Friday, September 28, 2007

Mother Exonerated


CONTACT: Louise Uccio
PHONE: (917) 651-6974
FAX: (347) 497-5507



September 28, 2007

New York, Ms. Louise Uccio via her civil rights attorney has filed a lawsuit in The Supreme Court in the State of New York after the devastating affect of a false 2001 “Substantiated” Child Protective Services case against her. Defendants named in the lawsuit include: The case-worker, Noreen Boffa and various “John and Jane Does” unknown officers in the Administration for Child Protective Services, as well as the City of New York.

Ms. Uccio, a loving and devoted mother, and her children’s lives have been irreversibly destroyed over the last six years. She was accused and falsely found guilty of being a drug addict who attempted suicide. Ms. Uccio is alleging that her estranged abusive husband’s relentless pursuit to destroy her for leaving the marriage was the basis of four investigations by The Administration for Children’s Services in N.Y. and Division of Youth and Family Services in N.J. In 2001; leading to this lawsuit.

Ms. Uccio has been kept from her children for years with no visitation, no phone contact, and no access to medical or school records. Her estranged husband has successfully managed to alienate the children from her and erase her from their lives. This loving mother who diligently took care of her children according to her daughters pediatric cardiologist [Dr Putman] has lost six precious years from her children’s lives, during which time two of her children have aged out of the system.

Ms. Uccio has no history of drug abuse, as proven in the original documentation that was used to over turn this case, which was available and should have cleared her from the beginning had this case ever been properly investigated.

She was falsely accused, and maliciously prosecuted while she was able to prove her innocence from the start. She feels the case was able to be substantiated as a combined result of her civility, and respect for "authority", as well as her naive innocence and not knowing her constitutional rights.

Although the false “substantiated” case was over turned on July 12, 2006, Not only have Ms. Uccio and her children not been reunited there has been no visitation to date.

# # #

If you would like more information about this lawsuit or to schedule an interview with Louise Uccio please call (917) 651-6974 or contact her @

Bristol-Myers Squibb to pay $515 million for doctor kickback scheme

Friday, September 28, 2007

By Jonathan Saltzman, Boston Globe

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company and its subsidiary, Apothecon, have agreed to pay more than $515 million to settle a broad array of federal and state civil allegations involving their drug marketing and pricing practices, US Attorney Michael J. Sullivan said today.

The government alleged that from 2000 to mid-2003, BMS paid illegal remuneration to physicians and other healthcare providers to get them to promote BMS drugs. The payments were in the form of consulting fees and other programs, some of which involved travel to luxurious resorts.

The prosecutors also said that from 2002 through 2005 BMC promoted the sale and use of Abilify, an atypical antipsychotic drug, for pediatric use and to treat dementia-related psychosis, both of which were "off-label'' uses. The US Food and Drug Administration has approved the drug to treat adult psychiatric disorders but not for use in children, teenagers, or for dementia-related illnesses.

Doctors are allowed to prescribe drugs "off-label,'' but companies are not allowed to promote drugs for those uses.

Sullivan said his office is not bringing criminal charges and that the company cooperated with the investigation, which was prompted by information from whistleblowers.

In a statement posted on its website, the company said the settlement agreement will not affect the company's ongoing business with any customers, including the government.

"Bristol-Myers Squibb is pleased to have resolved these matters from the past and is proud of its commitment to conduct business with the highest standards of integrity in its mission to extend and enhance human life,'' the company said.

Posted by the Boston Globe City & Region Desk at 01:54 PM

Monday, September 24, 2007

When Ties to a Parent Are Cut by the Other

THIS is a nice moment in Joe Rabiega’s life. At 31, he has a good job as a research coordinator for the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He is happily married and feels blessed that his wife of five years, Tiffany, is pregnant with their first child.

His hope is to give that child a happier upbringing than the one he had. Mr. Rabiega’s parents divorced when he was 8, and though they were supposed to share custody, he said, his father, a truck driver with a drinking problem, did everything possible to turn him against his mother and eventually kept him from seeing her.

“He bullied my mother into giving up custody,” Mr. Rabiega said. When he was still allowed to visit his mother, he’d have to stay by the phone to take a call from his father at 4 every afternoon and 8 each evening. He said his father trained him to spy on his mother’s socializing and spending habits.

“His ability to manipulate her was so lopsided, it never got to the point where a court heard it,” he said in a phone interview. “His threats of violence made it clear she’d never get me.”

For several years, he said, until his late teens, he didn’t see his mother and believed everything his father said about her. “He took me to the police station and told them my mother abandoned me, even though it was completely not true,” Mr. Rabiega said. “He had the entire neighborhood convinced that my mother no longer wanted me.

“He had me convinced without him, I had nobody,” Mr. Rabiega said. “When he’d been drinking, he’d get out his gun and threaten to kill himself if I left him.”

It wasn’t until Mr. Rabiega was an adult that he began to see his mother in a different light, he said. “She was a seamstress in a garment factory who didn’t graduate from high school. She was weak, no one to guide her, no money, no education, no resources to fight for me.” At one point, he said, she attempted suicide.

Mr. Rabiega is one of 40 research subjects in a new book by Amy J. L. Baker, about parents who turn a child against the other parent, “Adult Children of Parental Alienation Syndrome.” Dr. Baker, the research director of the Vincent J. Fontana Center for Child Protection at the New York Foundling, does not identify the subjects by their real names, but Mr. Rabiega (called Jonah in the book) agreed to let his name be used for this column. “If this can help people, it’s worth it,” he said. “I really compare what I went through to people who are kidnapped and brainwashed.”

Most people would agree that one parent has the power to turn a child against the other parent; however, classifying the behavior as a mental health syndrome, as Dr. Baker does, has met with considerable criticism in the past. “It’s been a very controversial area,” said Dr. Baker, 48, who lives in Teaneck, N.J., and has a doctorate in psychology from Teachers College at Columbia.

Dr. Baker’s book is written in an academic style and sticks closely to the stories of the 40 adult subjects, ages 19 to 67, who describe being wrongfully manipulated by a parent. It is an attempt to take the sensationalism out of the subject. Accusations of such manipulation have been an issue during high-profile celebrity custody battles, like the ones involving Woody Allen and Mia Farrow and Alec Baldwin and Kim Basinger.

There is none of that in Dr. Baker’s book, which includes a seven-page bibliography of scholarly research. Instead, she tells the stories of ordinary people like Mr. Rabiega, struggling into their adult years with the damage they describe from having been manipulated into hating a parent. While most research has focused on children, Dr. Baker looks at these children once they’ve become adults. A key question she set out to answer: Do any of these kids grow up and figure it out? “That I can answer yes,” she said. “I can’t say how prevalent it is, but I have found lots of people.”

Some of what she found undercut earlier research. When therapists first described the behavior in the 1980s, they talked about it as manipulation by mothers to punish fathers. This drew criticism from some women’s groups, who dismissed the syndrome as something concocted by lawyers for abusive fathers trying to improve their custody chances.

Dr. Baker said her research — both for the book and with several hundred subjects over the last five years — indicates a mother or father is equally likely to do the manipulating. It is “truly 50-50,” she said.

Other patterns emerged from her 40 subjects: 75 percent were the products of divorce, and 58 percent were divorced themselves; 70 percent suffered depression; 35 percent developed problems with drugs or alcohol. And perhaps the saddest: Half of the 28 who had children said they were estranged from their own children.

Dr. Baker believes the behavior is prevalent enough to qualify as a syndrome in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the bible of the American Psychiatric Association. While that’s not going to happen soon — the manual won’t be revised again until 2012 — she hopes her research might cause social workers and therapists who investigate custody cases to be more aware. “If you believe it’s possible for a child to be brainwashed by one parent, the job of a custody evaluator is a lot harder,” she said.

The challenges in such cases can be daunting. How do you know if the scorned parent is being unfairly victimized or if that parent is abusive and deserves to be scorned? “It’s a lot of investigating, and there’s no one definitive tool,” Dr. Baker said.

Some of that investigative muscle is missing from her own research. Dr. Baker did not interview parents for their version of events, nor did she cite independent sources like court records that could corroborate the stories. “I did what I could,” she said. “This is just one study. It’s a very new field and there’s little research. The point is to give voice to these people who have not been heard.”

It is also hard to get people to talk publicly about family dysfunction. Mr. Rabiega was willing to speak partly because both his parents are dead.

He said that when he was in his 20s, he again developed a relationship with his mother, but that his father’s “brainwashing” had been so strong, he couldn’t entirely overcome it. “It was hard for me to fully love my mom,” he said. “If she needed me to do something or needed money, I didn’t want to and I’d get angry. My father implanted a disgust and disdain in me for my mother that wouldn’t go away and tainted our relationship.”

Ten years of therapy helped, he said, as did his wife and finding religion. “It helped when I reconnected with my mom, she held nothing against me,” he said. “She reiterated it was my father’s fault, and I had no choice.”

“Unfortunately,” he said, “I realized a lot after my mother died.”


Suicide rates as a public relations tool

FYIAlison Bass hits the bull's eye in an Op Ed column in The Boston Globe (below) by exposing corporate psychiatry's manipulation of suicide rates asa public relations tool!

Similarly, an Op Ed in The New York Times by Christopher Lane (below), aprofessor of English at Northwestern, the author of the forthcoming"Shyness: How Normal Behavior Became a Sickness," skewers psychiatrists whoare pathologizing normal children's behavior in order to medicate them. "Itmay seem baffling, even bizarre, that ordinary shyness could assume thedimension of a mental disease. But if a youngster is reserved, the odds arehigh that a psychiatrist will diagnose social anxiety disorder and recommendtreatment."

In an effort to answer the question, "How much credence should we give thediagnosis?"He notes that the revised third edition of the Diagnostic Statistical Manual(1987), psychiatry's "bible" for diagnosing mental illness, "expanded thelist of symptoms by adding anticipated concern about saying the wrong thing,a trait known to just about everyone on the planet. The diagnostic bar wasset so low that even a preschooler could trip over it." See industry'spervasive influence in what's included in the DSM.

As any scientist (or educated layperson) knows, trends in suicide rates,like any epidemiological data, have to be looked at over the long termbecause a one-year variation in rates could be a statistical artifact, ormean something else entirely.

Industry's dilemma: the overwhelming validated scientific evidence fromcontrolled trials confirms an INCREASED RISK of suicidal behavior inchildren and young adults who are prescribed SSRI antidepressants. Tocounteract the scientific evidence, drug companies hire influentialacademics to manufacture alarming 'findings' to support increased use ofthese drugs.

Such is the case with a much publicized report published in September 2007,the official journal of the American Psychiatric Association (AJP). Theauthors claimed a causal link between a one year increased suicide rate andclaimed reduced prescription rates. These commercially driven unsupportableclaims are an example of junk science. However, major newspapersuncritically reported the unsubstantiated 'alarming study findings' thatsuicides among young people were on the rise because of a precipitous dropin the use of antidepressants.

Alison Bass asks two questions that reporters suffering from shyness areafraid to ask:
1. "Why are some in the psychiatric community, despite lack of evidence,working to convince the American public that the FDA may have erred inputting the most serious kind of warning possible on the use of [SSRIantidepressants] in young people?"

Answer: The alarmist call by such 'pillars of the psychiatric community' asDr. David Shaffer and Dr. J. John Mann of Columbia University, to rescindBlack Box suicide warnings on antidepressant drug labels, may be viewed asprotecting their investment in the antidepressant drug business. Both Dr.Shaffer and Dr. Mann--and an army of other academics who, like them, are 'onthe take'--can be counted upon by drug manufacturers to ring the fire alarmdespite the lack of evidence of any fire.

In fact, Bass, points out, the authors of the AJP study overlooked the factthat prescription rates did not drop in the year when suicide rates amongyouth increased, (2003-2004). Since suicide rates for 2005 are not yetavailable from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there is noevidence of a connection between variations in youth suicide rates andantidepressant prescription usage.

Question 2: "Who stands to benefit from the latest alarm about an apparentupturn in youth suicide rates?"

Answer: The sharp drop in the sale of SSRIs since 2004 has put a big dent intheir manufacturers' bottom line. These companies have an enormous stake inreversing the current FDA warnings. That might explain why Pfizer (the makerof Zoloft) contributed $30,000 to cover the cost of collecting data for theAmerican Journal of Psychiatry study, which was also funded by the NationalInstitute of Mental Health.

"It's also worth noting that the two lead authors of the paper havedisclosed financial conflicts of interest: Columbia professor of psychiatryDr. John Mann has been a paid consultant to at least two SSRI makers, Pfizerand GlaxoSmithKline (the maker of Paxil), and Robert Gibbons has served asan expert witness for Wyeth Pharmaceuticals (the maker of Effexor, anotherSSRI)."

