Local boy with autism makes great gains
This is an awesome story, and truly a miracle. Also shows that we really have to pay attention to everything that effects our mind, body and spirit.
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Friday, February 8, 2013
Thursday, January 31, 2013
This information comes from the Hallelujah Diet, worth reading.
How Diet Affects ADHD Kids
Jan 21st
0 Comments and 0 Reactions
Fast foods, sodas, and ice cream may be American kids’ favorite food items, but they are also probably the worst for those children dealing with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), a new study reveals.According to two researchers from the Children’s Memorial Hospital in Chicago, a relatively simple diet low in fats and high in whole grains, fruits, and vegetables is one of the best alternatives to drug therapy for ADHD. Omega-3 fatty acid supplementation has also been shown to help in some controlled studies, they noted.
The researchers reviewed almost 70 publications on diet-based interventions in ADHD and found that diet is one established contributor to ADHD that parents can modify.
One of the most provocative findings in recent years came from the Australian Raine study, which followed children from birth to age 14.
That study found that development of ADHD was significantly associated with the Standard American Diet (rich in saturated fats and sugar) compared to a diet high in vegetables, fruits, and whole grains.
“A greater attention to the education of parents and children in a healthy dietary pattern, omitting items shown to predispose to ADHD, is perhaps the most promising and practical complementary or alternative treatment of ADHD,” the study said.
Editor’s Note:
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD or ADD) is a developmental disorder characterized by the co-existence of attention problems and hyperactivity. It is the most commonly studied and diagnosed psychiatric disorder in children, affecting an ever increasing number of children.I personally believe the primary cause of ADD and ADHD is the vaccines children receive.
The medical community treats the symptoms of ADD and ADHD with some very toxic drugs such as Ritalin and various derivatives. Every one of these drugs is capable of creating additional problems in the child receiving them – even death. For a sad account of a parent who lost their child as a result of Ritalin, click here.
But, it’s not just children who are being diagnosed with ADD and ADHD. Following is a testimony from an adult who had been diagnosed with “adult ADD” and the results he obtained after adopting The Hallelujah Diet:
“My own health challenges have also disappeared. I had been diagnosed with an Adult Attention Deficit Disorder and had been on Ritalin for five years to help me concentrate – but once I got refined sugar out of my system I was able to concentrate and no longer needed the Ritalin. I have also lost 30 pounds. We have seen other less dramatic changes as well – no more body odor, our hair is healthier, my wife has fingernails for the first time in her life, and our skin is clearer. No more hemorrhoids, no more sore feet, and I could go on and on. Dr. Malkmus, I thank God for you and your ministry!”
The World’s Diet – Dangerously High In Refined Sugar
Nov 15th
Over the last several weeks, we have been learning about the shortcomings and dangers of the world’s diet.In this Health Tip we are going to examine a substance that makes up a high percentage of the world’s diet — and discover why it is so dangerous to your health.
Refined Sugar Is A Dead, Fiberless Poison
Refined sugar is not a food substance at all. It is a dangerous poison that is consumed by almost every man, woman, and child, in large quantities, on a daily basis.It is a dead (contains no enzymatic activity), fiberless, and good-for-nothing killer that creates monumental problems within the body.
Refined sugar is something God never intended our physical bodies to consume.
The only sugar God designed our physical bodies to ever have to deal with are the natural sugars found in the living (enzymatically alive), raw fruits and vegetables God created for us in the Garden!
Only 100 years ago, the average annual intake of refined sugar was approximately 5 pounds per person per year. Today, the average annual intake of refined sugar is around 172 pounds per person per year.
This means that if a person is consuming the Standard American Diet (SAD), that person is placing into their God-made physical bodies approximately 50 teaspoons of refined sugar, each and every day of their life.
If a person lives to the age of 80, they will have during their lifetime placed into their body some 13,760 pounds of refined sugar.
My friends that means that the average person on the “world’s diet” consumes nearly 7 tons of refined sugar in their lifetime.
That amount, 13,760 pounds, equals 2,752 five-pound bags of refined sugar.
Can you visualize what 2,752 five pound bags of refined sugar looks like when in the grocery store there are usually no more than ten 5-pound bags on the shelf?
Refined Sugar Is A Dead Food
All refined sugars originated as a natural, unrefined sugar in a living plant. As such, natural sugars contain a complete complement of enzymes, nutrients and fiber, just as God intended.By the time natural sugar reaches its refined sugar stage, all nutrients have been removed, all enzymes destroyed, and all fiber removed.
As such, refined sugar is a very dead and toxic substance.
Let’s look for a moment at the process of taking sugar cane or sugar beet in its nutrient rich, fiber rich, enzymatically alive state as found in the plant, into a refined, fiberless, lifeless, nutrient-devoid product.
