanza and the whereabouts of the doctor’s mental health records.  (Investigation document 00260339 -Book 7)

Dr. Fox, advised police that he “vaguely recalls treating Adam Lanza.”  Dr. Fox further advised that the only records he had in New Zealand were billing records and explained that “all of his medical records pertaining to clients he treated in the United States are currently in storage in the United States.”

Twenty-four hours later, Dr. Fox, contacted police, explaining “any medical records pertaining to Adam Lanza have been destroyed since it has been over five years since he last treated him (per state statute he is allowed to destroy any files over 5 years old).”  Dr. Fox further explained that “Adam was about 15 years of age when he last saw him.”

If Dr. Fox last saw Adam Lanza in 2007, his medical record retention, according to the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies Medical Records 19a-14-42, “unless specified otherwise herein, all parts of a medical record shall be retained for a period of seven (7) years from the last date of treatment, or, upon the death of the patient, for three (3) years.”

Dr. Fox, upon surrendering his license, agreed to adhere to the regulations regarding medical records. So, if the doctor last saw Adam Lanza in 2007, he destroyed Lanza’s mental health records two years too early.

More than that, is it not odd that Dr. Fox would initially tell police that his medical records were in storage in the U.S., then twenty-four hours later revise his statement, declaring them destroyed?  Of course, Dr. Fox’s billing records would yield a great deal of information, especially about the drugs prescribed to Lanza, but apparently the police did not follow that lead. Why?

There’s little doubt that Dr. Fox is material to the Sandy Hook investigation. Fox is reported to have been Adam Lanza’s “primary psychiatrist” and, therefore, key to understanding not only Lanza’s mental status but also his drug history. (Investigation document 00085896-Book 8 email to Dr. Fox from Nancy Lanza)

Because the State Police Report provides no mental health information about Lanza since his “treatment” by Dr. Fox in 2007, due to his obvious questionable ethical behavior, is it possible Dr. continued to treat Lanza?  Dr. Fox could answer this question by making public the billing records.  The State Police, however, did not request the records.

The larger picture, though, is the State’s rush to implement increased mental health services (Public Act 13-3) when not only was there no investigative information to support the increase, but the psychiatrist “treating” Lanza had lost his license due to ethical violations and fled the country.

If the State legislature had known about Dr. Fox’s egregious ethical violations, his obvious violation of state medical record retention regulations and his excessive prescribing of psychiatric drugs, would the vote have gone the same way?

This, of course, is the problem with political crisis management. The State legislature acted without the necessary information to make informed decisions. Given the above information, most would logically conclude that rather than implementing costly increased mental health services, what actually was needed was a top-down review of the kind of mental health services being provided.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

New York’s “Unsafe” Act

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

NEW YORK’S “UNSAFE” ACT

Mental Health Professionals Given Unprecedented Control

The blind leading the blind. That’s how one could sum up New York’s SAFE Act, also known as the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act. Fully aware of the fraud of the sweeping mental health/gun control legislation, at least a million gun owners, directly affected, won’t be participating in the punishing legislation.

New York was the first state in the Nation to enact legislation, instituting the SAFE Act, based on the tragic events at Sandy Hook Elementary.  This legislation was passed in the middle of the night without any public hearings.    New York acted without even having the benefit of an investigative report of the incident, classic legislative crisis management.

Ablechild long has been a vocal opponent of the mental health provisions of the SAFE Act for the simple reason that there is no data to support the new mental health requirements that include “mental health professionals to report to their director of community services (DCS) or his/her designees when, in their reasonable professional judgment, one of their patients is “likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to self and others.”

There are numerous problems with this section, beginning with the mental health professionals “reasonable professional judgment.”  This phrase is a nice way of saying the mental health professionals opinion of a patient’s current and possible future behavior.

There is no argument that all psychiatric diagnoses are subjective…they are not based in science/medicine.  There is no objective, confirmable abnormality that is any psychiatric disorder.

The mental health professional diagnoses an alleged disorder based on a subjective opinion of information gleaned from having a conversation with the patient. No blood test, CAT scan, MRI, or any medical test, is utilized to identify an “abnormality” in the patient’s brain.

Once the alleged brain disorder is diagnosed, more often than not, psychiatric mind-altering drugs are prescribed as “treatment.” The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued “Black-box” warnings on many of the psychiatric drugs, including antidepressants which may cause mania, psychosis, hallucinations, aggressiveness, abnormal behavior, suicidality and even homicidality.

Nearly 80 million Americans are taking at least one psychiatric mind-altering drug, with forty-million taking at least one antidepressant. There are 22 international drug-regulatory warnings issued on psychiatric drugs causing violent behavior and researchers have identified 25 psychotropic drugs disproportionately associated with violence, including physical assault and homicide.