Vera Hassner Sharav 212-595-8974

By Alison Bass September 24, 2007

EARLIER THIS MONTH, major newspapers reported the alarming news thatsuicides among young people were on the rise because of a precipitous dropin the use of antidepressants. This news was based on a study in theSeptember issue of the American Journal of Psychiatry, which concluded thatphysicians had been scared away from prescribing antidepressants because ofthe Food and Drug Administration's decision in October 2004 to put black boxwarnings on the pediatric use of these drugs. The FDA mandated the warningsafter finding an increased risk in suicidal thoughts and behaviors amongadolescents taking antidepressants such as Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, andCelexa.

In the wake of the study, several psychiatrists called for the black boxwarnings to be retracted. "It's time for the agency's warnings to bemodified," opined Dr. David Schaffer, chief of child and adolescentpsychiatry at Columbia University Medical Center in New York City.

News sources have since exposed a big hole in the journal's argument.Several experts quoted in The New York Times and The Boston Globe pointedout that while there was indeed an upturn in suicide rates among youths (anincrease of 14 percent, or a total of 252 more deaths among youths under 19between 2003 and 2004), the number of prescriptions for antidepressants inthe same age group remained basically unchanged between 2003 and 2004.

According to data presented in the American Journal of Psychiatry study,prescription rates for minors did not drop sharply until a year later(between 2004 and 2005). Since suicide rates for 2005 are not yet availablefrom the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there is no evidence ofa connection between variations in youth suicide rates and antidepressantprescription usage. Furthermore, experts say that trends in suicide rates,like any epidemiological data, have to be looked at over the long term and aone-year variation in rates could be a statistical artifact, or meansomething else entirely.

So what's going on here? Why are some in the psychiatric community, despitelack of evidence, working to convince the American public that the FDA mayhave erred in putting the most serious kind of warning possible on the useof these drugs in young people? In May, the FDA, after finding the sameincreased risk of suicidal behaviors among young adults taking the class ofantidepressants known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs),extended the black box warnings to young adults.

There is no doubt that many psychiatrists believe that antidepressants,particularly SSRIs like Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, and Celexa, are helpful intreating depression in adults and adolescents. They have seen how thesedrugs have lifted the fog of despair from people with depression.

But there is another factor to consider: Who stands to benefit from thelatest alarm about an apparent upturn in youth suicide rates? The sharp dropin the sale of SSRIs since 2004 has put a big dent in their manufacturers'bottom line. These companies have an enormous stake in reversing the currentFDA warnings. That might explain why Pfizer (the maker of Zoloft)contributed $30,000 to cover the cost of collecting data for the AmericanJournal of Psychiatry study, which was also funded by the National Instituteof Mental Health. It's also worth noting that the two lead authors of thepaper have disclosed financial conflicts of interest: Columbia professor ofpsychiatry Dr. John Mann has been a paid consultant to at least two SSRImakers, Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline (the maker of Paxil), and Robert Gibbonshas served as an expert witness for Wyeth Pharmaceuticals (the maker ofEffexor, another SSRI).

This isn't the first time that suicide rates have been trotted out as apublic relations weapon. Proponents of psychotropic drugs have long arguedthat suicide rates among adults and children fell after the SSRIs wereintroduced in the United States. However, an examination of long-term trendsin suicide rates indicate that suicides were declining here and in othercountries well before SSRIs such as Prozac, Zoloft, and Paxil were widelyprescribed, says Julie Zito, associate professor of pharmacy and psychiatryat the University of Maryland. Zito says there are other plausible reasonsfor the decline in suicide rates over the last two decades, including a morestable economy, better access to mental healthcare, and gun control.

So until new evidence emerges showing, unequivocally, a rising rate ofsuicides among our youths and a link between those rates and reducedantidepressant usage, it would be wise to treat the latest salvo with ahealthy dose of skepticism.

Alison Bass is a former medical writer for the Globe and author of theupcoming book "Side Effects: A Best-selling Drug on Trial."

C Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted (© ) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.

Saturday, September 22, 2007

Ninth State to Sue

Arkansas is planning a lawsuit against Eli Lilly, Janssen Pharmaceutica and Astra Zeneca for “improper and unlawful marketing” of anti-psychotic drugs.

The drugs in question are Zyprexa, Risperdal and Seroquel.

The Medicaid program of Arkansas has spent $200 million on those drugs over the last eight years and, under Arkansas’ Medicaid fraud law, the state could collect three times that much.

You can find copies of the lawsuits other states have filed here: along with newspaper articles.

The tally so far?

8 States have sued Eli Lilly regarding Zyprexa: Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Utah and West Virginia.

3 states have sued Janssen regarding Risperdal: Louisiana, Texas and Pennsylvana

1 state has sued AstraZeneca regarding Seroquel: Pennsylvania

Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

State plans lawsuit against drug firms


September 22, 2007

Attorney General Dustin Mc-Daniel told lawmakers Friday he’s planning a lawsuit against three major pharmaceutical manufacturers over a “marketing scheme” for anti-psychotic drugs paid for by the state Medicaid program.

Some taking the drugs shouldn’t have been given them and have developed side effects, he said.

McDaniel told the Legislative Council he could seek as much as $ 600 million for the state and that he’s taking the unusual step of contracting with a private law firm to take the lead in the litigation. He said the firm, Bailey Perrin Bailey LLP of Houston, will bear all the expenses and its fee will be 15 percent of the award.

“It’s extraordinarily reasonable for the quality of work we’re going to get,” McDaniel said. “This particular matter is so large that frankly the AG’s office could not handle it internally. If [the suit ] is not successful we don’t owe a dollar.”

He said the firm is handling similar litigation for six other states.

A national coalition of about 30 state attorneys general is involved in a similar investigation of anti-psychotic drug marketing but McDaniel said he declined to join that effort because he feared Arkansas would “be lost in the shuffle.”

McDaniel said Gov. Mike Beebe was satisfied that the state needed outside help in the case. Lawmakers voiced no objections.

The lawsuit should be filed in Pulaski County Circuit Court within three to four weeks, a spokesman for McDaniel said.

A letter McDaniel wrote to the council says “substantial evidence” exists to support a claim by the state for “improper and unlawful marketing” of anti-psychiotic drugs by Eli Lilly & Co. of Indianapolis; Janssen Pharmaceutica of Titusville, N. J.; and Astra Zeneca, an international company formed by the union of a United Kingdom firm and a Swedish firm.

The drugs in question are Zyprexa, Risperdal and Seroquel.

Officials with those companies didn’t return telephone messages left by the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.

McDaniel told reporters after the meeting that researchers have known since the 1950 s that anti-psychotic drugs had serious side effects, including weight gain, hypoglycemia and Type II diabetes.

“What [the three companies ] did was intentionally hide that and downplayed the efficacy of alternatives,” he said.

McDaniel said the companies engaged in a “marketing scheme that was very effective to where a drug that was never approved by the [federal Food and Drug Administration ] for children... the elderly... or run of the mill behavioral disorders like depression, all of a sudden was touted to America’s doctors, Arkansas ’ doctors, as a miracle drug.

So, a child that has [attention deficit disorder ] is taking a drug that was never authorized for that child, causing serious complications... that could last a lifetime.”

He said the state Medicaid program has spent $ 200 million on those drugs over the last eight years and, under Arkansas’ Medicaid fraud law, the state could collect three times that much.
But it’s unclear at this point what percentage of those Medicaid prescriptions were necessary and what percentage were improper, said McDaniel’s chief deputy, Justin Allen.

A McDaniel spokesman couldn’t say late Friday what the statute of limitations is on Medicaid fraud cases.

McDaniel said what generally happens is that pharmaceutical representatives will push doctors to prescribe the drugs based on what the company tells them.

“Technically, does the doctor have liability if he thereafter prescribes it ? Maybe, but the concern for the state is the overall marketing scheme, and those who made profit over it,” he said. “The [state ] Medical Board should certainly give consideration regarding how much trust is placed in pharmaceutical reps.”

McDaniel said the prescriptions in questions were “off-label.”

Scott Smith, a lobbyist for the Arkansas Medical Society, a doctors’ trade association, said that means for uses not approved by the FDA.

“It’s my understanding that physicians can prescribe medicines for uses not approved by the FDA for a particular ailment but the distinction is that pharmaceutical companies are not supposed to be marketing physicians for that,” Smith said.

Waiting for FDA approval before prescribing the drugs can take years and waiting could mean “life or death” for some patients, he said.

Smith said he hasn’t heard of any problems with Zyprexa, Risperdal and Seroquel in Arkansas.

Officials at the Arkansas State Medicaid Board couldn’t be reached for comment late Friday.

According to a St. Petersburg Times report in July, the Medicaid program in Florida last year spent $ 27. 5 million on anti-psychotic drugs for children, an increase of nearly 500 percent over the last seven years.

That report said that Medicaid and insurance programs have pushed the drugs as a less costly alternative to psychotherapy for children, but some psychiatrists say the drugs are too risky for children because the young patients’ brains are still developing.

Arkansas Medicaid Director Roy Jeffus and a Department of Human Services spokesman didn’t return messages Friday.

During the legislative meeting, Sen. Ruth Whitaker, R-Cedarville, asked McDaniel about the law firm’s qualifications.

McDaniel said he started working on the issue in the days before he was sworn in in January. He said only about eight firms nationwide are qualified to handle such litigation. He said he interviewed applicants for the contract “exhaustively” and the Houston firm rose to the top because it is already working on the issue in representing Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Alaska, New Mexico, Louisiana and Mississippi.

The other firms that applied for the contract were: The Miller Firm LLC of Orange, Va. Allen L. Rothenbert P. C. of Yardley, Pa. Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler LLP of Radnor, Pa. Heninger Garrison Davis LLC of Birmingham, Ala.

“This is going to be massive litigation and it was not selected willy-nilly,” he told Whitaker.

McDaniel emphasized that his office, not the Houston firm, would have final say on major decisions involving the lawsuit.

Problems arose in 1998 when former Attorney General Winston Bryant arranged for a San Diego firm to help him in the state’s litigation against tobacco companies. But Bryant never used the firm and settled the litigation along with other states. Arkansas’ expected take was between $ 50 million and $ 60 million a year. The firm sued the state, saying it had done work for Arkansas and deserved to be compensated, but the state prevailed in court.
Since then, the attorney general’s office has only used one private firm on a contingency basis and that was under Attorney General Mark Pryor and involved asbestos claims. That was Dies & Hile LLP of Orange, Texas, said spokesman Gabe Holmstrom.

McDaniel said he expects no problems with the Houston firm.

“This law firm has never contributed to my campaigns... nor the lawyers in the firm, nor their spouses, nor their kids, I think,” he told reporters. “If there is a kid or a cousin that slipped through we didn’t know about it.”

Information for this article was contributed by Laura Kellams of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.

Original Article -

English please

Yesterday I received a comment in another language- Sorry folks if I can't understand it - I will reject it. And Ummm I only speak english- and some days that's a challenge.

So if you would like to respond to any of my blogs and would like them posted [good bad or indifferent- I'll post em] as long as they are as close to the english language as possible.


Wednesday, September 19, 2007


The Catholic Church has become a victim of compromise. At the end of WWII, James “Jesus” Angelton, of the OSS-CIA, was able to compromise the Vatican and thereby allow what was known as “ODESSA” to get a foothold into the Vatican. Years later Bishop Hnilica helped the KGB to exert their influence on the Vatican. After these two influences were in place, they were able to expand on a weakness in the church, PEDOPHILIA. This led to the scandal that has been exposed in the Catholic Church, which is only the tip of the iceberg. For instance, from the days of Cardinal Spellman (nicknamed “NELLIE”, a known pedophile) in New York City to the present, no scandals have been made public. There is no way that these hidden scandals will be made public as long as Robert Morganthau or someone like him is the District Attorney in New York City. Any DA who routinely covers up these crimes against children by politically connected pedophiles, assures these crimes against children will remain hidden from the public.

SERIAL KILLERS – This group consists of individuals who are sadistic in attaining their sexual pleasures. These individuals usually live in their own world and are by far the most dangerous and difficult to identify. Within this group the victims are generally tortured, mutilated, and sexually abused. These offenders tend to be loners and their crimes often occur in different police jurisdictions. This alone makes it difficult for law enforcement to establish links and patterns between their crimes, thus limiting the effectiveness of their investigations. In many cases these perpetrators will move from town to town or state to state to avoid discovery and prosecution. Often they go undetected because law enforcement is so localized. The case histories of two notorious serial killers, Ted Bundy and Geoffrey Dahmer, leave no doubt that law enforcement is ill equipped to deal with these types of serial killers. In both cases, officers failed to recognize clues that couldhave curtailed these killings at earlier stages of the investigations.