The following information was taken from a newsletter written by Charlotte Gerson of the world-famous Gerson Clinic:
“Sugar is a basic element in starchy food; however, processed sugar is a completely different matter. The sugar we purchase in the supermarket for personal consumption is processed sugar. This kind of sugar is heated up in chalk-milk, so that calcium and protein are extracted. After the process, it becomes alkaloid, destroying all vitamin content. In the second phase the sugar is mixed with acid chalk, carbonic gas, sulfur dioxide and finally with natrium bicarbonate. The mixture is cooked and cooled off several times and thereafter crystallized and centrifuged. The dead mass is then treated with strontium hydroxide. Subsequently it arrives at the refinery where it is passed over chalk carbon acid to clean it. Dark coloring is removed by adding sulfuric acid and then it is filtered with bone charcoal. Finally, it is colored with Indathrenblue or the highly toxic Ultramarine. This product’s chemical composition is C12H22O11, which you can buy in shops as ‘pure cane’ sugar.”
Refined Sugar Is Fragmented
Through heating and mechanical and chemical processing, all vitamins, proteins, fats, enzymes and fiber – indeed, every single nutrient is removed until nothing but pure white sugar, pure ‘naked calories,’ pure refined carbohydrate remains.Sixty-four food elements are destroyed in the processing. Fragmented foods like these set up nutritional imbalances that precipitate health problems galore.
Refined Sugar Is Highly Acidic
Like animal source foods and refined grains, refined sugar is also extremely ‘acid forming.’In fact, refined sugar is possibly the most acidic substance one can consume. Soft drinks, which usually contain at least 10 teaspoons of refined sugar, have a pH between 2.8 and 3.5, making it the greatest source of acid we can place into our bodies.
In an effort to neutralize all of this acid, the body takes vital alkaline minerals, calcium being the most plentiful, from the body’s bone structure in an effort to neutralize the acidity. The acidity found in all animal source foods and refined grains cause the body to lose calcium as well.
This highly refined acidic sugar intake, along with the consumption of acidic animal and acidic grain source foods, causes the body to remove so much calcium from the bones and teeth that the bones become osteoporotic (porous) and teeth decay.
Refined Sugar Creates Blood Sugar Disorders
One pound of apples contains 263 calories, whereas one pound of candy contains 1800 calories.Refined sugar is concentrated far beyond what the God-created human body was designed to process at one time, while the body processes the much smaller amount of natural sugar found in apples just fine.
If a body is going to survive, it must find a way to somehow cope with the incredibly high amounts of sugar found in refined sugar. The body learns how to cope with it, but in so doing, often creates two new physical problems – diabetes and hypoglycemia.
Diabetes
The primary cause of diabetes is the fat contained in animal products which coats the cells and hinders the insulin from entering the cell.But when a diabetic consumes refined sugar, the pancreas has difficulty producing adequate insulin when the blood sugar rises. Concentrated amounts of sugar cause a rapid rise in blood sugar.
Chronic intake of refined sugar eventually exhausts the pancreas as it tries to compensate. Thus the diabetic is condemned to having to take ever-increasing amounts of insulin to compensate.
Diabetes is the #3 killer disease in America, preceded only by cardiovascular related problems and cancer.
Hypoglycemia
Hypoglycemia is the flip side of diabetes. Hypoglycemia occurs when the body still has a fairly strong pancreas. The body overreacts to concentrated sugar intake and releases too much insulin from the pancreas. Blood sugar levels then plummet far below the normal stable level.The suffering hypoglycemic often experiences fatigue, headaches; mental depression, and irritability.
Depression is often dealt with by the intake of more refined sugar, and so the hypoglycemic is caught in an endless cycle that causes the pancreas to wear out from constant over stimulation.
This often results in diabetes, because now the sufferer cannot produce sufficient insulin for normal metabolic activities.
Refined Sugar Promotes Emotional Instability
After a “sugarholic” has consumed a box of candy — or bag of cookies, or any large amount of refined sugar — they know how self-abused and depressed they feel.Indeed, studies reveal a strong link between juvenile and adult criminal offenses and sugar addiction.
Similar research reveals a link between mental illness and sugar abuse. Hypoglycemic reactions, for the very sensitive consumer, promote extreme irrationality and emotional instability, which can lead to aggressiveness.
Studies reveal that sugar may be as involved in mental illness, divorce, and crime as alcohol has been found to be.
Refined sugar is one of the major contributing factors to depression!
ADD and ADHD are running rampant among our children and even some adults!
Isn’t it a paradox that these emotional problems, caused by a very toxic and poisonous addictive drug called refined sugar, are then treated with another poison — like Ritalin or Prozac!
How sad!
If your child is having a behavioral problem, why not consider removing all refined sugar in their diet instead?
Refined Sugar Contributes To Heart Disease
Animal fat is not the only contributing factor in heart disease.Those on a highly refined sugar diet show significantly higher levels of fat in their blood than those who eat no refined sugar.
This high fat content in the blood is directly related to the development of plaque build-up within the arteries, then to hardening of the arteries, and ultimately to heart attacks and strokes.
