Thread: Call Your Congressman TODAY>>>MOST URGENT

from my mailbox...

Here's one more reason to make an effort to include our young in our
recruiting efforts.

These are bad, bad plans they have for our future. Sign up for the
Liberty Committee's email alerts. Ron Paul may not be perfect but
he's a determined Patriot and fights like hell for this country's
future.

June 21, 2005


The American tradition of parents deciding what is best for their
children is under attack. The pharmaceutical industry wants
universal
mental screening for every child in America, including preschool
children.
But universal screening alone is not what the pharmaceutical industry
wants. The real payoff for the drug companies is the drugging of
children that will result -- as we learned tragically with Ritalin --
even
when parents refuse!

The drug companies want your children to be "screened." The
psychiatric establishment wants to do the "screening." And even a
recent
presidential commission (New Freedom Commission on Mental Health)
supports it
all. These
powerful groups want your children "screened" -- whether or not you,
as
parents, give permission.

Congressman Ron Paul, an OB/GYN physician for over 30 years, is
desperately
trying to keep the drug companies, politicians and federal
bureaucrats
from
becoming parents to your children. Dr. Paul will introduce this week
an amendment to the Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations Act for
FY
2006 that will withhold funds from being used to implement or support
any federal, mental screening program.

In a letter to his congressional colleagues, Dr. Paul states: "As
you
know, psychotropic drugs are increasingly prescribed for children who
show nothing more than children's typical rambunctious behavior.
Many
children have suffered harmful effects from these drugs. Yet some
parents have even been charged with child abuse for refusing to drug
their
children. The federal government should not promote national mental
health screening programs that will force the use of these
psychotropic
drugs such as Ritalin."

If you think this action alert is about something that "can't happen
here," think again. In 1995, the state of Texas launched the Texas
Medication Algorithm Project. (WorldNetDaily.com, June 21, 2004)

The state of Illinois has also approved a mental health screening
program. The Illinois legislature passed the Children's Mental
Health Act
of 2003 which will provide screening for "all children ages 0-18" and
"ensure appropriate and culturally relevant assessment of your
children's
social and emotional development with the use of standardized
tools."
In addition, all pregnant women in Illinois are to be screened for
depression.

Dr. Karen R. Effrem, a pediatrician and leading opponent of
universal
screening with EdAction states: "Universal mental health screening
and
the drugging of children, as recommended by the New Freedom
Commission
[presidential commission], needs to be stopped so that many
thousands
if not millions of children will be saved from receiving stigmatizing
diagnoses that would follow them for the rest of their lives.
America's
school children should not be medicated by expensive, ineffective,
and
dangerous medications based on vague and dubious diagnoses."

Dr. Effrem warns:

1. Parental rights are unclear or non-existent under these screening
programs.
2. Parents are already being coerced to put their children on
psychiatric medications and some children are dying because of it.
3. Mental health screening does not prevent suicide.
4. Mental health diagnoses are "subjective" and "social
constructions"
as admitted by the authors of the diagnostic manuals themselves.
5. Most psychiatric medications do not work in children.
6. The side effects of these medications in children are severe.
7. The untoward influence by the pharmaceutical industry, or at
least
the impropriety, is abundantly clear in two important aspects of this
issue.
8. Merging screening with the academic standards required by No
Child
Left Behind, as is happening in Illinois, will lead to diagnosis for
political reasons. School mental health and violence prevention
programs
funded by NCLB and government counterterrorism operations are already
using such criteria as "homophobia" and "defenders of the US
Constitution against federal government and the UN" to label school
children and
US citizens as mentally unstable and violent. (EdAction.org)

Urge your U.S. representative to vote "yes" on the Paul amendment to
stop universal mental screening of children. If your U.S.
representative
does not vote "yes" on the Paul amendment, he or she supports
screening
your children without your permission -- just as the drug companies
want.