OCCULT – Satanic worship, with its many subculture groups, usually revolves around secret societies comprised of individuals who worship Satan or some other god to which they offer sacrifices. These sacrifices may be animal or human. In Aroostook County, Maine, in late 1988, two Catholic parish priests were approached by a parishioner who stated that persons known to her wanted to sacrifice her young baby. The priests, shocked by this revelation, discussed the matter among themselves and, at the time of the child’s baptism, footprinted the baby. They stated that this was done so that if at any time the child disappeared or died, a record would be on file for the authorities.

OCCULT – Satanic worship, with its many subculture groups, usually revolves around secret societies comprised of individuals who worship Satan or some other god to which they offer sacrifices. These sacrifices may be animal or human. In Aroostook County, Maine, in late 1988, two Catholic parish priests were approached by a parishioner who stated that persons known to her wanted to sacrifice her young baby. The priests, shocked by this revelation, discussed the matter among themselves and, at the time of the child’s baptism, footprinted the baby. They stated that this was done so that if at any time the child disappeared or died, a record would be on file for the authorities.

In Matamores, Mexico, a young American college student was abducted from the streets and sacrificed in a satanic ritual. This particular ritual had been described to New York Detectives by Maria Lazo, a high priestess in the occult, during Operation Together.

In his book The Ultimate Evil, respected author Maury Terry wrote about the “Son of Sam” killings in New York City. At the time of David Berkowitz’s arrest, the official line of the New York Police Department was that Son of Sam had acted alone in the murders.

In his subsequent investigation, Maury Terry discovered that these “Son of Sam” killings were, in fact, satanic ritual killings. During Berkowitz’s imprisonment, after his conviction and sentencing, Maury Terry has had repeated interviews with him. During these interviews Berkowitz gave Maury Terry inside information about what was actually involved in these rituals and subsequent murders associated with them.

Ken Lanning, who was the spokesman for the FBI, has stated on many occasions that there are no documented cases of satanic murders. This is hard to believe, but the FBI has had a policy of not getting involved in the actual investigations and, therefore, relies on its information from reading other law enforcement reports. The FBI, under present mandates, does not have jurisdiction in many instances.

An incident in early 1980, may best illustrate the mentality of the FBI and its agents. An unnamed FBI agent met with retired New York City Detective James Rothstein and stated that he was about to be assigned to an investigation into the world of pedophilia. He asked just how far he could go with such an investigation, without suffering the consequences, such as being transferred to Montana. He was advised accordingly.

The information contained in this report is based upon hundreds of investigations and observations made by Detective Rothstein, between 1968 and 1980, as a Detective in the New York City Police Department. Thousands of interrogations and interviews were conducted with prostitutes, pimps, and pedophiles. Detective Rothstein has testified as an expert in both Federal and State Courts on prostitution, pimping, and pornography. Since his retirement in 1980, Detective Rothstein has remained active in following up on the investigations he started during his career with the New York City Department. As a result of this continued research of over twenty-five years, he has developed a national and international network of researchers and investigators who document the ongoing occurrence and extent of pedophilia and child abuse worldwide.

This network has discovered a major increase in this criminal sexual exploitation of our children throughout the United States of America , and as well as for children worldwide in recent years. Through his ongoing research efforts and frequent communications with these other researchers, Detective Rothstein has noted the emergence of certain patterns and profiles associated with this serious and criminal sexual exploitation of our children.

In most investigations into pedophilia and child abuse, the investigators, federal and local, will initially do an honest and in-depth investigation, but when a certain level of progress is attained, the investigations are stopped or compromised. Again one asks the question, “Why is this?” To this date there is no high profile case that has ever been investigated to the fullest extent and then prosecuted in the court of the United States. Why? Three examples of this can be found in the following cases: a) The Finders – Florida and Washington D.C.; b) Franklin Coverup – Nebraska; c) St. Johns Abbey – Minnesota.

In segments of the family, homosexual, commercial, serial killer, and the occult, the pedophile and child abuser feel that they are above the law. They believe that because of their contacts, position in society, or the secrecy of their actions, if caught, they can use these connections to coverup their criminal activities. In most cases this is true and known throughout the pedophile subculture.

In April of 2005, information was received from a “source” who stated he had been a Field Analyst for the CIA. The “source” stated that, as a result of the Johnny Gosch kidnapping on September 5, 1982, he and 19 others were assigned to do an investigation to make sure that the CIA or a rogue element of the CIA was not involved in using children. The fear was that Foreign Intelligence operations would classify them as a bunch of pedophiles. The “source” stated he was selected because of “special qualifications” he had, which would allow him to penetrate this subculture.

Johnny Gosch was the first of three similar kidnappings that the “source” stated were conducted by the same group of kidnappers. All three victims were newspaper delivery boys. The second kidnapping was Eugene Martin. Gosch and Martin were from Des Moines, Iowa. The third intended victim was a local newspaper delivery boy from St. Joseph, Minnesota. When interviewed, he stated he was able to escape by slipping out of his coat and running. When this kidnapping failed, a second attempt was made and Jacob Wetterling was kidnapped. To this date, none of these crimes have been solved. Why?

The “source” stated that their investigation continued until 1989. The evidence uncovered during this investigation proved that 834 children were kidnapped and used by this subculture. This is only the tip of the iceberg of the depravity that was uncovered. The evidence was passed up to higher authorities in the Agency, where, as always, the hierarchy covered it up.

The most comprehensive and accurate book about an actual kidnapping and the usual cover-up that occurs, was written by the mother of Johnny Gosch, Noreen N. Gosch, Why Johnny Can’t Come Home. The book is written by a courageous mother who refused to accept the usual cover-up, lies, and failures of all law enforcement agencies and others who were involved in the nonexistent investigation of her son’s kidnapping.

Original Article -


A Layman’s look at History

By JAMES M. ROTHSTEIN- Retired NYCPD Detective

On the streets of every city in America there are thousands of children, both boys and girls, selling themselves into prostitution. Almost nothing is done to discourage this. Some of these children are on their own, others are preyed upon by older children who exploit them. Surrounding and controlling these children, who have been manipulated and forced into utter physical, sexual, and emotional degradation in their daily lives, are their procurers and abusers who are even more depraved. It is these procurers and abusers who criminally and sexually exploit these children for commercial purposes: pornography, prostitution, extortion, blackmail, and human compromise; not to mention larceny, burglary, and other criminal activities.

Police make many arrests of child molesters and pedophiles who troll for children around bus terminals, arcades, and malls. Rarely are the exploiters, who operate telephone call services, pedophile exchanges, sex clubs, and pornography rings, arrested and successfully prosecuted.
Despite public concern, even outrage, little is done beyond expressions of outrage. Why is this? This certainly is not because there is a lack of information. Everyday there are reports of children who are abducted or disappear off the face of the earth, or so it seems to the families who lose their children, when in fact they become the victims of a society which is divided into five separate groups: family, homosexual, commercial, serial killers and occult.

FAMILY – Within the family group you have an inherited or given trust between the children and their elders. This group is made up of schools, institutions, religions, and stepfamilies. Because of the close relationships between the elders and the children, if child abuse or pedophilia occurs, they are difficult to uncover and corroborate. The schools, institutions, and religious sects become candy stores for the pedophile or child abuser. There are many documented cases of pedophilia and child abuse within the family group throughout the United States, such as the Clemons case in Florida and the McMartin case in California .

Children are placed or held in institutions because of physical, mental, correctional or family problems. In the early 1970’s, numerous children were taken from a Chicago institution and sent to Texas , to another institution where they were then used for sexual purposes. Sergeant Kelly of the Illinois State Police investigated this case and stopped the practice.

Within the religious group an unprecedented number of cases are coming to light, such as the Porter case in Massachusetts. Father Porter violated numerous altar boys over a span of twenty-five years in various parishes in Massachusetts . When accusations are made against a Roman Catholic priest, the priests are transferred to another parish, diocese or religious institution and are allowed to continue their perverse habit without interference from the law.

St. Johns Abbey of the Benedictine Order, in Collegeville , Minnesota , is a classic example of how the Catholic Church covers up child abuse in the Church. Over a 30 year period of time there were hundreds of abuse cases and suicides related to the abuse. In 2002, Josh Guimond, a student at St. Johns, disappeared in the middle of the night under suspicious circumstances. The investigation that followed was a coverup and anyone who dared look into the case was harassed. The Abbot, John Klassen, admitted that there were at least 13 pedophile priests at the Abbey. Yet, there were no arrests or prosecutions by either local, state, or federal authorities over this 30 year period of time. A sophomore at Albany High School , in Albany , Minnesota , asks, “Why is St. Johns above the law?” The local and state media keep their reports of the abuse which has occurred there to a bare minimum, and then only publishes these reports after they have appeared in the national media.Why??

The Porter case and others at the time brought to light a new investigative technique which has been referred to as repressed or recovered memory. This psychological tool has been used in a number of cases prosecuting pedophiles and child abusers. This novel approach has not yet been proven to be scientifically valid. When this method is used without additional objective and corroborating evidence, wrongful accusations and prosecutions can result. This problem is well documented in an article written by Lawrence Wright in the May 24, 1993, edition of New Yorker Magazine. In this article, Mr. Wright describes how, in some cases, after additional research was done, this “recovered memory” method was shown to be flawed, causing those cases to fall apart and resulting in the needless and unwarranted destruction of the family.

As heinous as these crimes of sexual exploitation of children are, an over zealous uninformed law enforcement agency or prosecutor, who uses less than scientific investigative methods to conduct a “witch hunt,” can wreak havoc on our society. Abusive, unwarranted prosecutions based on unscientific and improper investigative methods used by police and prosecutors do not help to provide any real solution to this problem of the criminal sexual exploitation of children. Rather, they consume valuable and very limited resources and help allow many offenders to continue their crimes against children un-abated. This novel approach “recovered memory” is an interesting new method, but it must be closely monitored until it is an exact science, and there must be additional corroboration with its use in any prosecution.

HOMOSEXUAL – For the purpose of this report, the true homosexual pedophile is distinct from the more violent serial killers described later. The homosexual believes he is not hurting the child, but is in fact offering him a better life style. The child is given all the worldly possessions they desire and are told that their parents do not want him. This is a common and effective ploy used to keep the child. After the child has been in the clutches of the pedophile community for more than seventy-two hours, that child is generally lost to society. The child’s fear of parents and friends finding out about the degradation in which that child has been involved, keeps that child from leaving.

A notorious homosexual pedophile and procurer, Ben Rose, is a classic example of the mentality observed in this group. Ben Rose was arrested after an investigation by the New York Police Department at his residence on St. Mark’s Place in New York City during the summer of 1972. At the time of the arrest, he had in his possession three young boy ages 14-15 years, who had been transported by him from Baltimore to New York City for the specific purpose of sexual exploitation. Upon his arrest, he agreed to cooperate with the New York City Police Department and an investigation was begun under the code name GAFF. This investigation uncovered the commercial part of pedophilia and child abuse.

COMMERCIAL – The commercial group includes child pornography, prostitution, pimping, extortion, and human intelligence. Child pornography, prostitution, and pimping are well organized and promoted throughout the pedophile community. Because of Ben Rose’s cooperation with investigators, many of the rumors and information under investigation were verified. He informed the New York City Detectives that in November of 1971, three boys, ages 14-15 years, were sexually abused and then murdered in his apartment on East 64th Street in New York City by three men he identified as Dr. Chesky (a surgeon), Leonard Stewart (OPEC), and Tippy Richardson (CIA). The bodies were then transported to Connecticut by car and then buried on a farm. Under the GAFF investigation these murders were to be assigned to other investigators in the New York City Police Department, but then disappeared in the hierarchy of the Department.

A second investigation conducted in the mid 1970’s, by the Police Department during which thirteen homicides, plus the murder of these 14-15 year old boys at Ben Rose’s apartment, were investigated under the code name OPERATION TOGETHER. This investigation was under the command of Deputy Inspector John Colin. At a critical point in the investigation, it was stopped. Inspector Colin was demoted and forced into retirement.

The third investigation was done by the New York State Select Committee on Crime. This Committee served subpoenas on both Tippy Richardson and Leonard Stewart. When Richardson was served with the subpoena and questioned by the detectives, he informed them that because he worked for the CIA, the subpoena would be quashed, invoking National Security. He was correct, because before the detectives returned to their offices, the subpoena was withdrawn. One wonders what part of the National Security Act allows the murder of children.

Leonard Stewart was also served, questioned, and appeared at the committee’s offices. He did not testify. As in all cases of this magnitude, the attorney who represented these politically connected pedophiles was Enid Gerling of New York, who also represented both Richardson and Stewart.

Enid Gerling stated at that time that the investigation was on the right track and should not stop. In conversations with Gerling over the past number of years, she has often stated that she owes these individuals no allegiance and would gladly give them up.