Refined Sugar Leads To Addiction And Weight Gain
Refined sugar is highly caloric in its pure form.But then it is often made worse by combining it with something containing high fat, like shortening, along with some salt.
This produces a tempting goodie like candy, cookies, cake, pie, fudge, a donut, or cinnamon bun.
Often these high sugar foods are consumed with a high calorie sugar drink, like soda pop.
All of this sugar contributes to weight gain.
If a person consumes just one 12-ounce can of soda pop a day for one year, that 10 teaspoons of sugar found in each can of soda could add 12 pounds to their weight in just one year.
When these excess calories are not burned for energy, they are stored as fat, contributing to the obesity epidemic we are seeing today among children and adults alike. Obesity is an underlying factor in not only cardiovascular disease but most other chronic diseases.
Furthermore, because of the way it plays havoc with emotions, refined sugar is highly addicting – it works exactly like a drug. This means that once a sugarholic sufferer has given into this crystalline sweetness, they can’t stop consuming.
Refined sugar is every bit as addictive as nicotine and alcohol and withdrawal from it can be as difficult as withdrawing from cocaine!
We have found that when a person decides to adopt The Hallelujah Diet, they usually do not have a great deal of difficulty eliminating the animal products, white flour products, table salt, or even caffeine (which is another addictive drug).
Many find that the most difficult substance to eliminate is refined sugar.
Sugar has a powerful addictive influence upon many people.
Have you ever noticed that children, who are allowed to have candy, are always asking for more?
They are never satisfied no matter how much you give them! This is because their little bodies have become addicted to sugar and their bodies are screaming for a fix.
NOTE – For those parents who would like to have a better understanding of how refined sugar is affecting their child’s behavior, I would like to recommend a book written by Barbara Reed Stitt titled: “Food and Behavior.”
Refined Sugar Compromises The Immune System
Let’s remember that the immune system is what God built into your body to protect you from the germs, viruses, and bacteria of this world.The immune system is our first line of defense!
But refined sugar is an immune system suppressant — it knocks out this first line of defense.
That is why those who consume refined sugar find themselves susceptible to colds, the flu, and all sorts of other physical breakdowns, while those who consume The Hallelujah Diet, which contains no refined sugar, rarely if ever experiences a cold, the flu, or other physical breakdowns.
This editor hasn’t experienced a cold or the flu since eliminating refined sugar and adopting a primarily raw, plant-based diet over 35 years ago!
Don’t forget, God tells us we are going to reap what we sow…
“Be not deceived: God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”
Sugar Contributes To Myriad Physical Problems
Refined sugar is associated with malnutrition and decreased resistance to disease.Refined sugar impacts quality of life — it increases the severity of PMS; decreases cognitive or intellectual function, especially in children; contributes to heart disease and cancer; and so much more.
Following is just a partial list of other health problems related to the intake of refined sugar:
- Acne
- Addiction to drugs and caffeine
- Alcoholism
- Allergies
- Anxiety
- Behavioral problems
- Binge eating
- Bloating
- Bone loss
- Candida
- Depression
- Difficulty concentrating
- Eczema
- Edema
- Emotional problems
- Fatigue
- Food cravings
- Hormonal problems
- Hyperactivity
- Insomnia
- Menstrual difficulties
- Mental illness
- Mood swings
- Premature aging
- Psoriasis
- … and the list goes on and on.
Conclusion
Refined sugar and products made with it become the cause or contributing cause of many of the physical problems being experienced today.Refined sugar products are all dead, fiberless, and following animal source foods, are the second most popular of the deadly, killer foods of our day.
No wonder God says in Hosea 4:6:Is it not a sad commentary, that instead of dealing with our physical problems by eliminating their causes, we deal with symptoms?
“My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.”
We take a poisonous medication instead. It will never fix the problem — but rather exacerbate it!
Almost every physical problem we experience in a lifetime, other than accidents, is because we have failed to nourish our physical bodies the way God intended in Genesis 1:29!
“AND GOD SAID, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed (vegetable), which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat (food).”If you are consuming the “world’s diet”…
Genesis 1:29
And suffering the consequences with all those physical problems you keep asking God and the doctors to fix…
Isn’t it about time you considered changing your diet from the “world’s diet” to “GOD’s diet…
So that you can experience the abundant health God designed for you?
Next week, the good Lord willing and if the creeks don’t rise too high, we will explore another item that is consumed in large quantities by the average person on the world’s diet that is also devoid of fiber…
Trust you will join us!
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
To keep your parental rights over your children's medical sign this important petition!
powered by |
The Ron Paul Parental Consent Act
- Author:
n/a - Send To:
U.S. Congress
- Sponsored By:
- More Info at:
This petition is in support of The Parental Consent Act, a federal bill introduced by Congressman Ron Paul, which prohibits federal funds being used to establish or implement any mandatory or universal mental health/psychiatric screening of schoolchildren. It also establishes a parent's right to refuse mental health screening of their child. This is a crucial bill which must be passed to guarantee parental rights. We urge everyone to sign the petition in support of this bill.