The U.S. House will vote on the Paul amendment Thursday or Friday.
Send your e-mail message today and call your U.S. representative
too.
Also, please spread the word.

Send an E-mail Message
http://capwiz.com/liberty/issues/alert/ ... 51&type=CO

Capitol Switchboard
202-224-3121

Kent Snyder
The Liberty Committee
http://www.thelibertycommittee.org





RR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for bringing up that up!
Anyone know that one of the Columbine shooters was on Luvox? Luvox has some nasty stuff in it, same properties as acid. Has some serious side effects in younger children, pre-teens, teens. Not to mention a lot of drugs especially drugs like prozac, zoloft ect given to kids, teens with bi-polar disorder can actually set off there mood disorder and make things worse. Yes, many psychotropic drugs can cause bad allergic reactions and have serious side effects in children. Sometimes Ritalin is not the answer for every kid. What about the parents who don't have medical insurance? What do they do? Some of these drugs are $$$$$$$$$. What about the doctors they use? This just sounds too fishy to me.....

Think this is just another was for the drug companies to get richer. They are a billion dollar industry.

Pretty soon they will put a tracking device, or chip in the pills or something...

What's next? Our government really wants to get into our lives don't they?

Find below the article announcing the AMA decision and an opposing response by Congressman Mike Ferguson of NJ.

This is clearly not the "hypocratic" oath at work, it is the
H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-I-C oath - men who profess to bless us with health while pushing and defending these dealy drugs is the height of hypocrisy!

Of course we know that what we need to be heard by this group is exactly what it took for the drug companies to be heard by them - several billion dollars in perks and kickbacks over many many years. After all these drug pushers will need some type of means of support if the FDA does not allow them to continue pushing their drugs of choice. If not they may have to go out and find a decent way to make a living like the rest of us.

Clearly there is no logical or sane excuse whatsoever for a doctor who
professes to care about the well being of his patients to stand behind a group of drugs KNOWN to increase suicide by DOUBLE!!!

But this is not the first time the AMA has done something similar. If you
recall, in my book Prozac: Panacea or Pandora? - Our Serotonin Nightmare, the chapter on the history of drugs refers to Morton Mintz's classic book, A Theraputic Nightmare. Morton Mintz is the Washington Post reporter who was credited with keeping Thalidomide out of the US via his remarkable investigative reporting on the dangers of that drug upon the babies whose mothers took the drug during pregnancy causing missing limbs.

Mort documented the problem Senator Thomas Dodd ran into in the early 60's with his Psychiatric Drug Control bill designed to curb the use of all these deadly addictive mind altering medications. The bill had amazing success as it was supported by President Kennedy and all who testififed, except for one lone group that adamantly opposed it, the AMA.

Senator Dodd's protest to this news that the AMA wanted to educate, rather than have any government control guidelines set on their prescribing addictive drugs has become prophetic: "I cannot readily find words strong enough to express my disapproval of that course of conduct. The house is on fire, and we do not need a lesson in how to prevent the startng of fires. What we need now is to put the fire out and go on with our fire prevention work."

It is beyond me how doctors continue to command the respect of a god in our society when we consider their history, past and current.

We ask everyone on our e-group to contact their government officials, their own doctors, their families, and all their friends with their feelings about this action by the AMA. And get Congressman Ferguson's response to all local media.

It took us two decades to get the FDA to even issue what little bit of
warning they gave with the black box placement on antidepressants and then because prescribing is down by 10% when it should be down by at least 90%, they are upset enough to make a move like this?!! Of course this would be a necessary move to help push Bush's Teen Screen Program through the school system, which is the most likely reason for this seemingly insane move by the AMA. That is a program that will really bring in the business for them!