During the investigation by the New York State Select Committee on Crime, information was received that Roy Cohn (famed attorney who represented Senator Joe McCarthy at the notorious McCarthy Hearings) helped in covering up the murder and the disposal of the bodies. When Cohn was questioned about the murder of the three 14-15 year old boys at Ben Rose’s apartment, he stated that he was aware of what had happened, but would comment no further. Information at that time was that Cohn was often used to compromise people and, if situations such as those described by Rose occurred, Cohn would take care of them.

Rose also supplied information as to the methamphetamine sales in juice bars owned by organized crime. These bars were meeting places for children, pedophiles, and various pedophile rings. The investigation into this activity was again buried in the hierarchy of the Police Department and not investigated. As a direct result of this investigation, Police Officer Richard Johnson of the New York City Police Department, a primary investigator, became the subject of a bombing of his residence. Recent information is that the contract was ordered by someone inside the New York City Police Department. This case is unsolved and the cover up continues to this day.

In the summer of 1966, at 301 West 45 Street, one of the most notorious procurers of children, Willie Dunn, was caught with eight young boys in his apartment. These boys ranged in age from 14-17 years. The boys were let go and Dunn was sent on his way based on the faulty premise asserted by the police department hierarchy that no crime had been directly observed. Over the years Dunn perfected his ways of procuring children to the point where he traveled the United States in a Winnebago Motor Home kidnapping, picking up, and transporting children to pedophiles wherever they were needed. Dunn was also involved with Sammy Bronfman in the planning of Bronfman’s own kidnapping. Sammy had wanted his father, Edgar Bronfman, to pay the ransom for his kidnapping, which he would then use to open his own disco catering to pedophiles.

Mel Patrick Lynch and Dominic Byrne were arrested and convicted of the kidnapping. A subsequent investigation showed that Lynch was given $1,000,000.00 to do the time in prison for the kidnapping. The police department chose to bury it.

In 1977-78, Willie Dunn was on trial in Norfolk, Virginia, by federal authorities for charges stemming from a stolen check fraud. In US vs Dunn, in Norfolk Federal Court, Dunn, acting as his own attorney, was able to tell the court that he was in fact a victim because of the Bronfman kidnapping. The case was covered for the media by Penciak of the Associated Press and when the story was given to the New York Press, it only ran in the first edition. Bronfman informed the various media outlets that if the stories were not withdrawn he would pull all Seagram’s advertising.

Another investigation led to a major supplier of children to pedophiles throughout the United States. In 1977, information was obtained from a high level informant, Dale Smith aka Dale St-Clair, who was in the child prostitution business. Dale Smith had inside information that a Paul Abrams was a procurer with connections to other procurers. They had stables with substantial stocks of flesh available. Abrams catered to the so-called elite, influential, and wealthy of our society. With Dale Smith’s information, evidence was developed for a wiretap order. When the District Attorney, Robert Morgenthau of New York , was approached for a wiretap order, he refused, knowing full well that it would expose many prominent people as pedophiles. On November 28, 1977 , Paul Abrams’ operation at 230 Central Park West in New York City , was raided by the New York City Police Department. The New York Daily News, at the time, stated hundreds and hundreds of names were found in the raid.These actions prevented a full scale investigation, which is always the case.

During the summer of 1967, a well organized movement of prostitutes into New York City by pimps throughout the United States was observed. Young girls were shipped back and forth across the country as they were needed. The core cities were Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Columbus, Ohio, with most major cities in the United States used as sales outlets. New York City Detectives were able to establish a liaison with Minneapolis and Columbus. Information was exchanged and a pattern developed. In the mid 1970’s, members of the New York City Police Department were able to convince investigators of the IRS and agents from the FBI to join the investigation. A joint investigation was launched and eleven of the top twelve pimps were convicted of various crimes, virtually breaking the back of the organization. Prostitution is not a victimless crime. The victim is the prostitute.The intelligence obtained over this period of time made it possible to locate missing girls from across the United States, who had fallen into prostitution, to be located in a matter of days either dead or alive. After the cases were completed, the FBI agents were given different assignments.

In 1976-77, the New York State Select Committee on Crime conducted hearings on prostitution. Testimony was given by a number of prostitutes from around the United States describing their activities. A film was produced by Brian Kelly which graphically describes how these children were abused and murdered.The hierarchy of the New York City Police Department refused to cooperate with the investigation and hearings, in fact, harassed the detectives assigned to the investigation.

HUMAN INTELLIGENCE – is a fancy way of describing how the Intelligence Community uses children to compromise anybody they deem necessary. Extortion and human intelligence often are byproducts of pornography and prostitution. In 1992, after two hours of conversation with Michael Ricconiscutto (who has admitted a long involvement with CIA, Wackenhut, and other covert operations) concerning the types of operations he had been involved in during his lifetime, it became apparent that he had become involved at a very young age. When asked, he stated that at the age of 13, while visiting Chile with members of the Chilean Council, he was recruited by Chuck Emmerett of the CIA. At this point Ricconiscutto was asked if he had been in fact become a “chicken”, a term used by pedophiles to represent the children they prey on. He stated “Yes, and that he had also been trained in the fine art of human intelligence.” ......

Sunday, September 16, 2007

2 bribed Miss. judges, lawyer get prison


Associated Press Writer

JACKSON, Miss. --
A prominent attorney and the two Mississippi judges he bribed for favorable rulings were sentenced Friday to several years each in federal prison.

Paul Minor, a once highly regarded attorney who amassed a fortune from asbestos, tobacco, medical malpractice and car safety cases, was ordered to serve 11 years in prison. He also was fined $2.7 million and must pay restitution.

In handing down the sentence, U.S. District Judge Henry T. Wingate told Minor: "You distinguished yourself in the practice of law. Speaking metaphorically, Lady Justice must be sobbing."

Minor and his co-defendants, former judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield, will appeal their convictions, according to Minor's lawyer, high-profile Washington attorney Abbe Lowell.

The various decisions Judge Wingate made will keep the appeals courts busy for a long time," he said on the courthouse steps.

The three men have long claimed they were the victims of a Republican vendetta because of Minor's support of Democratic causes. The attorney acknowledged guaranteeing loans for the two judges, but claimed he was only helping friends and expected nothing in return.

Dave Fulcher, one of the federal prosecutors in the case, said the sentence reflects the seriousness of the crimes.

The defendants put justice for sale and the sentence is a deterrent to anyone who might consider corrupting the judicial system," Fulcher said.

Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz Jr., who was acquitted in the bribery scheme in 2005, echoed the sentiment that the prosecution was politically motivated.

"When the federal government begins to politically prosecute, everyone should be afraid," said Diaz, who served seven years as a Republican in the state House of Representatives before becoming a judge.

In the 2005 trial, the jury failed to reach verdicts on some charges against Minor, Teel and Whitfield, so they were retried in March. Minor was convicted on 11 charges including racketeering and bribery. The two judges, who handled trials in coastal Harrison County, were convicted of mail fraud and bribery.

On Friday, Whitfield was sentenced to more than nine years in prison and fined $125,000. Teel was sentenced to nearly six years in prison and he and Minor were ordered jointly to pay $1.5 million in restitution to USF&G Insurance Co. That amount involved a settlement reached in Teel's court between the insurer and one of Minor's clients.

Minor was convicted of guaranteeing $140,000 in loans to Whitfield in 1998, then using cash, a third party and a backdated promissory note to conceal that Minor paid off the loan. Whitfield awarded Minor's client $3.6 million in a lawsuit. The Mississippi Supreme Court later reduced the award to $1.6 million.

Minor was also accused of guaranteeing a loan of $24,500 to Teel the same year. Prosecutors said Teel forced through a $1.5 million settlement in one of Minor's cases before his court.

During the sentencing hearing, Minor thanked Wingate for jailing him last year when his bond was revoked, in part for excessive drinking, because that time in jail helped him confront his alcoholism.

The judge gave Minor credit for the year he has served but said he could not give Minor leniency. "The crimes for which you've been convicted are just so great to a system of justice," he said.

Teel and Whitfield asked for short sentences because of family obligations. Teel's wife has multiple sclerosis. Whitfield, who divorced from his wife before she died last year, has a son in school.

The judge allowed the two men to report to prison Dec. 27 so they would have time to get their affairs in order.

Original Article - 2 bribed Miss. judges, lawyer get prison

Friday, September 14, 2007

Antidepressant Use And Conflicts Of Interest

It was revealed that at least a couple of the psychiatrists who authored the below mentioned study on antidepressants, suicides and the Black Box warning have close ties to pharmaceutical companies.

New York Times Experts Question Study on Youth Suicide Rates

September 14, 2007

Last week, leading psychiatric researchers linked a 2004 increase in the suicide rate for children and adolescents to a warning by the Food and Drug Administration about the use of antidepressants in minors. The F.D.A. warning, the researchers suggested, might have resulted in severely depressed teenagers going without needed treatment.

But the data in the study, which was published in The American Journal of Psychiatry and received widespread publicity, do not support that explanation, outside experts say.While suicide rates for Americans ages 19 and under rose 14 percent in 2004, the number of prescriptions for antidepressants in that group was basically unchanged and did not drop substantially, according to data from the study. Prescription rates for min ors did fall sharply a year later, but the suicide rates for 2005 are not yet available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“There doesn’t seem to be any evidence of a statistically significant association between suicide rates and prescription rates provided in the paper” for the years after the F.D.A. warnings, said Thomas R. Ten Have, a professor of biostatistics at the University of Pennsylvania.

In the report published last week, the authors analyzed data on suicides and antidepressant use over several years in the United States and the Netherlands. They argued that drug regulators may have created a larger problem by requiring pharmaceutical companies to place warnings on antidepressants, scaring away patients and doctors. The F.D.A. warning label says that a potential side effect in young people is an increase in suicidal thoughts and behavior.

The most plausible explanation is a cause and effect relationship: prescription rates change, therefore suicides change,” said Dr. J. John Mann, a psychiatrist at Columbia University and a co-author of the study.

But Dr. Ten Have and other experts, while noting that it may still turn out that a reduction in prescriptions is leading to increased suicides among young people, said that the new study neither proved nor disproved this. Instead, some experts say, the study illustrates why suicide trends are so difficult to understand — and why this debate has been so polarizing and confusing.

In an interview, Robert D. Gibbons, a professor of biostatistics and psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago and the lead author of the journal article, acknowledged that the data from the United States that he and his colleagues analyzed did not support a causal link between prescription rates and suicide in 2004. “We really need to see the 2005 numbers on suicide to see what happened,” he said.

But Dr. Gibbons defended the paper, saying that when taken in the context of previous studies that linked falling antidepressant use to increased suicide rates, “this study was suggestive, that’s what we’re saying.”

Other experts, however, said that the problem with such studies is precisely that they are suggestive rather than conclusive and are open to interpretation. Suicides are rare and uniquely personal events that can be driven by many factors: worsening depression or other mental illnesses, breakups or job loss, lack of drug or psychiatric treatment, even easy access to guns.

In calling for the labeling change on antidepressants, F.D.A. scientists based their decision on data from drug makers’ clinical trials, considered the gold standard in medical research. Those trials have shown that young patients who took antidepressants were about twice as likely than those on placebos to report suicidal thoughts or attempts, though the numbers in both groups were small.

Yet none of the youngsters in the trials, most of whi ch ran for no more than a month or two, actually committed suicide. And most psychiatrists with long experience using antidepressants in children say the benefits far outweigh any risk.

In studies of data collected before 2004, Dr. Gibbons, Dr. Mann and others found clear associations between prescription patterns and suicide rates. For instance, prescription rates for patients from ages 10 to 24 rose steadily in the 1990s, while the suicide rate in that age group fell 28 percent from 1990 to 2003, according to a government report released last week.

In another study, researchers at Columbia University, analyzing data from 1990 to 2000, found that for every 20 percent increase in the use of antidepressants among adolescents, there were five fewer suicides per 100,000 people each year. Psychiatric researchers have found similar patterns among some age groups in other countries, including Sweden, Japan and Finland.

But many uncertainties remain. While the suicide rate for adolescents has fallen over the last decade, it has remained largely unchanged for the overall population, though prescriptions for psychiatric medicines have risen sharply in all age groups. Adjusted for the demographic changes, about 11 Americans per 100,000 killed themselves in 2004, the same as in 1994.

Demographics can play a role: White people kill themselves about twice as frequently as African-Americans and Hispanics, so as the population becomes more diverse, the suicide rate ought to drop, all else being equal. And suicide rates also appear to be negatively correlated with economic growth, which was exceptionally strong from 1994 to 2000. Advances in medicine also mean more lives can be saved now.

With so many potentially confounding factors at play, interpreting the relationship between prescription rates and suicides is difficult, said Andrew Leon, a professor of biostatistics at Weill Cornell Medical College who has served on F.D.A. panels study ing suicide risk and antidepressants.

“These kinds of studies are very important in giving us a sense of the rates of disease and death in a population and how those may correspond to other things,” Dr. Leon said. “But what they don’t do is tell us whether the two trends are directly related.”