Ron Paul speech given on April 30, 2009 on his bill, The Parental Consent Act:
Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Parental Consent Act. This bill forbids Federal funds from being used for any universal or mandatory mental-health screening of students without the express, written, voluntary, informed consent of their parents or legal guardians. This bill protects the fundamental right of parents to direct and control the upbringing and education of their children.
The New Freedom Commission on Mental Health has recommended that the federal and state governments work toward the implementation of a comprehensive system of mental-health screening for all Americans. The commission recommends that universal or mandatory mental-health screening first be implemented in public schools as a prelude to expanding it to the general public. However, neither the commission's report nor any related mental-health screening proposal requires parental consent before a child is subjected to mental-health screening. Federally-funded universal or mandatory mental-health screening in schools without parental consent could lead to labeling more children as "ADD" or "hyperactive" and thus force more children to take psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin, against their parents' wishes.
Already, too many children are suffering from being prescribed psychotropic drugs for nothing more than children's typical rambunctious behavior. According to Medco Health Solutions, more than 2.2 million children are receiving more than one psychotropic drug at one time. In fact, according to Medico Trends, in 2003, total spending on psychiatric drugs for children exceeded spending on antibiotics or asthma medication.
Many children have suffered harmful side effects from using psychotropic drugs. Some of the possible side effects include mania, violence, dependence, and weight gain. Yet, parents are already being threatened with child abuse charges if they resist efforts to drug their children. Imagine how much easier it will be to drug children against their parents' wishes if a federally-funded mental-health screener makes the recommendation.
Universal or mandatory mental-health screening could also provide a justification for stigmatizing children from families that support traditional values. Even the authors of mental-health diagnosis manuals admit that mental-health diagnoses are subjective and based on social constructions. Therefore, it is all too easy for a psychiatrist to label a person's disagreement with the psychiatrist's political beliefs a mental disorder. For example, a federally-funded school violence prevention program lists "intolerance" as a mental problem that may lead to school violence. Because "intolerance" is often a code word for believing in traditional values, children who share their parents' values could be labeled as having mental problems and a risk of causing violence. If the mandatory mental-health screening program applies to adults, everyone who believes in traditional values could have his or her beliefs stigmatized as a sign of a mental disorder. Taxpayer dollars should not support programs that may label those who adhere to traditional values as having a "mental disorder."
Madam Speaker, universal or mandatory mental-health screening threatens to undermine parents' right to raise their children as the parents see fit. Forced mental-health screening could also endanger the health of children by leading to more children being improperly placed on psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin, or stigmatized as "mentally ill" or a risk of causing violence because they adhere to traditional values. Congress has a responsibility to the nation's parents and children to stop this from happening. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Parental Consent Act.
TEXT OF THE BILL
H. R. 2218
THE PARENTAL CONSENT ACT
To prohibit the use of Federal funds for any universal or mandatory mental health screening program.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 30, 2009
Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. BARTLETT, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. MCCOTTER, and Mr. HENSARLING) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means and Education and Labor, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
A BILL
To prohibit the use of Federal funds for any universal or mandatory mental health screening program.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the 'Parental Consent Act of 2009'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds as follows:
(1) The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued findings and recommendations against screening for suicide that corroborate those of the Canadian Preventive Services Task Force. 'USPSTF found no evidence that screening for suicide risk reduces suicide attempts or mortality. There is limited evidence on the accuracy of screening tools to identify suicide risk in the primary care setting, including tools to identify those at high risk.'
(2) The 1999 Surgeon General's report on mental health admitted the serious conflicts in the medical literature regarding the definitions of mental health and mental illness when it said, `In other words, what it means to be mentally healthy is subject to many different interpretations that are rooted in value judgments that may vary across cultures. The challenge of defining mental health has stalled the development of programs to foster mental health (Secker, 1998). . . .'.
(3) A 2005 report by the National Center for Infant and Early Childhood Health Policy admitted, with respect to the psychiatric screening of children from birth to age 5, the following: `We have mentioned a number of the problems for the new field of IMH [Infant Mental Health] throughout this paper, and many of them complicate examining outcomes.'. Briefly, such problems include:
(A) Lack of baseline.
(B) Lack of agreement about diagnosis.
(C) Criteria for referrals or acceptance into services are not always well defined.
(D) Lack of longitudinal outcome studies.
(E) Appropriate assessment and treatment requires multiple informants involved with the young child: parents, clinicians, child care staff, preschool staff, medical personnel, and other service providers.
(F) Broad parameters for determining socioemotional outcomes are not clearly defined, although much attention is now being given to school readiness.
(4) Authors of the bible of psychiatric diagnosis, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, admit that the diagnostic criteria for mental illness are vague, saying, `DSM-IV criteria remain a consensus without clear empirical data supporting the number of items required for the diagnosis. . . . Furthermore, the behavioral characteristics specified in DSM-IV, despite efforts to standardize them, remain subjective. . . .' (American Psychiatric Association Committee on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV 1994), pp. 1162-1163).
