Selling Out – or Building a Bridge

By Monica Benderman

He walked up to us after a speaking event.  There had been several questions about GI Resistance and how to encourage more soldiers to resist.  He came apologetically.  He said it was his tax dollars that were funding the war.  We agreed.  He said he was not ready to face the consequences of refusing to pay his taxes.  We said no one was telling him to, he would have to make that decision when he was ready – if it was a decision he chose to make.  In the meantime, he was not really in a position to tell soldiers to make choices they were not ready to make, facing potential consequences they might not want to face.  We wondered if he understood.

Selling Out.  

She came to me after a speaking event.  There had been a discussion of the consequences soldiers faced by speaking out against the war.  She came determined to strengthen the position of one soldier speaking out.  She said she knew the war to be illegal and therefore the soldier was right to speak as he had been doing, it was his choice.  We agreed.  She realized that the war had not yet been proven illegal in a court of law, even though we all concurred it had certainly shown itself to be in many of the actions taken by our administration and even some military personnel.  We said it is not the responsibility of the soldiers to prosecute manipulated and deceptive policy.  It is the responsibility of the soldiers to defend sound policy implemented by the Congress which represents the people whose policy the soldiers are meant to defend.  The people should not have allowed the soldiers to be in a position to face the consequences so many now face.  Rather than merely “supporting” the dissenting soldiers, isn’t it time for the people to stand up and demand that Congress change the policy?  We wonder if she understood.

Selling Out.  

We drove through a small town on our way to a speaking event.  For every restaurant open there were two now closed.  Small town America is losing ground.  The owner of the restaurant we ate in was also the cook.  Her spirits were high and the history of her little café was recorded in photographs and newspaper clippings hanging in gilded frames on the walls.  She smiled a thank you as we left, doing her best to hold on a little longer in a community where many had closed up shop and given in to the corporate franchises whose financial backing comes from somewhere overseas.

Corporate “America” calls with the skewed voice of the illusion of success shouting temptations over the quiet sound of truth.  Every day one more American gives in to the beckoning sound of money, of “getting ahead,” of security with retirement benefits all neatly spelled out in the work of creative public relations firms producing bright-colored websites, as those believing their words leave the security of tangible work for the empty promises showing little of the truth.  They read graphics detailing pay scales, perfect work weeks and benefits designed to make life easy.  The grass is always greener, and the hope of no more struggle leads many to a greater struggle when the truth does hit them as they clock out after three hours of overtime for the tenth day in a row, seeing home only in the darkness of a late night arrival that never had mention on the front page advertisement of the corporate giant that called their name and the money in the bank at the end of the week is nowhere near the payscale displayed in rainbow hues on the home page of a parent corporation that doesn’t even know the worker’s name.  

Selling Out.  

People talk of saving America.  People talk of small town communities and honoring the sacrifice of those who refuse to give in to the mega-giant conglomerates with ownership in a foreign country that doesn’t care what happens on Main Street in the heart of the USA.  It’s talk, all talk and when the chips are down and the going gets tough the talk becomes more talk and it’s always someone else’s job to take up the slack while we save ourselves.  We turn to the very corporations we claim to disdain and become one of them just to make a bigger buck, while the door closes a little tighter on those who still keep fighting, wondering how we could have left them standing after the talk we made which led them to believe they were not going to be left there standing alone.  

Selling Out.  

Who will stand and not sell out?  Who will live their talk?  Who will face the struggle with more than just words, hanging in when it gets tougher; not quitting simply to save themselves?  

Who will face tomorrow knowing how much better it would have been if someone had faced it before?  Who will look at the future knowing they didn’t back down simply because it seemed that no one else wanted to care?  

Who will take a stand and mean it?  Who will keep their word?  

He came to us after a speaking event, telling us we must get our story into the schools.  He came with a pleading voice, desperate to find a way to keep our young people from making a decision that could eventually send them to war.  He said they need to hear what you have to say.  We said words are not the answer if there is no program for change in the works to back them up.  We can’t tell our youth not to join the military if we are not willing to raise the funds, create the programs and present the alternative in something other than idle talk. 