Dr. Tracy
Dr. Ann Blake Tracy, Executive Director,
International Coalition For Drug Awareness
http://www.drugawareness.org
Author of the "Bible on Antidepressants," Prozac:
Panacea or Pandora? - Our Serotonin Nightmare
& audio "Help! I Can't Get Off My Antidepressant!"

http://www.medpagetoday.com/tbindex....225&topicid=55

AMA Supports Use of SSRIs for Treating Teen Depression

By Peggy Peck, Senior Editor, MedPage Today
June 21, 2005

CHICAGO, June 21-

The American Medical Association agreed today that antidepressants such as Prozac (fluoxetine) are safe and effective therapies for treating depression in teenagers.

The new AMA policy was based on a report from the group's Council on Science and Public Health, which also sided with off-label use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants for adolescents if physicians use prudent judgment.

The Council's report, accepted by the AMA's policy-making House of Delegates, was written in response to a request last year from the American Psychiatric Association. That request followed a series of hearings by Congress and the FDA into possible increased risk of suicide among teens taking antidepressants.

At an AMA hearing Sunday, where the report was discussed, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the American Academy of Pediatrics endorsed the findings.

"We believe this is a fair and balanced report," said Melvyn Sterling, M.D.,
a clinical professor of medicine at the University of California, Irvine, and
chairman of the council.

Dr. Sterling said the council report recommends that SSRIs remain available for use in both children and adolescents and states that current clinical evidence "indicates that Prozac is an effective SSRI in children and adolescents with major depressive disorder."

The Council's report also recommended:

That future studies of antidepressants in a pediatric population be studies
of sufficient duration to address relevant efficacy and safety questions;
That physicians should realize that a "Black Box" [label] warning should not be used as a reason for denying access to a drug, but rather a signal that physicians need to monitor patients carefully; Additional FDA evaluation to determine the true impact the "Black Box" warning has on treatment patterns, patient compliance and patient access.

"This was a balanced and impartial review of the science," said David
Fassler, M.D., a child psychiatrist from Burlington, Vt., and a delegate of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. He said the report should be "reassuring to clinicians and to patients."

The following article will help to explain why we saw the AMA take the
position they took yesterday in opposing the black box warning on antidepressants.

If one third of them are admiting lies and unethical connections to drug
companies tainting research, how high is the real number of those doing this? This is the same reason Dr. Marcia Angell left the New England Journal of Medicine as the editor. She was sick of having to print bogus - bought and paid for by the drug manufacturers - as valid research in the journal.

The question remains, just how much valid research exists anymore and how do you know which of all research is real?

Dr. Ann Blake Tracy, Executive Director,
International Coalition For Drug Awareness
http://www.drugawareness.org
Author of the "Bible on Antidepressants," Prozac:
Panacea or Pandora? - Our Serotonin Nightmare
& audio "Help! I Can't Get Off My Antidepressant!"

http://www.boston.com

Surveyed scientists admit misconduct

One-third cite research tactics

By Gareth Cook, Globe Staff June 9, 2005

A third of American biomedical scientists have engaged in questionable
research practices, according to survey results released yesterday that raise questions about the integrity of the nation's multibillion-dollar quest to understand the human body and cure diseases.

The study, based on a survey of about 3,000 government-funded scientists, is the first broad, quantitative examination of misconduct that asked researchers to admit their own misdeeds. The scientists, who participated anonymously, were asked whether they had done any of 33 actions in the three years before the 2002 survey. Asked about the most serious misconduct, 0.3 percent said they had falsified data, and 1.4 percent said they had used another's ideas without gaining permission or giving credit. In addition, 15.5 percent said they had changed how they conducted an experiment or its results in response to pressure from a funding source, raising the prospect that companies are influencing
scientific papers to support their commercial interests. The scientists also
admitted a range of other misdeeds, such as circumventing the rules on using human subjects in experiments, and not properly disclosing ties with companies.

''We found a striking level and breadth of misbehavior," said lead author
Brian C. Martinson, a researcher at HealthPartners Research Foundation in Minneapolis. ''I think this really causes us to call into question the assumption that it is just a few bad apples."