Original Article -

22,999 people have now signed the petition against TeenScreen!Video:

Please pass the word far and wide - we still have a lot of work to do - a lot of kids are depending on us!

Thursday, September 13, 2007

Senators Seek Public Listing of Payments to Doctors

New York Times

September 7, 2007- WASHINGTON, Sept. 6 —

Makers of drugs and medical devices would be required to report publicly nearly all payments and gifts to doctors under legislation introduced Thursday in the Senate.

“Right now, the public has no way to know whether a doctor’s been given money that might affect prescribing habits,” said Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee and one of the bill’s authors.

Senator Herb Kohl, Democrat of Wisconsin, said drug and medical device makers had long defended their payments and gifts to doctors as appropriate.

“If that is the case, full disclosure will only serve to prove them right,” Mr. Kohl said.

Ken Johnson, senior vice presi dent at the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said, “A new law is not necessary when pharmaceutical marketing is already heavily regulated by the Food and Drug Administration.”

The F.D.A. does not regulate the gifts or consulting arrangements drug and device makers routinely provide doctors, and it reviews only a fraction of the scripted marketing talks doctors make on companies’ behalf.

The bill results from growing concerns that free meals and consulting payments — which in some cases have exceeded $100,000 annually — lead doctors to prescribe more expensive drugs and devices, increasing the costs of health care and sometimes endangering patients.

Minnesota and Vermont require disclosures, and the legislatures of Maine and West Virginia have passed measures that may soon require them. Other states are considering similar measures.

The bill introduced Thursday is more comprehensive than any state measure. It includes medical device c ompanies, not just drug makers, and has a more inclusive list of gifts and benefits that must be disclosed.

For instance, any payments or benefits made “directly, indirectly, through an agent, subsidiary or other third party” would have to be disclosed. That could include payments by universities and an array of small companies that, with industry financing, set up conferences for influential doctors at expensive hotels. Such payments have never been disclosed on a widespread basis.

The bill would also require the disclosure of financing for continuing medical education. Drug and device makers now underwrite much of the continuing education that is required of nearly all doctors.

Companies with at least $100 million in annual revenues would have to make quarterly disclosures of gifts or payments that exceed $25, and the reports would be posted on a Web site. Companies failing to make the disclosures — and many have not complied with the laws in Minnesota and Ve rmont — would be fined at least $10,000 per infraction.

Under the bill, the provision of free drug samples and financing for clinical trials would not have to be disclosed.

Rob Restuccia, executive director of the Prescription Project, a nonprofit group that works to eliminate conflicts of interest in medicine, said some academic medical centers already restricted gifts to faculty members. Greater disclosures would lead to more such restrictions, Mr. Restuccia said.

Original Link -

State askes the people to respond to how they are doing -Gail answers

Today a friened of mine Gail Head yes the same woman that put together the Awareness quilt wrote a letter to CPS in her hometown of Texas.

I had to share, so with her permission here it is..

From Gail Head

(She is open to anyone contacting her for more info- or even a story)

This is a copy of the email letter I sent in reponse to the published article for TX asking "how they are doing". I seriously doubt I will get an answer, but I sent in my opinion. And now, we wait to see "if" they respond.

Dear Ms Elizabeth Kromrei,

It amazes me that such an important as issue as this with a survey to "hear" from parents and citizens of this State of Texas to report their experiences and findings regarding the doings and activities of CPS would be shut down so soon after being published. That certainly makes it appear that the truth is "not wanted" in the reports, or, CPS has been hit in the face with far more truth than they can handle dealing with. The truth is what it is and what it is, is that CPS needs to be SHUT DOWN and a new system put in its place. CPS is CORRUPT to the very core~!!!

The Caseworkers are literally, and ILLEGALLY I might add, destroying innocent families every day over and over again. These are common street-walkers who are not trained in Social Work and how to work with families in trouble and children trutly at risks or in harm's way. These caseworkers are given crash courses of a few short weeks, as testified to in a hearing that I attended when she was asked under oath about her training and how long she had been a caseworker with CPS, then turned out on the streets to "investigate" and destroy families, taking into state custody every child they can manage to snatch. This is NOT what CPS was established for. However, CPS has now become nothing more than a STATE MONEY-MAKING BUSINESS with the commodity being our children. The government financial incentives speak for themselves. The truth is what the truth is.

There is NO accountability in the CPS department. The caseworkers LIE, fabricate, twist and distort the facts, in every aspect of the case to whatever extent they "think" they need to do in order to justify their actions against the families, enter it into the court records and attest under oath to them being true facts. What's the legal term used for that? PERJURY. However, they couldn't care less as they know nothing will be done about their commission of that even under oath. They just claim "immunity". It is ALL ABOUT THE MONEY~!!! It is NOT about helping children and families but rather helping themselves to the children of our families.

Want FACTS to support what I am saying? I'm sure you already have them and probably know them like the back of your hand, but just in case you should need them, I will gladly show you just how ILLEGALLY your caseworkers are operating in your CPS offices. I can personally show you the FACTS of 2 such offices and each being in a different county. This is "par" for the whole State of Texas. How brave are you to sit down and face me with the FACTS in black and white??? I even have admission by 2 of your workers committing to Medicaid FRAUD. Oh but FRAUD when committed by your workers is acceptable even though it's breaking the LAW. Right???? Nothing was done to them when I turned it in so obviously, that's acceptable practice within the agency, just like all the other ILLEGAL actions that are never questioned nor dealt with.

So, in answer to the question, How is CPS doing???? ROTTEN~!!! CPS as is stands presently should be DESTROYED and a new system put it in place with some LEGAL checks and balances to prevent it from becoming the REAL ABUSERS of children and their families. CPS was designed and set up to PROTECT children from being abused and neglected. Well, well, NOW we have the total opposite of that. CPS IS NOW the ABUSER and NEGLECTOR. Caseworkers snatch the children, run with them, toss them into abusive foster homes, (and yes, I have proof of that too), start the process of PAS so that they can end their course of none to rare existant reunification with a TPR and then SELL the children into one of their adoption placements and collect the huge Federal Government Adoption Bonus Incentive for doing so. Legalized Black Market Child Trafficing. Cold hard TRUTH of what the TRUTH is. All of you sitting there in your high-up CPS offices who think we, the parents of this state and this country don't know what is going on and what you are doing, you best "think again".

WHY don't you start with these complaints and the TRUTH in these emails about what is going on and do a REAL INVESTIGATION into what your caseworkers are doing ILLEGALLY to your Texas Families. PUT BACK TOGETHER what they have shredded and destroyed, back-charge them for their collection of funds for the ILLEGAL cases they did, then PROSECUTE them for it~!!! The State Agency could then hire QUALIFIED Social Workers who would HELP the children and their families in the ways they need to be helped rather than destroy as many families as they can for the money, as is happening today.

CPS is ROTTEN to the very core and their work speaks for itself. I personally DARE you to open your door to the facts I hold in my hands that PROVE what I am saying. I shall wait and see if you bother to even respond to this letter, let alone face me to see the TRUTH and FACTS.


Gail Head
PO Box 392
Paradise, TX 76073

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Victims of Another War: The Aftermath of Parental Alienation.

Press Release -

((Ok so I just found out this was a press relase TWO years ago- Hmmm now I need to find out what this movie was about and why it wasn't shown in a theater near you? Ohh yeah I know why!

It goes against certian politics Pfttttttttttttttttt ))


Debut Screening of Cutting-Edge Documentary Premiers October


The bonds between parents and children are powerful, but how does a child respond when a parent twists those bonds vindictively to hurt the other parent? A new documentary aims to answer that question and give victims a voice.

Since 2000, the International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children (ICMEC) and its affiliate organization Parents & Abducted Children Together (PACT) have been working together to combat international child abduction and on October 5, at 6:00 p.m., ICMEC will proudly host the U.S. debut screening of the groundbreaking PACT film "Victims of Another War: The Aftermath of Parental Alienation."

In the documentary, three victims of parental alienation and/or international parental kidnapping convey through their own words and photographs, the psychological impact their ordeals have had on their childhoods and adult lives. It's the first time a film has tackled head-on this intimate form of family violence.

The screening will take place in the Jimmy Ryce Law Enforcement Training Center at the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) in Alexandria, Virginia.

The evening will begin with a catered reception and opening remarks by:
• Honorable Arnold I. Burns, ICMEC Chairman.
• Ernie Allen, ICMEC President and CEO.
• Lady Meyer, PACT Founder, victim parent, and wife of the former British Ambassador to the United States.
• Glenn Gebhard, the documentary's producer and director.

After the screening, an unprecedented panel – comprised of a "taking" parent and victims of parental alienation – will discuss their experiences and answer audience questions.

Anticipated attendees include foreign embassy representatives; members of the International Child Abduction Attorney Network; and delegates from the Congressional Caucus on Missing & Exploited Children and the Senate Caucus on Missing, Exploited, and Runaway Children. Representatives are also expected from the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S.

Department of State, as well as Board Members of ICMEC and NCMEC.**


**Media representatives are asked to rsvp to Christina Portz at 703-837-6329 or Space is limited.

The International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children (ICMEC), founded in 1998 and launched by the U.S.-based National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, works to identify and coordinate a global network of organizations fighting child sexual exploitation and abduction.

ICMEC's work brings promise to children and families by: establishing a global resource to find missing children and prevent child sexual exploitation; creating national centers and affiliates worldwide; building an international network to disseminate images of and information about missing and exploited children; providing training to law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, legal professionals, non-governmental organizations, and government officials; and advocating for changes in laws, treaties, and systems to protect children worldwide.

Parents & Abducted Children Together (PACT) is a non-profit organization registered in both the United States and the United Kingdom. PACT was founded in 1999 by Lady Meyer, when she was living in Washington, D.C. with her husband, then British Ambassador to the United States.

PACT's mission is to fight parental child abduction internationally and, in partnership with law enforcement, to locate and retrieve missing children. PACT works with governments, legal authorities, law enforcement, the media, and other nonprofit organizations, not only to raise awareness of this growing problem, but also to find workable solutions for the protection of children. PACT's main focus is advocacy, policy, and research. PACT is an Associate of ICMEC.-

The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that works in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. NCMEC's congressionally mandated CyberTipline, a reporting mechanism for child sexual exploitation, has handled more than 340,000 leads. Since its establishment in 1984, NCMEC has assisted law enforcement with more than 116,000 missing child cases, resulting in the recovery of more than 94,000 children.

For more information about NCMEC, call its toll-free, 24-hour hotline at 1-800-THE-LOST or visit


Communications DepartmentNCMECMedia LIne703-837-6111

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Have the numbers increased since this article

REFRESH - Go to Home-Page

When are they going to leave our children alone and let them be children?

I don't think that will be anytime soon- people wake up stop having children for the system to bring in money to the States!

We are NOT allowed to raise our children anymore- why have them- unless you are ready to hand them over to CPS at any given moment they decide they want them.

Sorry to burst your bubble- but don't think your a better parent than the rest of us that have been abused by this system YOUR NOT!

It has nothing to do with how good or how bad of a parent you are- ask them (tongue in cheek- they'll tell ya)- EVERY PARENT deserves to have their child taken away and placed on psychotropic drugs, and when they are done with the low income parents and they have ripped all of those children out of good homes do you really believe they wont hit the middle income homes? HA think again- the money machine needs to be fed and every child is fair game!

Is your child next?

Although some of these insane stories happen in one State or another- don't kid yourself IT IS HAPPENING IN EVERY STATE!

This article is from 2003- I would love to see which direction these numbers have gone..

I wouldn't be surprised if they continue to rise!

Fred Baughman, Jr., MD

John Breeding, PhD


The mission of the US Dept of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, has always been some notion of protecting our nation's children from abuse and neglect. The federal state, as parens patriae, has gradually come to embrace, through evolution of our moral code and attendant law concerning the rights of children, its duty to assure these children's rights. Each of these United States has an agency anointed to fulfill this mission, commonly known as Child Protective Services (CPS).

At one point during a meeting of "interested parties" to discuss a CPS reform bill this year in the Texas legislature, the CPS legal counsel clarified for someone who thought that it might help to have a police officer act in concert with a CPS worker in certain situations, "CPS IS THE LAW." Child Protective Services acts with the authority of law. So just as with the importance of oversight and monitoring to ensure that needed police services do not go over that slippery slope into experiences of violation of civil liberties or police brutality, so is oversight and monitoring of Child Protective Services necessary.

Many think that state Child Protective Services have evolved into rogue agencies.