As we sellout to the highest bidder in the race to get rich, leaving small communities in the dust, forsaking the values that have helped them survive through depressions, oil busts and droughts, we leave little behind for our youth to turn to except the very corporate entities we claim to disdain.  

He came to us through an email, having heard our name from someone who attended a speaking event.  He was getting ready to leave for Iraq and his second return for an indefinite deployment was tearing his marriage apart.  He was anxious for support, and his wife was threatening to leave.  They had married young, had their first child soon after and the military gave them the benefits and security they could not find anywhere else.  They wanted a better life, to fulfill the dream others lived while he stood on the frontlines keeping them safe, but he saw nowhere to turn except to return to war.

It’s time to build a bridge.  Who will help?  

It’s time to stop the talk, to stop the futile attempts to justify our complacency by claiming it is someone else’s turn to pick up the torch and carry it further.  

For social change to happen, we must implement social change.  It takes real money and commitment to do this, it cannot simply be a vision.

Some of us have risked it all to open the door for people to understand what is needed and to light the path for moving in the direction of establishing real solutions but we can not do it alone.  It will take the work of all of us together giving the talents we have to build the bridge we all must walk across if we are to arrive at someplace a little closer to peace than where we now have settled.

Please help us make a difference.  Please don’t sellout.  We’ve heard the promises and we’ve walked a long way believing in the promises.  Please come through and help us do what we know must be done – creating a connection between communities of people who want to survive as people, not as pawns in a corporate game of greed where the winner has the brightest web design.  

Please help us build a bridge.

Monica is the wife of Sgt. Kevin Benderman, a ten-year Army veteran who served a combat tour in Iraq and a year in prison for his public protest of war and the destruction it causes to civilians and to American military personnel. Please visit their website, www.BendermanDefense.org to learn more. Monica and Kevin may be reached at mdawnb@coastalnow.net

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK 

- Pet Food Recall -

China Faces a Food Safety Crisis

along with the USA and World

 

SHANGHAI, China —Something was wrong with the babies. The villagers noticed their heads were growing abnormally large while the rest of their bodies were skin and bones. By the time Chinese authorities discovered the culprit — severe malnutrition from fake milk powder — 13 had died.

The scandal, which unfolded three years ago after hundreds of babies fell ill in an eastern Chinese province, became the defining symbol of a broad problem in China's economy. Quality control and product-safety regulation are so poor in this country that people cannot trust the goods on store shelves.

Until now, the problem has not received much attention outside of China. In recent weeks, however, consumers everywhere have been learning about China's safety crisis. Tainted ingredients that originated here made their way into pet food that has sickened and killed animals around the world, with nearly 4,000 deaths reported in the United States.

Chinese authorities acknowledge the problem and have promised repeatedly to fix it. President Hu Jintao called on farms to improve food safety and develop the organic sector, state media said today, after the ruling Communist Party's Politburo listened to new reports on the matter.

But the disasters keep coming. Tang Yanli, 45, grand-aunt of a baby who became sick because of the fake milk but eventually recovered, said that even though she now pays more to buy imported brands, she remains suspicious.

"I don't trust the food I eat," she said.

No. 1 exporter

With China playing an ever-larger role in supplying food, medicine and animal feed to other countries, recognition of the hazards has not kept up. By value, China is the world's No. 1 exporter of fruits and vegetables, and a major exporter of other food and food products, which vary widely, from apple juice to garlic to sausage casings. China's agricultural exports to the United States surged to $2.26 billion last year, according to U.S. figures — more than 20 times the $133 million of 1980.

China has been especially poor at meeting international standards. The United States subjects only a small fraction of its food imports to close inspection, but each month rejects about 200 shipments from China, mostly because of concerns about pesticides and antibiotics and about misleading labeling. In February, border inspectors for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) blocked peas tainted by pesticides, dried white plums containing banned additives, pepper contaminated with salmonella and frozen crawfish that were filthy.