(5) Because of the subjectivity of psychiatric diagnosis, it is all too easy for a psychiatrist to label a person's disagreement with the psychiatrist's political beliefs a mental disorder.
(6) Efforts are underway to add a diagnosis of `extreme intolerance' to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. Prisoners in the California State penal system judged to have this extreme intolerance based on race or sexual orientation are considered to be delusional and are being medicated with anti-psychotic drugs. (Washington Post 12/10/05)
(7) At least one federally funded school violence prevention program has suggested that a child who shares his or her parent's traditional values may be likely to instigate school violence.
(8) Despite many statements in the popular press and by groups promoting the psychiatric labeling and medication of children, that ADD/ADHD is due to a chemical imbalance in the brain, the 1998 National Institutes of Health Consensus Conference said, `. . . further research is necessary to firmly establish ADHD as a brain disorder. This is not unique to ADHD, but applies as well to most psychiatric disorders, including disabling diseases such as schizophrenia. . . . Although an independent diagnostic test for ADHD does not exist. . . . Finally, after years of clinical research and experience with ADHD, our knowledge about the cause or causes of ADHD remains speculative.'.
(9) There has been a precipitous increase in the prescription rates of psychiatric drugs in children:
(A) The use of antipsychotic medication in children has increased nearly fivefold between 1995 and 2002 with more than 2.5 million children receiving these medications, the youngest being 18 months old. (Vanderbilt University, 2006)
(B) More than 2.2 million children are receiving more than one psychotropic drug at one time with no scientific evidence of safety or effectiveness. (Medco Health Solutions, 2006)
(C) More money was spent on psychiatric drugs for children than on antibiotics or asthma medication in 2003. (Medco Trends, 2004)
(10) A September 2004 Food and Drug Administration hearing found that more than two-thirds of studies of antidepressants given to depressed children showed that they were no more effective than placebo, or sugar pills, and that only the positive trials were published by the pharmaceutical industry. The lack of effectiveness of antidepressants has been known by the Food and Drug Administration since at least 2000 when, according to the Food and Drug Administration Background Comments on Pediatric Depression, Robert Temple of the Food and Drug Administration Office of Drug Evaluation acknowledged the `preponderance of negative studies of antidepressants in pediatric populations'. The Surgeon General's report said of stimulant medication like Ritalin, `However, psychostimulants do not appear to achieve long-term changes in outcomes such as peer relationships, social or academic skills, or school achievement.'.
(11) The Food and Drug Administration finally acknowledged by issuing its most severe Black Box Warnings in September 2004, that the newer antidepressants are related to suicidal thoughts and actions in children and that this data was hidden for years. A confirmatory review of that data published in 2006 by Columbia University's department of psychiatry, which is also the originator of the TeenScreen instrument, found that `in children and adolescents (aged 6-18 years), antidepressant drug treatment was significantly associated with suicide attempts . . . and suicide deaths. . . . '. The Food and Drug Administration had over 2,000 reports of completed suicides from 1987 to 1995 for the drug Prozac alone, which by the agency's own calculations represent but a fraction of the suicides. Prozac is the only such drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in children.
(12) Other possible side effects of psychiatric medication used in children include mania, violence, dependence, weight gain, and insomnia from the newer antidepressants; cardiac toxicity including lethal arrhythmias from the older antidepressants; growth suppression, psychosis, and violence from stimulants; and diabetes from the newer anti-psychotic medications.
(13) Parents are already being coerced to put their children on psychiatric medications and some children are dying because of it. Universal or mandatory mental health screening and the accompanying treatments recommended by the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health will only increase that problem. Across the country, Patricia Weathers, the Carroll Family, the Johnston Family, and the Salazar Family were all charged or threatened with child abuse charges for refusing or taking their children off of psychiatric medications.
(14) The United States Supreme Court in Pierce versus Society of Sisters (268 U.S. 510 (1925)) held that parents have a right to direct the education and upbringing of their children.
(15) Universal or mandatory mental health screening violates the right of parents to direct and control the upbringing of their children.
(16) Federal funds should never be used to support programs that could lead to the increased over-medication of children, the stigmatization of children and adults as mentally disturbed based on their political or other beliefs, or the violation of the liberty and privacy of Americans by subjecting them to invasive `mental health screening' (the results of which are placed in medical records which are available to government officials and special interests without the patient's consent).
SEC. 3. PROHIBITION AGAINST FEDERAL FUNDING OF UNIVERSAL OR MANDATORY MENTAL HEALTH SCREENING.
(a) Universal or Mandatory Mental Health Screening Program- No Federal funds may be used to establish or implement any universal or mandatory mental health, psychiatric, or socioemotional screening program.