This article will briefly mention the general practices of overzealous intervention which have resulted in this charge being leveled at CPS. The main purpose of this essay, however, is to discuss a very specific concern. We believe that CPS agencies are doing consistent grievous harm to children and families, beyond the general dynamics of overzealous intervention. We believe that many thousands of families are being threatened, coerced and broken, not only for possible physical and sexual abuse, but for reasons having to do with the enforcement of the pseudoscientific beliefs and attendant tragic and dangerous practices of our nation's mental health system. The power of the state is enforcing the false beliefs and dictates of biological psychiatry, pressuring, coercing and breaking up the families of parents who reject the psychiatric diagnoses and psychotropic drugs for their children.

Furthermore, the state, through CPS and foster care, is wreaking havoc on the children who it is supposed to be removing from harm's way and making safe by systematically placing them on toxic, dangerous, addictive drugs. We will provide general background and specific examples to illustrate our assertion. First, however, a very brief history of Child Protective Services.


The history of foster care as child protection is quite recent, expanding into its modern core component as a result of a law passed by Congress in 1961. As the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform (NCCPR) points out in a Child Welfare Timeline on their website (, this law allowed AFDC payments to follow a child into foster care. As such payments were previously made only to children in their own homes, this made foster care much cheaper for states and localities. This shift in funding facilitated a rapid growth in foster care. Another effect, perhaps unintended, was to undermine any emphasis on family preservation and restoration. By the late 1970s the number of children in foster care had reached 503,000. In 1980, Congress passed one of the last initiatives of the Carter Administration, the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980. The law worked so well that within a few years, this first federal effort to deal with foster care byencouraging permanence-including, but not restricted to keeping families together-cut the foster care population by more than half to 243,000.

As the NCCPR timeline clearly reveals, this tension between placing children out of the home and preserving and restoring the family has proven to be the decisive struggle in Child Protection. As a result of decisions made during the Presidencies of Reagan and the senior Bush, undermining of support for family preservation and strengthening of incentives for foster care placement effectively reversed the trend just described. The result is that as of September 2001, we have an estimated 542,000 children in foster care. The rate has continued to grow despite a decrease in statistics reporting incidence of crime and child abuse.

NCCPR position paper # 5, "Who Is In The System-And Why," reports 2001 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services data that, "Out of every 100 children investigated as possible victims of abuse, six are 'substantiated' victims of all forms of physical abuse, from the most minor to the most severe, about three more are victims of sexual abuse. Manyof the rest are false allegations or cases in which a family's poverty has been confused with neglect."

The Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act was not repealed, but its intent has been destroyed. CPS still offers rhetoric emphasizing family restoration as central to its mission, but practice across the country shows that it is very clearly not a priority-so much so that there is now a growing public outcry and outrage. Victims and critics report that the CPS structure is set up as preemptive, adversarial and denying of even minimal protections and safeguards for families. They say that CPS agencies do little if anything to support the possibility and reality of family preservation and restoration. A host of activist groups are challenging CPS. Perhaps the clearest and most thorough work detailing the structural and practical problems of CPS is being done by the National Coalition of Child Protection Reform, led by Attorney Richard Wexler (

Many think that state child protection agencies become rogue agencies, tromping on family rights, accountable to no one, and doing more harm than good. Families are crying out, the press is publishing stories of children abused and neglected under state care, and legislators are working in consideration for major reforms. Consider that the CPS agencies in four of our nation's largest population states are being investigated as evidence of this crisis in Child Protection.


ARichard Wexler reports Florida Department of Child and Family Services data that there were only 8,467 foster children at the end of Fiscal Year 1998, rising to 10,431 a year later. By January 2000, the figure already had risen to 13,862. The 2001 figure is between 15,000 and 18,000. Over 3 years, the increase is between 75 percent and 112 percent. NCCPR attributes this dramatic increase to a phenomenon dubbed "Child Abuse Panic,' whereby whenever a child is killed who CPS was aware of but not able to intervene, there results a panicked, zealous going after children.

The resultant situation in Florida has been horrendous. ( The system is overwhelmed, and children in foster care are being hurt and neglected in many ways. The state is reeling as more and more of the abuses are being revealed. Here are just a few of the results described in the NCCPR report on Florida:

· Caseworkers wound up carrying up to eight times the recommended caseloads. One foster care counselor had 135 cases.·

Foster parents took in as many as ten children at a time.[i][38] Ivor Groves, the nationally-recognized child welfare expert, said in a sworn affidavit that the Broward system "is dangerously out of control.

These are the worst conditions I am aware of in a child welfare system."And what is happening to these children?·

A three-year-old girl, left alone in a crowded foster home, was beaten so badly she suffered a concussion. Her attacker was a 14-year-old boy with a history of violence.

· In another foster home, the same child's older brother, age seven, was molested.· An 11-year-old was lured away from her foster home by another foster child, then gang-raped by three men.

· An eight-year-old was sexually abused in his ninth foster home placement, an overcrowded home with at least 11 children who ranged in age from 14 months to 14 years old. He had been moved after the previous foster mother allegedly told her own children to hit the boy with coat hangers on his legs and buttocks - so the marks wouldn't show.


Wendy McElroy of Fox News (Tuesday, October 14, 2003) reports that "The California child welfare system is such a disaster that even the state's Department of Social Services admits families are aggressively torn apart and children unnecessarily placed in foster care." The agency director, Rita Saenz, is quoted in a Sept. 25 press release as saying that, "The original vision for supporting and healing families through the child welfare system has deteriorated into an adversarial and coercive approach.

" McElroy reports: "The result is that in L.A. County alone, more than 160,000 children 'came into contact' with Child Welfare in 2002; 30,000 are in foster homes-only one form of foster care. David Sanders, head of the L.A. County Department of Children and Family Services, reports that as many as half of those foster children could have stayed at home with 'appropriate services' rather than removal.

Thus, an L.A. Daily News headline declared that children are being 'rushedinto foster care,' where many remain." Due to legal intervention, led in part by lawyers from the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law (, an attempt at sweeping reforms is underway.


In the Spring of 2003, one of us witnessed a legislative hearing in Texas considering a major reform bill for CPS. Though the bill did not pass, many parents told stories of abuse and coercion; the hearing was a scathing indictment that CPS was out of control in a way very similar to the manner in which Rita Saenz described her California agency above.

On the financial side, consider the October 19, 2003, report by Doug Swanson in the Dallas Morning News. He revealed the most recent foster care scandal, regarding a group called Daystar, which appears to be amassing huge profits while providing very inadequate care for children.

The state Department of Regulatory Services oversight and monitoring of this foster care situation reveals a very problematic pattern. State Representative Suzanna Gratia Hupp is quoted in the article, as saying simply "There's no accountability.

" What is very clear is that the money flows are huge: Daystar received 3.5 million dollars from the stateof Texas last year, and 3.9 million from California.

The Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, Carole Strayhorn, is now conducting a Review of the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services. This should be a very interesting investigation.

As Swanson reported, the state of Texas pays treatment centers as much as $101,105 a year per child.

This last piece of data is the key to understanding the shift toward more and more children in foster care, and less and less emphasis on family preservation and restoration. Observers of this trend attribute it to the fact that a county will only continue to receive funding for the period it keeps the child in its care. In various states, there is a "perverse financial incentive" to place and retain children in foster care rather than leave them in the home. Incentives are set up for maximum intervention. NCCPR issue paper # 5 informs us that, "The National Commission on Children found that children often are removed from their families 'prematurely or unnecessarily' because federal aid formulas give states 'a strong financial incentive' to do so rather than provide services to keep families together."

CPS and Psychiatry

There is one more very significant piece to this ugly puzzle of child protection turned family destruction and state havoc and unaccountability.

It is not limited to the domain of child protection, but it certainly saturates that field.

By definition, children taken under state care are having a hard time, or will be as soon as they are separated from family.

In the United States today, young people in trouble are mostly explained in one simple way.

They are considered to be "mentally ill"

emotionally disturbed, suffering from some sort of psychiatric disorder like ADHD or conduct disorder, or depression, or bipolar disorder, or any of a host of other diagnoses.

And since our mental health system of institutionalized psychiatry believes that mental illness is biologically or genetically based, the solution of using powerful psychotropic drugs to "treat" these mental illnesses is called the practice of medicine.

We are observing that a very high percentage of children in foster care are placed on psychiatric drugs. It is hard to get the precise data because it has not been routinely collected, but here is a glimpse from two of our more populous states.


The Miami Herald (Carol Miller, 9-17-02) reports that the Florida Statewide Advocacy Council (an arm of the Department of Children and Families) conducted a two-year investigation of 1,180 foster children.

The Council's r(eportmonth) found that more than 50% of the children-including 17 preschoolers-were on psychiatric drugs that had not been approved by the FDA as safe for children.

Incredibly, 44% of these mostly Medicaid children had not been seen by a doctor, and 59 children had no diagnosis, while another 143 children had a diagnosis described as "other.''


New York is one more state whose child protective services are in disarray and controversy. Their agency, called Administration for Children's Services (ACS) has recently undergone a state audit. Doug Montero (New York Post, 4-22-01) reports that ACS (apparently like all states) doesn't know how many of its children are on psychiatric drugs.

Nevertheless, also like other states, complaints arise on a regular basis. Montero writes that a state audit of 401 randomly selected children found that more than half were being treated for "mental problems." In today's mental health climate, that almost always means drugs.

Again, according to Montero, advocates say that the rate of psychiatric drug treatment for foster children is closer to 90%.

Where data is reported, we get rates of over 50% of children in foster care on psychiatric drugs. Many think the actual incidence is considerably higher than 50%. Considering that a pretty good estimate of the incidence of psychiatric drug use in the overall school age population in the United States is about 8,000,000 children, which is approximately 15% of our children, these rates are not so surprising (Breeding, 2000).

The numbers are shocking, nevertheless, especially when one confronts the indisputable truth that there is no scientific evidence that allows for an objective test of a specific physical or chemical abnormality for any of these alleged psychiatric illnesses.

As one example of the truth of this assertion, the NIH Consensus Conference Report (November 18, 1998) on the most popular of child psychiatric diagnoses concluded that,

"...we do not have an independent, valid test for ADHD, and there are no data to indicate that ADHD is due to a brain malfunction."

Incredibly, the involvement of psychiatry and foster care goes beyond the ubiquitous presence of psychiatric labels and drugs for our children. To truly understand the depth of the entanglement, it is necessary to address the concept of custody relinquishment.

Custody Relinquishment

Custody Relinquishment refers to the situation whereby a parent "voluntarily" relinquishes or turns over the custody of a child to the state. One would think that a parent's voluntary giving up of a child would be extremely rare, occurring only under severe hardship and duress.

According to a report in Clinical Psychiatry News (May 2000), however, it is actually quite common, supposedly because gaining access to mental health care for children is so difficult that parents often give up custody to ensure care. The Bazelon Center for Mental Health reports, "Approximately 2-4.1 million children, aged 9-17 years have a serious mental or emotional disorder. Last year, 23% of parents of children with behavioral disorders were told that they needed to relinquish custody to obtain intensive mental health services of their children; 20% actually gave up custody." (italics ours)

Two years later, the same newsletter (Clinical Psychiatry News, June 2003) reports that, "Thousands of US families have been forced to choose between obtaining mental health services and relinquishing custody of their children with mental or emotional disorders, according to a new report by the General Accounting Office. The GAO estimated that in fiscal year 2001, 12,700 children in 19 states and 30 counties were placed into the child welfare or juvenile justice systems so they could receive mental health services. This understates the extent of the problem, since officials of 32 states did not provide the GAO with data."

This second report says "thousands of US families" while the earlier one said that "approximately 2.1-4.1 million children" have a serious psychiatric disorder, and that 23% of these parents "were told that they needed to relinquish custody to obtain intensive mental health services for their children; 20% actually gave up custody." At the time, then, .483 million to .82 million were told they needed to relinquish custody and relinquished custody. This suggests that hundreds of thousands to a million or more U. S. families have been told they should relinquish custody and have done so.

Informed Consent

The term relinquishment implies voluntary action on the part of the parents, with informed consent and understanding of the facts of the situation. These assumptions cannot actually be met for a number of reasons, having to do both with the structure of Child Protective Services, and with the "customary and usual" practice of child psychiatry. The structure of Child Protective Services is such that parents are on the defensive. We repeat the quote cited above from California child welfare director, Rita Saenz said, "The original vision for supporting and healing families through the child welfare system has deteriorated into an adversarial and coercive approach." There is good reason to be distrustful of any nice sounding rhetoric of voluntariness.

Even more to the crux of the matter, however, are the flawed assumptions and dangerous practices of psychiatry. The psychiatric industry makes two basic claims, both of which are completely unproven. They claim (1) that children with the likes of Attention Deficit Disorder, Conduct Disorder, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, Bipolar Disorder, Oppositional Defiant Disorder-DSM psychiatric diagnoses-have actual diseases. They claim (2) that these "diseases" require necessary "treatment," (i.e., psychiatrists and drugs.) Further, they claim that if parents cannot afford such necessary treatment, and if such treatment can only be gotten for the child by a government or government-affiliated payer scheme (such as Medicaid) that requires that the child be a ward of the state, then the only responsible thing for the simply-biologic parent to do, would be to relinquish custody. Such action puts the payer on line to reimburse those who utilized the billing bible of psychiatry-theDSM-and who prescribe the psychopharmaceutical "medicines".