Since 2000, some countries have temporarily banned whole categories of Chinese imports. The European Union stopped shipments of shrimp because of banned antibiotics. Japan blocked tea and spinach, citing excessive antibiotic residue. And South Korea banned fermented cabbage after finding parasites in some shipments.

"Anonymous" products

As globalization of the food supply progresses, "the food gets more anonymous and gradually you get into a situation where you don't know where exactly it came from and you get more vulnerable to poor quality," said Michiel Keyzer, director of the Center for World Food Studies at Vrije University in Amsterdam, who researches China's exports to the European Union.

Chinese authorities, while conceding the country has many safety problems, have implied the bans may be politically motivated, aimed at protecting domestic companies that compete with Chinese businesses.

China's State Food and Drug Administration, Ministry of Health and Ministry of Agriculture, which along with other government agencies share responsibility for monitoring food and drug safety, this week declined to answer written questions sent to them via fax.

In the United States, more than 100 brands of pet food have been recalled since March 16 because of a spike in animal deaths, generally from kidney failure.

Why the food is killing pets remains a focus of investigation, but the FDA and a manufacturer in South Africa have found that several bulk ingredients shipped from China, including wheat gluten and rice-protein concentrate, were contaminated with an industrial chemical called melamine.

Wheat gluten is also commonly used in breads, cereals and other foods for human consumption, but contamination has not been found in such U.S. products.

U.S. companies are under relentless pressure to cut costs, in part from consumers who demand low prices, and obtaining cheap ingredients from China has become an important strategy for many of them.

In China, meanwhile, the government has found that companies have cut corners in virtually every aspect of food production and packaging, including improper use of fertilizer, unsanitary packing and poor refrigeration of dairy products.

William O'Brien, president of Hami Food of Beijing, which transports food for the McDonald's restaurant chain and other multinational companies in China, said in some of his competitors' operations, "chilled and frozen products very often come in taxi cabs or in vans — not under properly controlled conditions. That is something that people should worry about."

Not surprisingly, food-related poisonings are a common occurrence.

Last year, farmers raising duck eggs were found to have used a red dye so the yolks would look reddish instead of yellow, fetching a higher price. The dye turned out to be a cancer-causing substance not approved for human consumption. In Shanghai, 300 people were poisoned by a chemical additive in pork.

William Hubbard, a top official in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for 14 years who now advocates for stiffer food safety regulations, recounted how one supplier drove a truck over tea leaves to dry them with exhaust, which leached lead into the leaves.

The Chinese government has undertaken a major overhaul of its monitoring system by dispatching state inspectors to every province, launching spot inspections at supermarkets and firing a number of corrupt officials.

Henk Bekedam, the World Health Organization (WHO) representative in China, said the situation is complicated by poor coordination among 17 government agencies involved in food safety.

In the United States and Europe, food is identified by lot numbers that can often help authorities pinpoint problems. And increasingly, food producers in developed countries are under pressure to keep records that allow the tracing of problem ingredients to individual farms.

China has a long way to go to achieve this type of modern system, said Hu Dinghuan, a researcher at the Institute of Agricultural Economics and Development who is working on a national pilot program to encourage farmers to keep better records.

Hard to trace

China has more than 200 million farmers working one- to two-acre plots. Many earn a meager living, sometimes less than $200 a year. Studies have found they often have little understanding of correct chemical or antibiotic use.

The marketing of food and food-related goods in China is also dominated by small-time traders. Small farmers typically take their food to wholesale markets, get cash for their wares but do not exchange documentation with buyers.

Their products are mixed with those of other small farmers, making the source untraceable. "The person who is ultimately buying knows nothing about where it originated," Hami Food's O'Brien said.

In response to the pet deaths in the United States, China is carrying out a nationwide inspection of wheat gluten, but its government has refuted allegations that Chinese companies are responsible for the deaths.

Wheat gluten has industrial uses and China has suggested the shipments that made their way into pet food might never have been intended for that purpose. China's General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine said China has never sent wheat gluten abroad for use as a pet-food ingredient. That has raised the question of whether companies that bought the gluten are guilty of misusing it.