There is no way, said Martinson, to gauge how much of the nation's research was compromised by the misconduct. And several specialists on scientific conduct said that it was difficult to know from the study how common scientific misbehavior is because many of the questions were worded vaguely, and could include behavior that is not objectionable. For example, a scientist might have changed the design of an experiment after a legitimate suggestion from a government funding source.

But the specialists welcomed the work, which was published in the journal
Nature, saying more research like it is needed at a time when science is becoming increasingly commercialized.

Trust and integrity lie at the heart of the scientific process, with published experimental results making careers, determining whether scientists win
research grants, and shaping spending priorities in the nearly $30 billion budget of the National Institutes of Health. At a time when scandals have shaken the worlds of business, politics, and journalism, the authors of the new report said that similar factors -- such as intense competition and human failings such as greed and cynicism -- threaten the fundamental working of science. They said the problem goes well beyond the egregious cases that the government is authorized to investigate.

Editors of prominent medical journals have been increasingly vocal about
financial conflicts of interest that they say are hampering science, causing
researchers to hype positive results and downplay negative ones. Yet the topic of misconduct tends to make scientists uneasy, and that has led to a dearth of research on the subject.

''I think this is a very important step," said C. K. Gunsalus, a special
counsel at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and one of the nation's leading specialists on research integrity. ''The discomfort means that we don't like to talk about it, and that means we don't have good data."

Surveying misconduct was controversial even before the current study was done. In 2002, the US government's Office of Research Integrity proposed conducting a survey of scientific misconduct, but several scientific groups, including the Association of American Medical Colleges, objected. They said that the survey questions were vague and might be misused, and that the federal government's role should be restricted to policing fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism.

The government study was eventually canceled, and that same year the editors of Nature harshly criticized the scientific groups for their role in stopping it, saying they gave ''a good impersonation of aged, out-of-touch special interests with something to hide."

The survey reported yesterday was done with government funding, including money from the Office of Research Integrity, but it was conducted by an independent scientific team. An official with the Association of American Medical Colleges, which represents some of the nation's leading biomedical research institutions, said the group had no objection to the survey being done this way, but she declined to comment on the results of the study, saying she had not had time to review it carefully.

Martinson said his team designed the survey based on interviews with
scientists about the kinds of misbehavior they believe are most common. In these interviews, he said, he was surprised at how candid scientists were in describing a wide range of problems. Some said they felt guilty crossing ethical lines, but that they needed to in order to succeed. One scientist, he said, described coming across a case where his own work had been systematically plagiarized, but the scientist did not report it because the person who had done it was a powerful figure in the field.

The team designated 10 of the behaviors as the most serious types of
misconduct, based on interviews with officials at universities who oversee research integrity. Thirty-three percent of scientists admitted to at least one of these 10 behaviors in the three years before the survey, according to the paper.

In the report, titled ''Scientists Behaving Badly," the most common
misbehavior was making changes in response to pressure from a funder. There have been cases, now public, where drug firms have pressured scientists to rewrite or not publish papers because they would harm the market for one of their products.

Two of the most common practices found in the survey are likely to raise red flags because they hint at a breakdown of the basic checks and balances that are supposed to correct the scientific record. Of the scientists surveyed, 12.5 percent admitted to ''overlooking others' use of flawed data or questionable interpretation of data," and 6 percent admitted to ''failing to present data that contradict one's own previous research." The paper also reported other behaviors beyond what it called the ''top 10" most serious offenses. Ten percent admitted to ''inappropriately assigning authorship credit" and 15.3 percent
admitted to ''dropping observations or data points from analyses based on a gut feeling that they were inaccurate."

But because of the vagueness of many of the questions, it is impossible to
know how serious an infraction the scientists were admitting to, or even if it was an infraction, said Dr. Drummond Rennie, a deputy editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association who has been a longtime advocate for more study of misconduct. Rennie said that he welcomed the work and hoped there would now be more rigorous study of the issue.