As a matter of fact, in New York a bill was proposed in 2000, S1784, which would require the police to report to the Division of Ciminal Justice Services (DCJS), certain crimes and suicides committed by persons using psychotropic drugs.  This bill was initiated based on a large body of scientific research establishing a connection between violence and suicide and the use of psychotropic drugs in some cases.

So, the initial mental health diagnosis is not based in science or medicine, but, rather, is the mental health professional’s opinion of the patient’s behavior. The psychiatric drugs prescribed by the mental health professional as “treatment” may actually cause violent behavior, and the mental health provisions of the SAFE Act then allows the same mental health professional to further opine that the patient may be “a harm to self or others?” This is idiotic.

Based on the fact that the FDA has placed “Black-box” warnings on many of the psychiatric drugs – because the drugs may cause violent behavior – there seems little doubt that any, or all, of the patients taking the prescribed psychiatric drugs may be susceptible to the adverse reactions.

The fact is the mental health professional may be responsible for the “conduct that would result in serious harm to self or others” due to the prescribing of the mind-altering drugs. Because mental health professionals admit they cannot predict future violent behavior, it literally is a psychiatric drug crapshoot as to who will experience these drug adverse reactions.

All mental health professionals are aware of the known adverse reactions associated with the prescribed psychiatric drugs.  However, despite having this important information, the mental health provisions of New York’s SAFE Act provides unprecedented control over the rights of patients, without their consent, based solely on the mental health professional’s opinion.

Co-founder of Ablechild and New York Chapter President, Patricia Weathers, provided testimony in opposition to certain mental health provisions of New York’s SAFE Act, advising the Public Safety Commission that “…we believe that the issue of gun control is diverting this country away from the very real underlying cause of these violent shootings occurring in our nation’s schools.”

Weathers further testified that “mental health legislation and gun legislation that was enacted into law rashly, without public hearings on the matter, and without all the facts is reprehensible and criminalizes the many law abiding, responsible citizens across New York State without just cause.”

Informed consent and the right to refuse psychiatric drugs and services is the mission of Ablechild. The SAFE Act does not provide informed consent but, rather, provides unprecedented power to mental health professionals that surely will have long-term harmful effects on overall public safety, bypassing individual rights.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Hunt For Lanza’s Mental Health Records Becomes Embarrassing For the State

Written by Sheila Matthews on . Posted in Sandy Hook.

The Hunt For Lanza’s Mental Health Records Becomes Embarrassing For the State

According to media reports today, Peter Lanza, father of Sandy Hook shooter, Adam Lanza, has had a conversation with the Chairman of the Sandy Hook Advisory Commission, Scott Jackson, regarding Lanza’s willingness to provide the much needed and, frankly, necessary mental health records of his son.

Oddly enough, it appears that Lanza is the only person who truly understands how important this information is and relayed through Jackson that “he (Lanza) believes that retroactive psychoanalysis is fraught with danger.”

In other words, any psychological autopsy done without having all his son’s medical/mental health  information is nothing but speculation and certainly not worthy of building recommendations for sweeping changes within Connecticut’s mental health services programs.

The joke is that Lanza gave up these records to the police immediately following the shooting and this is reported in the State Police Report. Not only did the police have the information, so did the FBI and the state’s attorney, Stephen Sedensky.

Additionally, medical/mental health records were taken from Nancy Lanza’s home immediately after the shooting. Clearly, it is no secret that investigators have these records. Why then hasn’t the commission requested the records from the investigative bodies?

It is incomprehensible to think that Jackson is forced to go begging to the father of the shooter for these records when they were in the hands of the investigators almost immediately.

More distressing is that fact that the state’s attorney knows much more than has been released. Recall that as a result of Ablechild’s law suit to obtain Lanza’s mental health/full toxicology records, we were told by the State’s Assistant Attorney General, Patrick B. Kwanashie, that the reason for not releasing Lanza’s medical records was because it “would cause a lot of people to stop taking their medications.”

Where did Kwanashie get that information?  What medications would people “stop taking” if Lanza’s records were made public?  And, in fact, is it because of the medications that Lanza had been prescribed that there appears to be an effort to suppress this information?

Furthermore, recall that the state Office of the Child Advocate was tasked with investigating the deaths at Sandy Hook and requested “any and all records, and all communications Newtown School personnel and any and all entities.”  After having issued a subpoena to obtain those records, there is no follow-up as to whether the Office of the Child Advocate ever got them.  But, it is one more avenue that the commission may take advantage of.

What is certain is that at least the last five years of Lanza’s mental health records are unaccounted for and they are absolutely necessary if the commission is to make any recommendations about the State’s mental health care system.

What also is certain is that the “hunt” for Adam Lanza’s mental health records is becoming embarrassing.  Ablechild would suggest that the commission talk to the investigative bodies, Dr. Robert King of the Yale Child Study Center, Dr. Paul Fox, the Office of the Child Advocate, and the Assistant Attorney General, Patrick Kwanashie.  The records exist. Finding out why they are being treated as a “State Secret” is another matter.