Related Articles:

 Pet Food Recall - An Import / Export Observation

FDA incapable of protecting the safety of America's food supply   

FDA Launches Criminal Investigation into Pet Food Scandal 


 

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK

TeenScreen

TeenScreen

Life Saving Intervention, or  Orwellian Nightmare? 

Citizens Commission on Human Rights

________________

Investigating and Exposing Psychiatric Human Rights Abuse

______________________________

_________________________________________

A Report and Recommendations

about Screening America’s Children

for "Mental Disorders"

The CCHR Report

Click to View (pdf)



CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK

By Gilad Atzmon

The main British editorials happen to agree that Ahmadinejad has scored points in this latest naval round. I find their take on it all rather disappointing. With over 650,000 innocents dead as a direct result of the invasion of Iraq and a war against Iran looming on the horizon, it is about time British columnists stopped telling us about tactical gains and losses. Instead they should once and for all be endorsing a humanist and ethical discourse that is grounded on genuine responsibility.

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK

TeenScreen

Normal Kids Labeled Mentally Ill

Normal Kids Labeled Mentally Ill

TeenScreen

Despite years of public outcry, based on recommendations by President Bush's New Freedom Commission to screen all school children for mental illness, TeenScreen is now being administered in the nation's public school system and children are being regularly diagnosed with one, or more, disorders chosen from the close to 400 listed in the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV" (DSM), also known as the psychiatric "Billing Bible."

The list of mental disorders to chose from when diagnosing children mentally ill with TeenScreen, are "voted" into the Billing Bible by members of the American Psychiatric Association, and include, among others, conduct disorder, avoidant personality disorder, mathematics disorder, reading disorder, disorder of written expression, general anxiety disorder, nightmare disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, and factious disorder.

A mental illness that drew a lot of ridicule recently, is called the "intermittent explosive disorder," for people who fly into occasional but unwarranted fits of rage.

Critics view TeenScreen is a main components in an overall pharmaceutical industry-backed marketing scheme pushed along by the NFC, aimed at recruiting new customers for psychiatric drugs. The NFC's report specifically identifies the target population Big Pharma is after when it states:

"Schools are in a key position to identify mental health problems early and to provide a link to appropriate services. Every day more than 52 million students attend over 114,000 schools in the U.S. When combined with the six million adults working at those schools, almost one-fifth of the population passes through the Nation's schools on any given weekday."

The TeenScreen survey is billed as a suicide prevention tool, but according to former government investigator, Allen Jones, "Teen Screen is a nefarious effort to recruit our children into the quagmire of biological psychiatry."

"The program employs dubious screening tools administered by non-professionals," he states. "It is based on misleading science and diagnostic criteria that would be downright laughable if the stakes were not so high," he adds.

"While the idea of screening kids for mental problems seems like a good idea, it ends up being nothing more than a Drugging Dragnet," says Jim Gottstein, an attorney who represents clients harmed by the psychiatric industrial complex.

"The high rate at which we are drugging America's children with psychotropics," he says, "is a national disgrace."

"This is junk science at it's worst," says Dr Jan Johnson, MD, "follow the money, the trail leads right back to the drug companies."

Activist groups against TeenScreen have posted an online petition and plan to send it to federal, state and local lawmakers. The petition can also be used to educate people about TeenScreen because it conveys many of the facts about mental health screening and can be printed off and presented to school board members or legislators. Persons interested in signing the petition can click on the following link.

As an additional bonus to Big Pharma, Bush set it up the overall scheme so that tax payers will foot the bill for the implementation of the TeenScreen program. On October 21, 2004, he signed a bill into law that authorized $82 million to be spent over 3 years for programs like TeenScreen.

From there, the way the scheme is set up, if a child is diagnosed with a mental illness and the family can not afford the expensive regiment of psychiatric drugs, tax payers will fund the purchase of the drugs as well through public health care programs like Medicaid.