We have written in detail elsewhere about informed consent and the psychiatric drugging of children (Breeding & Baughman, 2001, 2003)-about the denial and minimization of harmful effects of psychotropic drugs, about the inadequacy and bias of FDA drug testing, and about the real dynamics of pragmatics and power that drive the engine of psychiatry. The biggest violation, however, remains the lie that occurs every time a parent is told their child has an actual disease (or its euphemistic equivalents like disorder). In order to clearly understand how informed consent is systematically violated, one must be fully aware, regarding psychiatry and psychopharmaceuticals, that were it not for presumption of "diseases" (for which these exists today no scientific evidence in the form of an objective indicator validated in the scientific literature), there could be no medical psychiatry. Instead, we would be speaking only of normal human beings and of their humane care and nurturing.Without the presumption of disease, we would be talking of a tyrannical state kidnapping children and drugging those normal children. And here is what it would look like.


Although coercion of families to drug their children is happening all over the country, we will begin this section with the stories of four New York families that can attest to the fact that parents are increasingly being accused of child abuse or neglect and threatened with removal of their child from the home if they refuse to give their child prescribed psychiatric drugs. Jill and Michael Carroll were concerned that their son, Kyle, was sleeping only five hours a night and eating only one meal a day. So they told school officials they wanted to take Kyle off the Ritalin for two weeks to see if that helped. Sounds reasonable, but that's when they got a call, and then a visit, from a Child Protective Services worker, based on a complaint from Kyle's school guidance counselor. The charge was "Child Abuse," in the form of "medical neglect." The Albany Times Union (May 7, 2000) reported that the Carrolls were placed on a statewide list of alleged child abusers, and found themselves "thrust into an Orwellian family court battle to clear their name and ensure their child isn't removed from their home." Two months later (July 19) the Albany paper made it clear that the court had ordered the Carrolls to resume giving their 7-year old son Ritalin. The county Department of Social Services, which had filed child abuse charges on grounds of medical neglect, dropped the charges when the Carrolls agreed to put Michael back on the drug. In another case the next year, Tammy Kubiak of Buffalo, New York, lost custody of her 12-year-old son for taking him off of three psychiatric drugs which she reports were making him "zombie-like." The court took custody of her son based on the allegation she is incompetent because she rejected the existence of ADHD and oppositional defiance disorder (ODD) as actual diseases. She subsequently lost all of her children to the State.

The third story of New York parents being threatened and coerced by Child Protective Services and the courts was reported on MSNBC on (August 23rd, 2003) : "When Patricia Weathers decided to take her son off Ritalin, school officials dismissed him from school and called Child Protective Services to investigate her family for medical neglect and truancy." The article goes on to validate the fact that, "she is not alone. A growing number of parents are finding themselves pressured by teachers and administrators to keep their children medicated or keep them out of the school." The Weathers agreed to put their son, Michael, on "medication;" he was on Dexedrine and Paxil. When Michael began experiencing hallucinations from the Paxil, a drug that has been recalled in Ireland, banned in the United Kingdom, and banned for under age 18 in Connecticut, they took him off of that. The school continued to insist that Michael be kept on the Dexedrine, but the Weathers consulted with Dr.Mary Ann Block, author of No More Ritalin, and a physician who helps many families get their children off psychiatric drugs. They discovered their son was anemic and had certain allergies. They told school officials that they were no longer going to medicate their son, and the school called CPS. A full investigation was launched, but the Weather's documented material from Dr. Block was enough to back them off. On July 2, 2003, United States Federal Judge of the Southern District of New York, Judge William Conner, ruled that the Weathers' lawsuit against the schools and the doctors will be heard in federal court (see Doug Montero, New York Post, 8-7-02).

The story of Cindy Gallagher and her son, Daniel also begins in New York. The first part of her story is quite similar to that of the others. It was a variation on the theme of schools pressuring a parent to label and drug a child, and calling in Child Protective Services on accusations of medical neglect when the parent resists or refuses. In Cindy Gallagher's case, she took her children out of New York and started homeschooling Daniel. According to Ms. Gallagher, "he not only blossomed, but started to become a joy to have around, easy to handle, and a normal child." Would that the story would go on in such a happy way. In a March 27, 2003 note to Dr. Baughman, however, she reports the following:

"Last Thursday, sir, I took my boys back to New York to visit their sister, and the law guardian demanded I leave my sons in New York pending a psychiatric revue and medication of my son. Even though I proved that I was providing my son with homeschooling and working with the Roanoke School systems for Daniel, the law guardian refused to listen, stating I was an unfit mother, endangering Daniel's psychiatric welfare by not drugging him and having him in counseling with a psychiatrist.

"Sir, there is nothing wrong with my son. He was a victim of brain damage and needed a different kind of teaching, that's all. He is a JOY to have around now, yet New York Child Protective and the law guardian snatched my boys from me and gave sole custody to their abusive father who's already crying uncle and begging me to take them back. The law guardian, Frank Filetto, refuses to allow my sons to come home to Roanoke where they are happy, healthy, fed, clothed, and under excellent care. My heart is completely broken now, I've fought this school system and Child Protective for five years. IS THERE ANYTHING you can do to help me? I KNOW my son is NOT a psychiatric patient, he's NOT in need of psychiatric care or medications. He simply needed boundaries that we gave him. Surely there must be a law that is on the side of the parents? Surely a law guardian cannot have that much pull to keep children away from a mother who doesn't beat them, mistreat them and wants nothing todo with medications, and has proven her child is not in need of it? "

It is very clear from these cases that failure to accept psychiatric labeling and drugging of your child will be called "negligent" and very possibly lead to loss of custody of your child, or---as with Tammie Marie Kubiac of Buffalo, NY-all of your children. This is our government and courts at all levels. We believe it is clearly driven by the economics of Big Pharma (see references). There are very many more stories we could share of parents who have been coerced to drug their children, and of families broken up when parents refuse to drug their children. The story of Diane Booth and her son, Vincent, is one of the worst.This story has been previously published in the March 26, 2003 Education News

Diane Booth

The ordeal of Vincent Booth and his mother, Diane, began as it almost always does, in every school district in the US-with teachers diagnosing ADHD, presently the number one "disease" in the country. Teachers from the Sunnyvale School District decided not only that 6-year-old Vincent had ADHD, but that he needed Ritalin as well. Not only did teachers, never having been to medical school, make the diagnosis, they presumed it was their right, duty, and competence, as well, to designate the medication he needed-in this case, an addictive, dangerous, sometimes lethal medication-Ritalin. When Diane, the natural, legal, mother rejected their diagnosis and treatment, they called in Child Protective Services, and pronounced her "negligent." By order of the juvenile court, they made Vincent a ward of the State of California (case # JD 1110), institutionalized, diagnosed, and drugged him. Vincent was six years old, and, up to that point, healthy and normal.

Vincent was held at the Eastfield Ming Quong, a locked, children's holding facility at one time used to force social services on California's Chinese immigrant children. Placed on Ritalin, Vincent developed tics-involuntary movements-a complication of Ritalin, never witnessed previously. He also had bruises and bumps-signs of physical abuse. Diane complained, but to no avail. Next, she took matters into her own hands. In desperation, and at her son's request, she fled to Canada with him on July 5, 2000, and applied for refugee status. Two months later the FBI apprehended them in British Columbia and tore Vincent from her side while he screamed for help that his mother wasn't allowed to give him. For the past 2 ½ years Vincent has been a child of the State of California, held at the Eastfield Ming Quong, getting treatment for the multiple "diseases" psychiatry says he has with the multiple drugs psychiatry says he needs.

Throughout the 2 ½ years no member of Diane's family was allowed to have contact with Vincent, and Diane remained a fugitive until she tired of life on the run and turned herself in to authorities in Okanagan, Washington, in January, 2003.

Diane has since been extradited to Santa Clara County where she has been unable to make bail and remains incarcerated at the Elmwood Correctional Center for Women. While the FBI has seen fit to drop all charges against her, Santa Clara County, not wishing to be charged themselves, still presses felony, child endangerment and child stealing charges against her, that could result in up to 8 years in prison-all of it, mind you, for loving and her only child, her normal son, Vincent.

Diane began to correspond with Dr. Baughman through his web site,, about two years ago when she was still in Canada, seeking refugee status there. Based on her description of events (a scenario repeated in every school, in every state, every single day) and medical records, there is no doubt that Vincent was a medically, neurologically normal child at the time psychiatric diagnosing and labeling began, and until the always-injurious, psychiatric drugging began. Vincent's psychiatric incarceration, ordered by his new "parent," Judge Leonard P. Edwards (parens patriae), assured it would always be thus.

In the summer of 2002, his diagnoses-all psychiatric, not actual diseases, were Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (DSM-IV 309.81), Oppositional Defiant Disorder (313.81) with Generalized Anxiety Disorder (300.82), ADHD, and episodic enuresis (314.01). As is usual in psychiatry, not only did Vincent have multiple "diseases," but he was administered multiple psychiatric medications as well-each known to brain damaging, none known to target a proven brain abnormality/disease. They were Buspar, Zoloft and Respirdal, an antipsychotic-an especially potent brain poison. As of June, 2002 Vincent was said to display "tics (author's note: probably a persisting side effect of Ritalin, but Respirdal commonly causes involuntary movements, as well, known as tardive dyskinesias), severe anxiety, fearfulness, impulsivity, hyper-vigilance, poor adult-child relationships, tantrums and aggression toward staff and peers." Furthermore, a case manager wrote: "Vincent is socially immature and oftenfunctions in a regressed, primitive, unsociable manner, sometimes at a 2 or 3 year level." What if Vincent had been normal and free, living in the protective, loving care of his natural mother, Diane? What if he had been allowed to be the normal child he was, not imprisoned and drugged-a psychiatric patient-in-perpetuity?

To illustrate the difficulty in challenging this coercive system, consider the following.

On December 10, 2002, before Diane's desperate return to the US, Baughman wrote to Judge Edwards:

" Having said to parents or authorities with jurisdiction over a child (parens patriae) that ADHD is a disease; one requiring medication, without which the child's health and life are at risk, abrogates the informed consent rights of this child and his mother, and, in fact, the informed consent rights of the judge/court adjudicating this case. For it's part, the judge/court had a duty to ascertain not just the prevailing practice in the community, but the state of the science concerning so-called ADHD, before enforcing dangerous, addictive, medications and separating physically normal children from their natural parents. What was done to this child in 1999, and is still being done, in Santa Clara County, in the State of California in the name of psychiatric "treatment" has been nothing but psychologically and physically damaging. .All treatments for diagnoses not those of real, verifiable, diseases, should be .withdrawn. At the same time.Vincent should be returned to hismother. who has shown no inability to care for him and make responsible health care decisions.All physicians and professionals who have misrepresented the true nature of ADHD and any other psychiatric "diseases" to this parent and child (Diane and Vincent Booth) and to yourself, having had parens patriae responsibility for Vincent, should be reported to the Medical Board of California for having .abrogated their rights to informed consent; this being tantamount, in the instance of physicians to medical malpractice; and in the instance of educational personnel and other non-physicians (psychologists) to the practice of medicine without a license."

Baughman ended his letter thus: "Do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of any further help to you in this or related matters."

Judge Edwards did not reply.

Therefore, Baughman wrote to him a second time, February 6, 2003, making both letters to him the substance of a State of California, "Suspected Child Abuse Report" charging not that Diane Booth was guilty of abusing her son, Vincent, but that Santa Clara County and the State of California and all their agents and agencies were. Baughman wrote:

" From 1970 to the present, the US Congress has sequentially held hearings and passed laws that have legitimized calling psychological/psychiatric/mental symptoms-diseases-when they are not, resulting in the needless medicalization of the lives of 8-10 million US children-Vincent Booth just one of them. In all of these hearings, our Congressmen heard testimony from members of the American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the NIH, NIMH, and NIDA and chose to believe their every incredible, anti-scientific, claim that psychiatric/psychological/mental conditions were medical/physical/organic abnormalities--actual diseases. Never once in all of these 32 years did they looked beyond the incredible claim for physical proof, as surely they would do, were it there own child, in the privacy of their own physician's office.. Vincent, his mother and her family are just one of the six or so million ADHD patients in the US who have beenlead by mainstream psychiatry, pediatrics and medicine, to believe that ADHD is an actual disease, a life-long disease, one for which they absolutely must be treated with one psycho stimulant or another. Like all the rest, Vincent, his mother and family are victims-still of what is the greatest health care fraud of modern history. I truly hope that some court will see and acknowledge the terrible wrongs and injuries done here and summarily free Vincent and his mother and reconcile them. The damage done can never be undone but at least this will be a start."

