The Medicating of America
by Maureen Kennedy Salaman
President, National Health Federation
June 2006
Nobody is Safe
Whatever you choose to call them: psychotropic, neuroleptic, or psychoactive drugs, Americans have become so complacent about, and dependent upon, psychiatric medications that some parents are using them to chemically restrain their children and teenagers.
A two-year investigation by the Florida Statewide Advocacy Council found that more than 50 percent of Florida's foster children ‑‑ including infants and toddlers ‑‑ were being given mind‑altering drugs. Forty-four percent of them had not been seen by a pediatrician, and of those who had, five percent had no diagnosis. Another 12 percent had a diagnosis of "other," which included hearing impaired, bed-wetting and the dubious, subjective diagnosis of "adjustment disorder."
The Medicating of America
The drugs given the children were designed to treat schizophrenia, major depression, and bipolar disorder. In young growing bodies these drugs can cause heart problems, growth suppression, psychosis, and decreased blood flow to the brain. A common side effect is tics or shakes. For more on this horror, read the chapter on Tardive Dyskinesia in my book, All Your Health Questions Answered Naturally.
It is estimated that today more than six percent of American children are taking some kind of psychiatric medication. Not surprisingly, among teenagers this number is even higher.
A 2006 Brandeis University study found that over a seven-year period (1991-2004), psychotropic drug prescriptions for teens increased by 250 percent. The study revealed that in 2001 one in every ten office visits by teenage boys led to a prescription for a psychotropic drug, and a diagnosis of ADHD was given one‑third of the time. Also, up to 26 percent of the time when these medications were prescribed, no mental health diagnosis was made.
A new phenomena -- school shootings -- may be related to this increased use of psychotropic drugs as many shooters were on psychotropic drugs at the time.
According to the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), a psychiatric watchdog group, eight out of 13 school shootings, such as the Columbine High School shooting in 1999, were committed by teens on psychiatric drugs. Mothers on these drugs have killed their children or even cut off the arms of their baby while taking these drugs.
Kip Kinkel, a 15-year-old youth who killed his parents and then killed two and wounded 22 of his fellow students at Thurston High School in Oregon, was taking Prozac.
Eric Harris, one of the shooters at Columbine High in Littleton, Colorado, was under the influence of Luvox (fluvoxamine), an antidepressant medication. The potential side effects of Luvox are listed in the manufacturer's warning: "Frequent" adverse effects include "manic reaction" and psychotic reaction." Symptoms of mania include delusions of grandeur, intense irritability, and rages and delusional thoughts.
Fifteen‑year‑old Shawn Cooper of Notus, Idaho fired a shotgun at students and school staff. According to his stepfather, he had been taking a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI).
Thirteen‑year‑old Chris Fetters of Iowa killed her favorite aunt. She was taking Prozac.
In 2001, Christopher Pittman killed his grandparents while taking Zoloft, an antidepressant similar to Prozac.
Ann Blake Tracy, Ph.D., author of Prozac: Panacea or Pandora?, has been studying the violent, dark side of SSRIs such as Prozac, Paxil, and Zoloft drugs for over ten years. When she examined 32 murder/suicides involving women and their children, she found that in 24 of 32 cases an SSRI drug was involved.
A report issued by the Drug Enforcement Agency warned that Ritalin, commonly prescribed for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, "shares many of the pharmacological effects of . . . cocaine." Some experts believe Ritalin can cause psychotic reactions resulting in suicide and violent behavior toward others.
A particularly sharp rise among children being prescribed psychotropic drugs has been noted after 1999, when the federal government began allowing pharmaceutical companies to advertise their drugs directly to consumers. Between 1996 and 2000, pharmaceutical companies increased their spending on television advertising six fold, to $1.5 billion.
The National Institute on Drug Abuse reported in 2005 that while teen use of cigarettes and illegal drugs are down, the abuse of prescription sedatives or painkillers is up significantly.
A brain imaging study found that the brains of teenagers are still developing, and that psychotropic drugs can endanger the growth process. One of the last parts of the brain to completely mature is the prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain responsible for planning, judgment, and self‑control. When taken during this acute phase of growth, mind-altering drugs may keep young people from ever developing self‑control and good judgment. This brings us to the prevalence and risks of psychotropic medications and what happens when self-control and good judgment are lost.