The fact is, Bush and most of his Republican puppets in Congress, would not be in office today if not for the financial support of Big Pharma. Drug companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year sending lobbyists to Washington to call in their markers by getting industry-friendly legislation passed.

According to a 2004, report by the consumer group, Public Citizen, drug companies, HMOs, their trade associations and industry-backed advocacy groups spent nearly $141 million on lobbying in 2003, and deployed over 950 lobbyists to do their bidding on Capitol Hill and at the White House.

In 2003, the top 10 drug makers and trade associations spent $55.8 million on lobbying, accounting for 60% of the industry's total lobbying expenditures. A record 24 companies and trade groups each spent $1 million, or more, on lobbying in 2002.

However, spending on lobbying is a drop in the bucket when compared with the $35.9 billion in profits recorded in 2003, by the 10 top companies. The industry soared past all other sectors, with profits five-and-a-half times greater than the median for industries represented in the Fortune 500.

And, the efforts to influence lawmakers have not been limited to lobbying. Since 1997, the top 25 drug companies with the highest lobbying expenditures, also gave $48.6 million in campaign contributions, with 80% going to Republicans.

According to concerned citizen Barbara Becker, "TeenScreen and similar projects are nothing more than a stealth trolling of the general population for drug consumers."

"The roots of these projects," she says, "grow straight from the drooling over additional excessive profiteering by the pharmaceutical industry, with the blessings of too many ever-grateful politicians who also profit from it through enormous pharmaceutical political contributions."

In all fairness, it should be noted that Big Pharma has managed to cozy up with a few Democrats as well. For instance, Senator Joe Lieberman has been known to pal around with lobbyists representing drug companies that provides large contributions to his campaign.

In fact, according to Joe Conason in the July 17, 2006, New York Observer, Mr Liberman, "has literally been sleeping with one of their Washington representatives ever since his wife Hadassah joined Hill & Knowlton last year."

"The legendary lobbying and P.R. firm," Mr Conason explains, "hired her as a 'senior counselor' in its 'health and pharmaceuticals practice.'

One of the firm's clients is GlaxoSmithKline, the manufacturer of flu vaccines, as well as many other drugs, and Mrs Lieberman joined the firm in March 2006.

"In April 2005," according to Mr Conason, "Mr. Lieberman introduced a bill that would award an array of new government 'incentives' to companies like GSK to produce more vaccines'notably patent extensions on other products, at a cost of billions to governments and consumers."

Mr Conason noted that the bill drew a critical commentary from by Mr Lieberman's hometown newspaper, the New Haven Register, titled, 'Lieberman Crafts Drug Company Perk.'

The newspaper described the bill as being even more generous to the industry than a similar proposal by Republicans. 'The government can offer incentives and guarantees for needed public health measures,' the Register said. 'But it should not write a blank check, as these bills do," it read, "to the pharmaceutical industry that has such a large cost to the public with what may be an uncertain or dubious return.'

In return for industry support, lawmakers have been very generous when doling out tax dollars to fund marketing schemes like TeenScreen. On September 21, 2005, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) announced grants of over $9.7 million in funding for the implementation of the TeenScreen Program.

"The Columbia University TeenScreen Program," the press release said, "provides early identification of mental health problems, such as depression, that can lead to suicide."

TeenScreen uses a voice computer version of the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children (DISC ), and claims it can show signs of 30 disorders, according to an article by Reuters on October 13, 2003.

On March 2, 2004, TeenScreen's Executive Director, Laurie Flynn, testified at a congressional hearing and said that in the screening process, "youth complete a 10-minute self-administered questionnaire that screens for social phobia, panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, major depression, alcohol and drug abuse, and suicidality."

The goal mentioned by Dr Paul, is obviously being reached because kids are "flunking" TeenScreen all over the country. According to Anne Yates, from Colorado, when the program was piloted at two sites in that state, at the high school, 'a whopping 50% were found to be at risk of suicide.'

'Figures from a homeless shelter,' she reports, 'were even more outrageous: 71% of the youth screened were found to have "mental disorders."