Again, there has been no response from Judge Edwards. Nor has the "SUSPECTED CHILD ABUSE REPORT" been acknowledged. Neither has the declaration on behalf of Diane Booth (BOOKING# 03007942, PFN# DPN183, P.O. Box 60910, Elmwood Correctional Center for Women, Milpitas, CA) submitted to the court, been accepted by the court.

So we have a neurologically normal child, now on several dangerous, damaging drugs for a long time, and torn away from his mother. And we have a mother in jail for her effort to defend her son-all in the name of child protection.

The pattern has become tragically familiar-families unnecessarily broken, children suppressed and neurologically damaged by psychotropic drugs, addicted, and more seriously disturbed than when CPS became involved. The CPS mission of family restoration is left in forsaken shambles.

A Texas Case

Consider the case of Evan, for which one of us (Breeding) is now acting as the family psychologist. He was removed from his mother, Mary, in the summer of 2001, along with his brother, Ricky, on charges of neglect. The CPS argument is highly debatable, and it was highly debated as Mary found a lawyer who helped them. We are not discussing Evan's case, however, as another example of zealous overreaching by CPS; we hope we have made that point already. Rather, we wish to illustrate another, related consequence of the customary and usual CPS practice of placing a very high percentage of children in foster care on psychiatric drugs. Ricky was returned to Mary's mother, Pam, within a few months, and a little later to Mary, but Evan was kept in foster care, ostensibly because mother and grandmother could not handle him. After two years, he was released into the grandmother's care on a trial basis, but kept under CPS custody. CPS was monitoring the situation, with a placementhearing scheduled in 5 months.

This is a very common scenario, and it has a few special features. The most obvious is, of course, the oversight of CPS, and their retained power to remove Evan from the home at any time; there is tremendous pressure on all of the family, and ongoing fear that something might go wrong. As with most children in this situation, Evan was on three different psychiatric drugs, and had been for the entire time he was in foster care. He was taking 18 milligrams of Concerta in the morning, a long acting form of methylphenidate, even though his last doctor suggested he did not have ADHD. He was on 1000 mg of Depakote, said to be a mood stabilizer for so-called bipolar disorder, taking 500mg in the morning and 500mg at night. And he was on 1 mg of Risperdal, an "antipsychotic", taking .5mg in the morning and .5 mg at night. This is higher than the recommended dosage for an adult!

This was an extremely difficult situation. For the therapist, the immediate danger condition was the long-term drug use. Methylphenidate is bad enough as it is well known to stunt growth (and Evan is short for his age), and affects virtually every organ system of the body (Eberstadt, 1999), and many have actually dropped dead after several years of Ritalin use. There were almost 200 Ritalin-related deaths (mostly cardiovascular) reported to the FDA in the 1990s. This voluntary reporting system is estimated by experts to reflect only 1 to 10% of the actual incidence, which means up to 20,000 Ritalin-related deaths in the last decade. Depakote is considered a very dangerous drug; regular blood tests are recommended as liver damage is a well-known effect of the drug. Worst of all is the Risperdal. This class of neuroleptics (eg., Risperdal, Thorazine, Haldol and Zyprexa) is proven to have unleashed the largest epidemic of neurological disease in history in the form of Tardive Dyskinesia and related syndromes such as neurological malignancy, seen in hundreds of thousands of adult mental patients who have been taking drugs like Thorazine (Breggin, 1991). In his recent new book, Mad in America, Robert Whitaker puts forward the latest powerful wakeup call on the sordid tale of systematic brain damage for the sake of profit. It is absolutely shocking to see the data reported by Dorsey Griffith in the Sacramento Bee (6-23-02): a 281% increase, from 329,000 to 1,253,000 in the number of prescriptions for antipsychotic drugs for children. We are giving stronger and stronger psychiatric drugs to more and more children, even infants and toddlers. And CPS is playing a big part in this disgrace.

As a therapist or ally to this child and his family, the drugs are the prime danger condition. Yet the source of this danger is the agency whose mission is to protect the child. To Nevyn and his family, the main danger is the lingering threat of CPS and another breakup of the family. Nothing that might trigger Nevyn's removal may be risked, and CPS and its contracted psychiatrist think Evan needs to be on all these drugs. And as described above, they mean it!

Any movement to wean Evan off of these drugs must be approached with caution, and there are further complications. Although Evan was sent home on all these drugs, there was no arrangement with a physician to monitor his well-being, no arranged blood tests to check on his liver function. The CPS psychiatrist who prescribed the drugs could barely be reached, after some persistence, to get a refill on a couple of the drugs. The family is on Medicaid, and many doctors will not accept Medicaid. Many pediatricians who do accept Medicaid, will still not go near messing with a dangerous drug cocktail like this. Grandmother Pam took Evan to at least one pediatrician who would not touch the challenge of supporting Evan's drug withdrawal. Yet Evan cannot be weaned without an MD approval and oversight, or else the family risks CPS taking him back for acting without a doctor. Finally, after Evan had been home for over two months, Pam got an appointment with a neurologist, who agreed tohelp, and a gradual drug withdrawal was begun.

But it is even more complicated, because there are always the expected major challenges with transition to home and school-all the relationship challenges at school and family, all the unprocessed feelings, all the adjustments on every level. And Evan had his share. With all the pressure and fear, it is exceedingly difficult. Every wrong move, every trouble sign at home or school, especially at school, triggers fear, and the understandable tendency is to come down on Evan. And his understandable tendency is to get defensive. Or the tendency is to blame any problem on the alleged mental illnesses and immediately ask whether he has taken his drugs today. Like most young people we have worked with, Evan has been known to "hop" his pills. They make him sleepy, or queasy, or he gets fed up and doesn't want them. And he happens to act up on one of these days. Maybe it is an effect of not taking the drugs that day...who knows for sure? What we do know is that biopsychiatry haspulled off an incredible magic trick, whereby once individuals are labeled mentally ill, they and everyone around them are absolved of responsibility. A child who is not acting right in whatever fashion is immediately asked, "Have you taken your Ritalin (or whatever drugs) today?" The family, schools, community, CPS, psychiatrists, everyone is absolved, because the problem is explained-the child has a genetic or biological defect, that is the source of the problem, and the best we can do is keep it under control with "medicine." Everyone stops thinking, and the tough issues are avoided.

Evan's is a very difficult situation, with immense pressure on every angle, even without the drug issue. The fact that this boy is on a polypharmaceutical cocktail of toxic, brain-disabling drugs, makes it excruciatingly difficult. It is actually impossible to separate any of Evan's behavior from the effects of the drugs he is taking. Edginess, restlessness, aggression, sleepiness, irritability, impulsiveness, difficulty concentrating-you name it; all are known effects of these drugs. And drug withdrawal is difficult under the best of circumstances, much less under pressure and duress. Doctors and lay people alike tend to interpret effects of drug withdrawal as evidence of the "mental illness" and need to be on the drugs. Yet to leave him on all these drugs is outright dangerous. Evan's story is still in process, but at least he is off the Risperdal.


An estimated 8 million school age children in the United States are on psychiatric drugs today. That means we are giving very powerful, extremely dangerous psychotropic substances to about 15 % of our country's children between the ages of 5 and 19. The drugging of children first came to the country's attention in 1970 when the U. S Congress was alarmed enough by the news that 200,000 school children were taking Ritalin to call for an investigative hearing on the issue. Since that time, we have witnessed a 4000% increase in the number of children on psychiatric drugs in the U.S. The trend of the last few years to use these drugs on preschoolers and toddlers, even one-year-olds, further reveals the unconscionable disgrace we are witnessing in this country. Regardless of the extent to which our leaders and large segments of our general population have become so numbed and confused by the constant onslaught of psychopharmaceutical propaganda celebrating the alleged medicalnecessity of giving psychoactive drugs to children, these numbers are astounding.

We also know that the primary conduit of children into psychiatry is through the schools. Not only are school employees affected by psychiatric propaganda just like anyone else in this country, but also they are specifically trained to look for "diseases" like ADHD. They select children out, pressure parents to get a psychiatric evaluation and get their child on a psychoactive drug. We have seen a growing incidence of parents being threatened with accusations of medical neglect when they resist or refuse psychiatric intervention, and we have seen what happens when Child Protective Services is called in and violates a family's life. We know that psychiatry is coercive at its root, and that this coercion has taken root in the schools and Child Protective Services.

Our systems are still mostly broken and wrong-headed. Nevertheless, we see hopeful signs. There is very good news available for those interested in CPS reform. We highly recommend the NCCPR website for an overview of the issues, and recommended reforms. The states of Michigan and Alabama, and the Allegheny county run system in the area of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, are wonderful examples of highly successful family preservation programs.

Good news is also available on the coercive psychiatry front. There has been a huge wave of political activity across the country in the last four years as a result of committed activists, and especially due to the influence of aggrieved parents who have decided to fight back for themselves and on behalf of all families. An inspiring example of this is the coalition of parents who formed a group called Parents for a Label and Drug Free Education. Four parents started this group. Sheila Matthews was pressured by a Connecticut school to label and drug her child, fought back and led the charge for a precedent-setting legislation in Connecticut in 2001 that not only prevents school personnel from coercing or recommending that parents drug their children, but also backs off CPS from being able to accuse parents of medical neglect simply because they refuse to drug their child. Another eight related bills were introduced the next year. Patty Weathers was coerced to drug her childin New York, fought back, was threatened by Child Protective Services, fought back, got support, went on national television, eventually won and has taken leadership in the fight to protect other children and families. Larry Smith and his wife Kelly were bullied and harassed for years by psychiatry and the schools. In March of 2000, they lost their son, Matthew, to heart failure due to several years of Ritalin usage. Larry's website,, has educated countless people on the dangers of psychiatric drugs to children. In February of 2001, Vicki Dunkle's beloved 8-year-old daughter, Shaina, died in her arms of Desipramine toxicity (prescribed for "ADHD") as she and her husband Steve watched helplessly. Now they are fierce activists, appearing on national television and testifying to political leaders in Washington. There are others in this group, and all have a story. The Able Child parents, together with allies around the world, are determined to stop thepsychiatric drugging of children, and all the lies and coercion that go with such an ugly business. See the website,, for information about these brave leaders, their activism, and a record of political actions around the country.
The political activity started as a result of the leadership of Patti Johnson in 1999, a member of the Colorado State Board of Education who convinced her fellow Board members to pass a precedent setting Resolution, which asked school personnel to use academic solutions to resolve problems with behavior, attention and learning, rather than psychotropic drugs. Since then, enormous progress has been made on the issue of protecting children and their families from forced psychiatric labeling and drugging, and to monitor the prescription rate of stimulants and other psychiatric drugs for children. Through 2002, there have been 46 state bills or Resolutions; including the Colorado Resolution, in 28 states, that have either passed, or are still pending action, across the United States. Connecticut, Minnesota, and Texas have passed laws explicitly stating that a parent's refusal to consent to the administration of a psychotropic drug to a child does not constitute neglect,therefore is not in itself grounds for CPS investigation. Other states have passed related laws either monitoring or curbing CPS policy in this area. Many states are pursuing related legislation as the wave of activity continues to expand. Many of these laws relate to prohibiting coercion in schools to have a child put on psychiatric drugs; several establish investigations and/or tracking systems for children being psychiatrically labeled and drugged; others increase parental consent rights; still others eliminate the threat of parents being criminally charged with "medical neglect" if they refuse to place their child on a psychiatric drug.

We conclude this essay with a piece of exciting news. A new federal bill is drawing nationwide attention to the psychiatric drugging of children. If passed into law, the Child Medication Safety Act (H.R. 1170) would prohibit schools from coercing parents to drug their children. The U.S. Congress is considering this historic legislation largely as a result of the wave of activism in state legislatures around the country. This act has already passed the House of Representatives by an overwhelming 428-1. The Senate is now considering H.R. 1170. All of these efforts are reflective of a push to back off the coercion, and restore common sense and thoughtful care and support to our nation's children and families.

REFERENCESBreeding, J. (2000) Does ADHD Even Exist? The Ritalin Sham. Mothering, July/August, pp. 43-47.

Breeding, J. & Baughman, F., Jr. (2001) The Ethics of Informed Parental Consent to the Psychiatric Drugging of Children. Ethical Human Sciences and Services, 3,3,

Breeding, J. & Baughman, F., Jr. (2003) Informed Consent and the Psychiatric Drugging Of Children. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 43,2, 50-64.

Breggin, P. (1991) Toxic Psychiatry: Why Therapy, Empathy, and Love Must Replace the Drugs, Electroshock, and Biochemical Theories of The New Psychiatry. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Eberstadt, M. (1999) Why Ritalin Rules. Policy Review, 94, 24-44.