The Risks for Suicide
In 2003, children and adolescents made up about eight percent of patients prescribed antidepressant drugs in the U.S., constituting over ten million prescriptions dispensed for patients younger than 18 years. These drugs included Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Wellbutrin, and Celexa.
In September 2004, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) researchers analyzed 24 clinical trials involving 4,582 pediatric patients taking antidepressant medications for depression, anxiety, or other psychiatric disorders. They concluded that patients taking antidepressants were twice as likely as patients taking placebo (fake) pills to experience suicidal thoughts or attempt suicide.
A month later, the FDA issued a Public Health Advisory to warn the public about the increased risk of suicidal thoughts and behavior in children and adolescents being treated with antidepressant medications. The FDA called for the labels of all antidepressants to have a "black box" warning about this risk. The new warning, by the way, does not recommend they not be used by children and adolescents.
Interestingly enough, the FDA black-box decision came some ten months after regulators in England had declared that most antidepressants are not suitable for children under 18.
Adults, too, are at risk. In February 2005, a study of data from 702 controlled clinical trials involving 87,650 adult patients found that those taking antidepressant drugs were twice as likely to attempt suicide as those receiving a placebo dummy pill or other treatments.
The FDA now admits that people being treated for depression should be cautious when taking antidepressants.
On June 30, 2005, the FDA issued a Public Health Advisory release entitled, "Suicidality in Adults Being Treated with Antidepressant Medications." The advisory states: "Several recent scientific publications suggest the possibility of an increased risk for suicidal behavior in adults who are being treated with antidepressant medications" and warns: "Adults being treated with antidepressant medications, particularly those being treated for depression, should be watched closely for worsening of depression and for increased suicidal thinking or behavior."
Drugs to treat psychosis are also associated with suicide. A study published in the British Journal of Psychiatry (v.188, 2006) compared suicide rates associated with schizophrenia from 1875 to 1924, when antipsychotic drugs were not as prevalent, and from 1994 to 2003, when patients were commonly treated with psychotropic drugs.
The researchers found that the suicide rate for schizophrenia between 1875 and 1924 was 20 per 100,000 hospital years, a lifetime rate of less than 0.5 percent. For the modern drug era, the lifetime suicide rate was found to be as high as 18 percent. The study concluded, "These findings point to an increase in suicide rates for patients with schizophrenia."
An article by Robert Whitaker in Medical Hypothesis (v.62, 2004), entitled "The Case against Antipsychotic Drugs: a 50-year Record of Doing more Harm than Good," states that, "Forty percent or more of all schizophrenia patients would fare better if they were not so medicated . . . (patients) may be no better than they were 100 years ago, when water therapies and fresh air were the treatment of the day."
A shocking study was recently conducted in which young people were given the anti-psychotic drug Zyprexa to treat them for schizophrenia, even though they had not yet developed the disorder. The study was financed by Zyprexa's manufacturer, Eli Lilly, and the National Institute of Mental Health. It was so poorly conducted and dangerous that most participants dropped out before the study could be concluded. How did Eli Lilly and the Institute determine who should be study participants? They used a scale that assessed risk for psychosis, with behaviors considered symptomatic (and normal in teenagers) such as suspiciousness, grandiosity, and bizarre thoughts.
There are many, many studies showing that pharmaceutical drugs used to treat mental illness are detrimental at best and deadly at worst. In countries where drugs are used the least, patients do the best.
The World Health Organization (WHO) piloted a study that compared schizophrenia outcomes in "developed" and "developing" countries. It began the study in 1968, and examined 1,202 patients in nine countries. At both two‑year and five‑year follow‑ups, the patients in the poor countries were doing much better. The researchers concluded that schizophrenia patients in the poor countries "had a considerably better course and outcome than (patients) in developed countries"
A follow-up WHO study found that 63.7 percent of patients in poor countries did well at the end of two years. In contrast, only 36.9 percent of patients in the U.S. and six other developed countries did well at the end of two years. The researchers concluded that "being in a developed country was a strong predictor of not attaining a complete remission."