Another problem, Rennie and others said, is that the survey relies on
scientists to report on themselves, and even with the promise of anonymity, the results depend on the honesty of the people filling it out. Also, only about half of the scientists responded to the survey, which was mailed.

Martinson said that he agreed there were flaws in the study, but that he
hoped it would inspire more discussion of the problem.

''I don't have all the answers," Martinson said. ''What I think I have here
is some evidence that suggests we need to begin a more broad-based
conversation."

Gareth Cook can be reached at cook@globe.com

© Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

Yeah I think this is a great idea. Screening everyone for mental health is brillant. Lets first start with Jorge Bush and work our way down to Congress because it's obvious that they all have mental issues.

Originally Posted by dman1200

Yeah I think this is a great idea. Screening everyone for mental health is brillant. Lets first start with Jorge Bush and work our way down to Congress because it's obvious that they all have mental issues.

The states have to ratify the law before it goes into effect. Illinois is pushing for it now. We have to watch our states so we can fight it when it comes up. The drug companies are pushing for it. Ask me if I think a lot of palms are being greased.

The President is first for mental health screening then work your way down to include every elected or appointed official in our government.

Is this program supposed to include kids in private school, or just public?
I might have expected this from a Kerry Administration or a Hilliary Admin., not a Bush admin. But then again, if the purpose is to give the pharmaceutical companies more money, then it is right on track for Mr. Bush to be in support of this idea.

This is absolutely crazy. This is beyond comprehension. These are parental decisions. This is absurd. Who introduced this idea? Whoever introduced this idea aught to START PACKIN TODAY.

I'd really like to see some NAMES attached to this idea?

For all children from 0-18 and employees. This includes, public, private and home schooled.


http://www.mentalhealthcommission.gov/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 429-2.html
http://www.nami.org

Read the link on the white house web site. This was not voted on in congress.
Then read the following article.
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Re ... ingle.html
http://www.beverlye.com/200410131912.html
Do a serach on www.google.com for TeenScreen.

Someone just emailed this to me.
http://christianactionleague.net/issues ... 28-05.html

Stop the Mandatory Drugging of Children
Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) has introduced the “Parental Consent Act of 2005� (H.R. 181). Quite simply, this bill would prohibit the use of federal funds for any universal mental-health screening.Recall that late last year, Rep. Paul tried to insert language into the final appropriations bill that would have prohibited the funding of mandatory and universal mental health screening of children. Unfortunately, Rep. Paul’s language did not make it into the final appropriations bill. Mandatory mental health screening bypasses parental authority in an attempt to prescribe psychotropic, mind-altering drugs for children. New year. New Congress. New battle to protect our children from being coerced to take mind-altering drugs.

* Action to Take *

1. Call House Speaker Dennis Hastert and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and tell them to quickly schedule a vote on H.R. 181. We simply cannot let one more day go by without restoring parents’ authority over their children’s best interests. Congress should NOT be funding a scheme to hook more kids on psychotropic drugs. Speaker Hastert: (202) 225-0600. Majority Leader DeLay: (202) 225-4000.

2. Go to click here and sign The Liberty Committee’s petition to Speaker Hastert and Majority Leader DeLay urging them to schedule a vote on the Parental Consent Act of 2005

You can also check http://www.dbsalliance.org
There is alot of information there including the Paul Wellstone Mental Health Parity Act. Click on Advocacy.

Interesting stuff regarding what our elected officials are REALLY up to regarding mental health coverage and brain damage coverage.

Those companies are lobbying hard and Hastert won't even discuss "his bill" with his fellow officials on the Hill -- much less with the people of America. He's right in their pockets.

They no longer want to cover the brain -- not the health insurance companies or the drug companies or Hastert. Like the brain is no longer in your body. Like it is a seperate part.

We all know that is only true if you are an elected official!!
:P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P