(b) Refusal To Consent as Basis of a Charge of Child Abuse or Education Neglect- No Federal education funds may be paid to any local educational agency or other instrument of government that uses the refusal of a parent or legal guardian to provide express, written, voluntary, informed consent to mental health screening for his or her child as the basis of a charge of child abuse, child neglect, medical neglect, or education neglect until the agency or instrument demonstrates that it is no longer using such refusal as a basis of such a charge.
(c) Definition- For purposes of this Act, the term `universal or mandatory mental health, psychiatric, or socioemotional screening program'--
(1) means any mental health screening program in which a set of individuals (other than members of the Armed Forces or individuals serving a sentence resulting from conviction for a criminal offense) is automatically screened without regard to whether there was a prior indication of a need for mental health treatment; and
(2) includes--
(A) any program of State incentive grants for transformation to implement recommendations in the July 2003 report of the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, the State Early Childhood Comprehensive System, grants for TeenScreen, and the Foundations for Learning Grants; and
(B) any student mental health screening program that allows mental health screening of individuals under 18 years of age without the express, written, voluntary, informed consent of the parent or legal guardian of the individual involved.
Ron Paul speech given on April 30, 2009 on his bill, The Parental Consent Act:
Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Parental Consent Act. This bill forbids Federal funds from being used for any universal or mandatory mental-health screening of students without the express, written, voluntary, informed consent of their parents or legal guardians. This bill protects the fundamental right of parents to direct and control the upbringing and education of their children.
The New Freedom Commission on Mental Health has recommended that the federal and state governments work toward the implementation of a comprehensive system of mental-health screening for all Americans. The commission recommends that universal or mandatory mental-health screening first be implemented in public schools as a prelude to expanding it to the general public. However, neither the commission's report nor any related mental-health screening proposal requires parental consent before a child is subjected to mental-health screening. Federally-funded universal or mandatory mental-health screening in schools without parental consent could lead to labeling more children as "ADD" or "hyperactive" and thus force more children to take psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin, against their parents' wishes.
Already, too many children are suffering from being prescribed psychotropic drugs for nothing more than children's typical rambunctious behavior. According to Medco Health Solutions, more than 2.2 million children are receiving more than one psychotropic drug at one time. In fact, according to Medico Trends, in 2003, total spending on psychiatric drugs for children exceeded spending on antibiotics or asthma medication.
Many children have suffered harmful side effects from using psychotropic drugs. Some of the possible side effects include mania, violence, dependence, and weight gain. Yet, parents are already being threatened with child abuse charges if they resist efforts to drug their children. Imagine how much easier it will be to drug children against their parents' wishes if a federally-funded mental-health screener makes the recommendation.
Universal or mandatory mental-health screening could also provide a justification for stigmatizing children from families that support traditional values. Even the authors of mental-health diagnosis manuals admit that mental-health diagnoses are subjective and based on social constructions. Therefore, it is all too easy for a psychiatrist to label a person's disagreement with the psychiatrist's political beliefs a mental disorder. For example, a federally-funded school violence prevention program lists "intolerance" as a mental problem that may lead to school violence. Because "intolerance" is often a code word for believing in traditional values, children who share their parents' values could be labeled as having mental problems and a risk of causing violence. If the mandatory mental-health screening program applies to adults, everyone who believes in traditional values could have his or her beliefs stigmatized as a sign of a mental disorder. Taxpayer dollars should not support programs that may label those who adhere to traditional values as having a "mental disorder."
Madam Speaker, universal or mandatory mental-health screening threatens to undermine parents' right to raise their children as the parents see fit. Forced mental-health screening could also endanger the health of children by leading to more children being improperly placed on psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin, or stigmatized as "mentally ill" or a risk of causing violence because they adhere to traditional values. Congress has a responsibility to the nation's parents and children to stop this from happening. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Parental Consent Act.
TEXT OF THE BILL
H. R. 2218
THE PARENTAL CONSENT ACT
To prohibit the use of Federal funds for any universal or mandatory mental health screening program.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 30, 2009
Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. BARTLETT, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. MCCOTTER, and Mr. HENSARLING) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means and Education and Labor, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
A BILL
To prohibit the use of Federal funds for any universal or mandatory mental health screening program.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the 'Parental Consent Act of 2009'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds as follows:
(1) The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued findings and recommendations against screening for suicide that corroborate those of the Canadian Preventive Services Task Force. 'USPSTF found no evidence that screening for suicide risk reduces suicide attempts or mortality. There is limited evidence on the accuracy of screening tools to identify suicide risk in the primary care setting, including tools to identify those at high risk.'
(2) The 1999 Surgeon General's report on mental health admitted the serious conflicts in the medical literature regarding the definitions of mental health and mental illness when it said, `In other words, what it means to be mentally healthy is subject to many different interpretations that are rooted in value judgments that may vary across cultures. The challenge of defining mental health has stalled the development of programs to foster mental health (Secker, 1998). . . .'.