'You can bet psychiatric drugs were pushed at these kids,' Ms Yates says, 'TeenScreen is a feeder line to the drug companies.'

During an interview with award-winning investigative journalist, Kelly O'Meara, officials from the highly respected Association of American Physicians & Surgeons (AAPS), described suicide screening in schools as "a dangerous scheme that will heap even more coercive pressure on parents to medicate children with potentially dangerous side effects."

Further, they told Ms O'Meara, "even the government's own task force has concluded that mental health screening does little to prevent suicide."

Critics say, TeenScreen asks teens about normal thoughts, feelings and emotions in a way that turns them into symptoms of mental illness. Concerned parent, Dennis McLoth says, "it looks like a way to make more young people dependent on prescription drugs earlier in life when all they really need is to deal with growing up, just like we all did before there was a drug for every ailment and new ailment to justify even more new drugs."

Human rights groups contend children are being diagnosed with disorders based on nothing more than a list of behaviors. Kevin Hall, New England Director of the Citizens Commission on Human Rights, notes that 'unlike medical illnesses that are found through scientific research and discovery, mental disorders are merely groups of symptoms that are voted into existence by American Psychiatric Association committees.'

A May 20, 2006, article on TeenScreen in the National Journal, includes a admission by Steven Sharfstein, President of the American Psychiatric Association, that states: "medical science has no biological or chemical tests that can determine whether a person is depressed, suicidal, schizophrenic, or afflicted with another mental problem. There is no laboratory test that establishes a specific diagnosis."

Psychiatrist, Dr Nathaniel Lehrman says the claim that TeenScreen can reduce suicides is unsupported by any data. "It is impossible," he explains, "on cursory examination, or on the basis of the Program's brief written screening test, to detect suicidality or "mental illness," however we define it."

Another complaint heard often from activists is the fact that TeenScreen labels children mentally ill without testing for possible underlying health problems such as nutritional deficiencies, allergies, or other physical illnesses, before initiating drug treatment.

And, the medications the children end up taking as a result of the screening are the most high-priced and dangerous psychotropic drugs on the market, and include selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitor antidepressants (SSRIs), like Paxil, Prozac, Zoloft, and Effexor, and atypical antipsychotics, such as Zyprexa, Risperdal, Geodon, Seroquel, Clozaril, and Abilify, and ADHD stimulant drugs such as Adderall, Dexedrine and Ritalin.

In recent years, the use of these drugs with children has escalated. An examination of prescriptions by Medco Health Solutions in 2004, for 300,000 children ages 19 and younger, concluded that for the first time in history, spending on drugs for behavior problems with kids exceeded expenditures for any other medication category, including antibiotics.

According to Dr Barry Duncan, author of the book, "What's Right With You," more than 150 million prescriptions were written for antidepressants in 2003, with sales worth more than $14 billion. And he goes on to note that the "rates of depression have not changed for thirty years," and "suicide rates, despite the millions taking antidepressants, have not reduced."

In June 2005, the Washington Post reported that despite "a dramatic increase in treatment of psychiatric disorders during the past 10 years, there has been no decrease in the rate of suicidal thoughts and behavior among adults," citing a study by researchers from Harvard Medical school and elsewhere, primarily funded by the National Institute of Mental Health.

The study found that although people who attempt suicide were far more likely to be treated with antidepressants in 2001-03, compared to 1990-92, the rates of suicidal ideation, gestures and attempts remained basically unchanged, the Post said.

TeenScreen is being used as a vehicle to get kids on SSRIs, even though there has been a steady stream of warnings against treating kids with SSRIs for years, and even though the drugs are not approved for use with children. Back on June 10, 2003, British pubic health authorities issued a warning of a two-to three-fold increased risk of suicide in pediatric clinical trials during testing of SSRIs.

A week or so later, on June 18, 2003, Glaxo issued a warning to British physicians against the use of Paxil in children, acknowledging failure of clinical trials "to demonstrate efficacy in major depressive disorders and doubling the rate of reported adverse events - including suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts - compared to placebo."