Although the WHO researchers didn't say why developed countries were unsuccessful in treating their mentally ill, they did note that in the developing countries only 15.9 percent of patients were continuously maintained on psychotropic drugs, compared to 61 percent of patients in the U.S. and other developed countries.
This backs up U.S. research that shows that these drugs induce brain changes that make people more biologically prone to psychosis.
Dr. Courtenay Harding has conducted studies that show patients who do not use psychiatric medications on a long‑term basis are the most likely to recover from schizophrenia.
In the Vermont Longitudinal Study of Persons With Severe Mental Illness, of the 68 percent of people diagnosed with schizophrenia who recovered, 50 percent never took psychiatric medications and another 25 percent only took them periodically to control symptoms.
Ties That Bind - The DSM
If drugs don't work and actually harm people, if the studies and research show this, if people don't like them -- why are physicians prescribing them, why are people buying them, and why are pharmaceutical companies so rich?
When considering the mental health of their patients, physicians and psychiatrists use the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th. Edition. Better known as the DSM‑IV, the manual is published by the American Psychiatric Association and covers conventionally recognized mental-health disorders, causes, gender and age statistics, and prognoses as well as research and treatment approaches.
The DSM is used by medical practitioners and is the industry's bible. The information contained in it is the final word for the practice of conventional psychiatry in the United States and other "developed" countries. If a treatment option or diagnosis is not written in its pages, it is not used or considered.
The manual is also tremendously important to pharmaceutical companies, as the Food and Drug Administration will not approve a drug to treat a mental illness unless the condition is in the DSM. Once a condition is included in the manual, drug companies can then market the "approved" medications to physicians and consumers.
The original 1952 DSM manual contained 107 mental-health disorders. The most recent edition identifies 365.
In a not-so-shocking revelation, it was recently uncovered that every one of the psychiatric "experts" who provided information about disorders typically treated with pharmaceuticals -- mood disorders, schizophrenia, and other psychotic disorders -- benefitted financially from drug companies, and those ties were especially strong where drugs were recommended as a first-line treatment. Most of the money received by the DSM‑IV experts was for research. Other financial perks included speaking or consulting fees, ownership of company stock, gifts, and paid travel expenses.
The DSM uses research to back up its treatment recommendations, which would be appropriate if the findings were objective and unbiased. However, many of the "experts" who conducted the research have such close ties to pharmaceutical goals that the research and its conclusions should be considered invalid.
For example, Eli Lilly & Company was seeking to market its drug Prozac® (fluoxetine hydrochloride) to treat premenstrual syndrome (PMS); but first PMS had to be considered a psychiatric disorder. Five of the six researchers charged with this task had ties to Eli Lilly. Of course, a new disorder to cover this problem was conveniently recognized. In November 1999, the FDA’s Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee unanimously recommended approval of Eli Lilly’s Prozac for the treatment of "premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD)," a "severe" psychiatric form of PMS.
However, since the patent on Prozac had expired, Eli Lilly got the FDA to approve their drug Serafem for the treatment of PMDD. Prozac and Serafem are the exact same drug. While the patent on Prozac has expired, the patent -- and the profits -- on Serafem are protected until 2007.
Once a patent expires, a generic form of the drug may be manufactured, with considerable cost savings to a consumer. I looked at the Internet website www.drugstore.com and did some cost comparisons. Thirty 20-milligram capsules of brand name Prozac costs $129.96. Thirty 20-milligram capsules of the same drug – generic Fluoxetine HCl -- costs $15.99. Twenty-eight 20-milligram capsules of Serafem costs $110.99.
Big Money at Stake
The financial benefits are so incredibly large that it is not surprising to find pharmaceutical giants entrenched in institutional bias and industry manipulation.
According to a research paper entitled "Mental Health Policy and Psychotropic Drugs," the amount of money spent on psychotropic drugs grew from an estimated $2.8 billion in 1987 to nearly $18 billion in 2001 (Coffey et al. 2000, Mark et al. 2005), and the amount spent on psychotropic drugs has been growing more rapidly than what has been spent on drugs overall (IMS Health 2005).