(3) A 2005 report by the National Center for Infant and Early Childhood Health Policy admitted, with respect to the psychiatric screening of children from birth to age 5, the following: `We have mentioned a number of the problems for the new field of IMH [Infant Mental Health] throughout this paper, and many of them complicate examining outcomes.'. Briefly, such problems include:
(A) Lack of baseline.
(B) Lack of agreement about diagnosis.
(C) Criteria for referrals or acceptance into services are not always well defined.
(D) Lack of longitudinal outcome studies.
(E) Appropriate assessment and treatment requires multiple informants involved with the young child: parents, clinicians, child care staff, preschool staff, medical personnel, and other service providers.
(F) Broad parameters for determining socioemotional outcomes are not clearly defined, although much attention is now being given to school readiness.
(4) Authors of the bible of psychiatric diagnosis, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, admit that the diagnostic criteria for mental illness are vague, saying, `DSM-IV criteria remain a consensus without clear empirical data supporting the number of items required for the diagnosis. . . . Furthermore, the behavioral characteristics specified in DSM-IV, despite efforts to standardize them, remain subjective. . . .' (American Psychiatric Association Committee on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV 1994), pp. 1162-1163).
(5) Because of the subjectivity of psychiatric diagnosis, it is all too easy for a psychiatrist to label a person's disagreement with the psychiatrist's political beliefs a mental disorder.
(6) Efforts are underway to add a diagnosis of `extreme intolerance' to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. Prisoners in the California State penal system judged to have this extreme intolerance based on race or sexual orientation are considered to be delusional and are being medicated with anti-psychotic drugs. (Washington Post 12/10/05)
(7) At least one federally funded school violence prevention program has suggested that a child who shares his or her parent's traditional values may be likely to instigate school violence.
(8) Despite many statements in the popular press and by groups promoting the psychiatric labeling and medication of children, that ADD/ADHD is due to a chemical imbalance in the brain, the 1998 National Institutes of Health Consensus Conference said, `. . . further research is necessary to firmly establish ADHD as a brain disorder. This is not unique to ADHD, but applies as well to most psychiatric disorders, including disabling diseases such as schizophrenia. . . . Although an independent diagnostic test for ADHD does not exist. . . . Finally, after years of clinical research and experience with ADHD, our knowledge about the cause or causes of ADHD remains speculative.'.
(9) There has been a precipitous increase in the prescription rates of psychiatric drugs in children:
(A) The use of antipsychotic medication in children has increased nearly fivefold between 1995 and 2002 with more than 2.5 million children receiving these medications, the youngest being 18 months old. (Vanderbilt University, 2006)
(B) More than 2.2 million children are receiving more than one psychotropic drug at one time with no scientific evidence of safety or effectiveness. (Medco Health Solutions, 2006)
(C) More money was spent on psychiatric drugs for children than on antibiotics or asthma medication in 2003. (Medco Trends, 2004)
(10) A September 2004 Food and Drug Administration hearing found that more than two-thirds of studies of antidepressants given to depressed children showed that they were no more effective than placebo, or sugar pills, and that only the positive trials were published by the pharmaceutical industry. The lack of effectiveness of antidepressants has been known by the Food and Drug Administration since at least 2000 when, according to the Food and Drug Administration Background Comments on Pediatric Depression, Robert Temple of the Food and Drug Administration Office of Drug Evaluation acknowledged the `preponderance of negative studies of antidepressants in pediatric populations'. The Surgeon General's report said of stimulant medication like Ritalin, `However, psychostimulants do not appear to achieve long-term changes in outcomes such as peer relationships, social or academic skills, or school achievement.'.
(11) The Food and Drug Administration finally acknowledged by issuing its most severe Black Box Warnings in September 2004, that the newer antidepressants are related to suicidal thoughts and actions in children and that this data was hidden for years. A confirmatory review of that data published in 2006 by Columbia University's department of psychiatry, which is also the originator of the TeenScreen instrument, found that `in children and adolescents (aged 6-18 years), antidepressant drug treatment was significantly associated with suicide attempts . . . and suicide deaths. . . . '. The Food and Drug Administration had over 2,000 reports of completed suicides from 1987 to 1995 for the drug Prozac alone, which by the agency's own calculations represent but a fraction of the suicides. Prozac is the only such drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in children.
(12) Other possible side effects of psychiatric medication used in children include mania, violence, dependence, weight gain, and insomnia from the newer antidepressants; cardiac toxicity including lethal arrhythmias from the older antidepressants; growth suppression, psychosis, and violence from stimulants; and diabetes from the newer anti-psychotic medications.
(13) Parents are already being coerced to put their children on psychiatric medications and some children are dying because of it. Universal or mandatory mental health screening and the accompanying treatments recommended by the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health will only increase that problem. Across the country, Patricia Weathers, the Carroll Family, the Johnston Family, and the Salazar Family were all charged or threatened with child abuse charges for refusing or taking their children off of psychiatric medications.