On August 22, 2003, Wyeth sent warnings to UK and US healthcare professionals stating: "In pediatric clinical trials, there were increased reports of hostility and especially in Major Depressive Disorder, suicide-related adverse events such as suicidal ideation and self-harm."

On December 18, 2003, Eli Lilly issued two letters to British healthcare professionals, indicating that Prozac was not recommended for children - for any use.

During FDA hearings on SSRIs back in February 2004, researchers presented evidence showing SSRIs to be little or no more effective than placebos. Psychologist, David Antonuccio, from the University of Nevada Medical School, was part of a team that analyzed 12 studies and told the committee, 'Our conclusions were that the advantages of the antidepressants in children were so small and so trivial as to be clinically insignificant.'

'In order to evaluate the cost effectiveness of antidepressant use in children, the committee must consider the benefits, as well as the risks,' Dr Antonuccio testified.

'Clinically meaningful benefits have not been adequately demonstrated in depressed children," he said, "therefore, no extra risk is warranted.'

'An increased risk of suicidal behavior is certainly not justified by these minimal benefits,' he warned. 'Neither are the established increased risks of other commonly reported side effects, which include agitation, insomnia, and gastrointestinal problems,' he added.

On July 21, 2004, the Journal of the American Medical Association, also reported that there was a significantly higher risk of suicide and suicidal thoughts during the first 9 days of treatment with SSRIs, and that children who were first starting treatment were 4 times more likely to think about suicide, and 38 times more likely to commit suicide and that children as young as five had committed suicide while taking these drugs.

In the fall of 2004, the FDA ordered drug makers to post a black box warning on SSRIs, the most serious warning a drug can carry. The problem is black box warnings do not stop doctors from prescribing SSRIs to children.

"Unfortunately," said Senator Charles Grassley, who had been conducting oversight of the FDA from his position as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, in response to the news of a black box warning on SSRIs, "the poor performance data for these drugs has been coupled with the very compelling and heart-wrenching testimony from parents and other public witnesses who identify the medications themselves as triggering tragic and unexpected suicides and suicidal behavior among users."

"I understand," he continued, "that the testimony yesterday even included discussions about patients who had not been suffering from depression, yet were prescribed these powerful drugs by physicians who may perhaps have been all too ready to medicate their patients."

When reviewing studies that had previously been suppressed, the FDA found one trial on the SSRI, Paxil, with a "possibly suicide-related" risk of 6.5 percent, and a 5.4% risk of suicide attempts, compared to a 1.1% and zero, respectively in patients taking a placebo.

In fact, in 2004, Paxil maker, Glaxo, was sued by New York State Attorney General, Eliot Spitzer, for committing fraud by hiding studies that "not only failed to show any benefit for the drug in children but demonstrated that children taking Paxil were more likely to become suicidal than those taking a placebo."

In September 2005, British public health officials instructed doctors to never prescribe SSRIs to children without providing psychotherapy as well. Physicians were also told to never prescribe the drugs without trying other alternative drugs first, and to not prescribe Effexor or Paxil to children under any condition.

In addition to all the other problems with SSRIs, previously suppressed studies also show the drugs are addictive. In June 2003, Glaxo, removed labels that said Paxil was not habit-forming after thousands of patients claimed they had become addicted to the drug.

Experts warn that SSRIs can also cause children to become violent as well as suicidal. According to Dr Julian Whitaker, SSRIs cause akathisia, a mental and physical agitation that sparks self-destructive, violent behavior, and induce disassociative reactions that make patients who take the drugs insensitive to the consequences of their behavior. This is the type of drug, he says, that Eric Harris was taking when he killed his fellow students at Columbine.

Kip Kinkel was on Prozac, Dr Whitaker says, when he killed his parents and then went to his high school in Oregon, and killed two students and wounded 22 others, and says Joseph Wesbecker was also taking Prozac when he killed 7 people at a printing plant in Kentucky, before taking his own life.