(14) The United States Supreme Court in Pierce versus Society of Sisters (268 U.S. 510 (1925)) held that parents have a right to direct the education and upbringing of their children.
(15) Universal or mandatory mental health screening violates the right of parents to direct and control the upbringing of their children.
(16) Federal funds should never be used to support programs that could lead to the increased over-medication of children, the stigmatization of children and adults as mentally disturbed based on their political or other beliefs, or the violation of the liberty and privacy of Americans by subjecting them to invasive `mental health screening' (the results of which are placed in medical records which are available to government officials and special interests without the patient's consent).
SEC. 3. PROHIBITION AGAINST FEDERAL FUNDING OF UNIVERSAL OR MANDATORY MENTAL HEALTH SCREENING.
(a) Universal or Mandatory Mental Health Screening Program- No Federal funds may be used to establish or implement any universal or mandatory mental health, psychiatric, or socioemotional screening program.
(b) Refusal To Consent as Basis of a Charge of Child Abuse or Education Neglect- No Federal education funds may be paid to any local educational agency or other instrument of government that uses the refusal of a parent or legal guardian to provide express, written, voluntary, informed consent to mental health screening for his or her child as the basis of a charge of child abuse, child neglect, medical neglect, or education neglect until the agency or instrument demonstrates that it is no longer using such refusal as a basis of such a charge.
(c) Definition- For purposes of this Act, the term `universal or mandatory mental health, psychiatric, or socioemotional screening program'--
(1) means any mental health screening program in which a set of individuals (other than members of the Armed Forces or individuals serving a sentence resulting from conviction for a criminal offense) is automatically screened without regard to whether there was a prior indication of a need for mental health treatment; and
(2) includes--
(A) any program of State incentive grants for transformation to implement recommendations in the July 2003 report of the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, the State Early Childhood Comprehensive System, grants for TeenScreen, and the Foundations for Learning Grants; and
(B) any student mental health screening program that allows mental health screening of individuals under 18 years of age without the express, written, voluntary, informed consent of the parent or legal guardian of the individual involved.
- 9075
Signatures! - View Signatures
- Sign Petition
Friday, January 25, 2013
IMPORTANT* Information on Risperdal
Drug & Pharmaceutical Litigation
Risperdal
Representing More Risperdal Victims than Anyone in the Country...
Thomas J. Henry Injury Attorneys, a national personal injury firm, represents more victims injured by the pharmaceutical drug Risperdal than any other firm in the nation. Having reviewed thousands of Gynecomastia cases across the country, the firm is uniquely qualified to handle your case. Call 24 hours a day or fill out the confidential online form for a free consultation.Risperdal and Children
Risperdal (risperidone) is an atypical anti-psychotic medication approved to treat symptoms of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and autism. When it comes to prescribing Risperdal to children and adolescents, these uses are narrow and limited. Unfortunately, that has not stopped thousands of doctors from prescribing Risperdal for unapproved and untested uses, with serious consequences.ALERT: Jan. 19, 2012: Johnson & Johnson agreed to pay $158 million to the state of Texas to settle claims that the drug company illegally promoted its anti-psychotic drug Risperdal for off-label uses, including unapproved uses in children.
“[They] misused Texas and, I believe, well-meaning officials to further their marketing. They subverted science and they influenced others to betray the people they were supposed to be taking care of. To me, that is reprehensible,
Allen Jones, Whistleblower who filed original Risperdal lawsuits in Texas and Pennsylvania
Approved Uses for Children
Risperdal has only been approved for the following:Schizophrenia- Treatment of schizophrenia in adolescents aged 13-17 (approved in 2007).
Bipolar Disorder- Short term-treatment of acute manic or mixed episodes associated with Bipolar I Disorder in children and adolescents aged 10-17 (approved in 2007).
Autistic Disorder- Treatment of irritability associated with autistic disorder in children and adolescents aged 5-16 (approved in 2006).
Off-Label Prescribing
While Risperdal has only been approved for the above uses in children, doctors are able to prescribe it for various other unapproved or “off-label uses” such as:- ADHD
- Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD)
- Anxiety disorders
- Eating disorders
- Tourette syndrome
- Disruptive behavior disorders in children
- Depression
Risperdal Side-Effects
- Rapid weight gain
- Hypertension
- Diabetes
- Breast cancer
- Tumors of the pituitary gland
- Gynecomastia (breast development in males)
- Galactorrhea (lactation)
- Hyperprolactinemia
- Decreased bone mineral density
- Osteoporosis
- Metabolic syndrome
- Involuntary movement disorders (tics, twitches, muscle contractions)
- Nueroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS)
Recent Risperdal Lawsuits
- 2010- Johnson & Johnson ordered to pay $257.7 million to the State of Louisiana over Risperdal marketing.
- 2011- Johnson & Johnson ordered to pay $327 million to the State of South Carolina over Risperdal marketing.
- 2012- Johnson & Johnson settles Texas Risperdal lawsuit for $158 million.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)