In 2003, seventeen-year-old, Julie Woodward, took a test at North Penn High School, in North Wales, Pennsylvania, that said she was suffering from depression and two doctors convinced her parents, Tom and Kathy Woodward, to put her on Zoloft.

Julie's parents say they watched as her behaviors got steadily worse as soon as she began taking the drug. On the third day, Julie was arguing with her mother, and all of a sudden pushed her mother down to the floor.

Everyone in the family was shocked because Julie had never been violent before. 'It was an out-of-character act,' Tom Woodward notes.

Over the next few days, the usually calm Julie, became extremely irritable, could not sit still, and began pacing incessantly. She also became reclusive, her parents recall.

Six days after she began taking Zoloft, Julie hanged herself in the family's garage. Since their daughter's suicide, Tom and Kathy have become activists and have work diligently in attempt to educate others parents about the dangers of SSRIs.

Sue Weibert, is an ardent activist against TeenScreen, and has been investigating the program for well over a year. She recently found that when a school enters into a contract to administer the TeenScreen survey, it must agree to screen a minimum of 200 children per season.

According to Ms Weibert, a recent study showed 33% of the kids screened test positive, and quoting a figure provided by Dr Shafer seven years ago in 1999, the study said the cost was about $37 per child per screening.

So all total, 200 times a rounded off fee of $35 would amount to $7,000 in tax dollars just for the screening. After that, the 33% who screen positive are sent for a "further assessment" at an average cost of $250 to parents.

Screening promoters claim that currently, only one out of every 3 children who are mentally ill receives treatment. "That being the case," says Jan Eastgate, the International President of the Citizen's Commission on Human Rights, "with mass screening already in play, if we do not act to prevent this, we can very shortly expect to have 30 million American children prescribed mind-altering drugs."

Parents are beginning to strike back against schools when their children are screened without their consent. Last year, an Indiana high school was sued for subjecting 15-year-old student to mental health testing with TeenScreen and diagnosing the teen with two mental illnesses, without her parents' knowledge or consent.

A Massachusetts department of education investigation recently determined that a counselor at the Thomas Hamilton Primary School violated federal law in April 2005, when a student, who was enrolled in a special education class due to a speech delay, was screened for ADHD, without parental consent.

The investigation followed complaints by the mother that the counselor had pressured her to put her daughter on drugs for 3 years. The mother said she did not give consent for a mental evaluation and pulled her children out of the school because of the incident.

Wilmette, Illinois, attorney, S Randolph Kretchmar, defends patients who are violated by the psychiatric industry, and says he is dead against drugging and labeling children with mental health disorders. 'The great crime of psychiatry and the pushers of psychiatric drugs,' he advises, 'is that they have purposely confused us to sell their products.'

'What the drugs do is disable people,' he says, 'it's just that simple.'

'They may disable people from behaving badly,' he explains, 'but they also disable people in other ways, generally, neurologically.'

He points out that a slow reader or difficult middle-schooler is no threat to public safety. 'When it becomes popular,' he says, 'to neurologically disable children from being disagreeable to their teachers and their parents, we descend into some horrific barbarism, and sacrifice the future of the human race.'

This month, the CCHR issued a report titled, "The Side Effects of Common Psychiatric Drugs," that explains the various adverse effects of psychiatric drugs and defines the complex medical terms that often makes it hard for readers to understand the side effects. The report also includes the recent FDA warnings about specific drugs, as well as information, they say drug makers have kept hidden for years. Copies of the report can be obtained from their web site.

(Evelyn Pringle can be contacted at: evelyn.pringle@sbcglobal.net. She is a columnist for OpEd News and an investigative journalist focused on exposing corruption in government and corporate America.)

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK

As Americans We Must Stop Believing Our Government and Mainstream Media Lies

Ahmadinejad DID NOT threaten to "wipe Israel off the map.

Click to View

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK

On Keeping Men Alive 

“I’m just a dog-faced soldier
With a rifle on my shoulder
And I eat raw meat for breakfast every day
……….”