Consumer spending on antidepressant and antipsychotic medications grew 11.9 percent and 22.1 percent, respectively, in 2003, whereas spending on drugs overall grew at 11.5 percent in 2003 (IMS Health 2005).
Antidepressants were the fourth leading class of drugs in 2004 with annual global sales totaling $20.3 billion. Antipsychotics, the fifth leading class, had annual sales totaling $14.1 billion ‑‑ and are projected to increase to $18.2 billion by 2007. It has been estimated that the profit on all psychotropic drugs in 2006 will reach $35 billion.
Old-Fashioned Medicine
When I was growing up doctors knew best, and they were considered father figures. We trusted physicians to know us well and treat us well. I am afraid that when physicians are trapped in the profit-driven HMO insurance system they are little more than pawns for healthcare providers and pharmaceutical companies.
We are now in an age where we must fight for old-fashioned medicine. We must be willing to fight for our right to choose our medical care, and be willing to pay for it. As physicians and pharmaceutical companies push pills aggressively on every front, we must be cautious, and we must be knowledgeable. Do not trust the diagnosis, the doctor, or the documentation. Consumers and "crazies," beware. You are probably not as sick as they think.
http://www.thenhf.com/health_freedom_news_56.htm
.
Isabella Brooke Knightly and Austin Gamez-Knightly
In Memory of my Loving Husband, William F. Knightly Jr. Murdered by ILLEGAL Palliative Care at a Nashua, NH Hospital
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Poor Children More Likely to get Antipsychotic Drugs
Poor Children More Likely to get Antipsychotic Drugs
December 14, 2009 by JP
New York Times
By Duff Wilson
New federally financed drug research reveals a stark disparity: children covered by Medicaid are given powerful antipsychotic medicines at a rate four times higher than children whose parents have private insurance. And the Medicaid children are more likely to receive the drugs for less severe conditions than their middle-class counterparts, the data shows.
Those findings, by a team from Rutgers and Columbia, are almost certain to add fuel to a long-running debate. Do too many children from poor families receive powerful psychiatric drugs not because they actually need them — but because it is deemed the most efficient and cost-effective way to control problems that may be handled much differently for middle-class children?
The questions go beyond the psychological impact on Medicaid children, serious as that may be. Antipsychotic drugs can also have severe physical side effects, causing drastic weight gain and metabolic changes resulting in lifelong physical problems.
On Tuesday, a pediatric advisory committee to the Food and Drug Administration met to discuss the health risks for all children who take antipsychotics. The panel will consider recommending new label warnings for the drugs, which are now used by an estimated 300,000 people under age 18 in this country, counting both Medicaid patients and those with private insurance.
Meanwhile, a group of Medicaid medical directors from 16 states, under a project they call Too Many, Too Much, Too Young, has been experimenting with ways to reduce prescriptions of antipsychotic drugs among Medicaid children.
They plan to publish a report early next year.
The Rutgers-Columbia study will also be published early next year, in the peer-reviewed journal Health Affairs. But the findings have already been posted on the Web, setting off discussion among experts who treat and study troubled young people.
Some experts say they are stunned by the disparity in prescribing patterns. But others say it reinforces previous indications, and their own experience, that children with diagnoses of mental or emotional problems in low-income families are more likely to be given drugs than receive family counseling or psychotherapy.
Part of the reason is insurance reimbursements, as Medicaid often pays much less for counseling and therapy than private insurers do. Part of it may have to do with the challenges that families in poverty may have in consistently attending counseling or therapy sessions, even when such help is available.
“It’s easier for patients, and it’s easier for docs,” said Dr. Derek H. Suite, a psychiatrist in the Bronx whose pediatric cases include children and adolescents covered by Medicaid and who sometimes prescribes antipsychotics. “But the question is, ‘What are you prescribing it for?’ That’s where it gets a little fuzzy.”
Too often, Dr. Suite said, he sees young Medicaid patients to whom other doctors have given antipsychotics that the patients do not seem to need. Recently, for example, he met with a 15-year-old girl. She had stopped taking the antipsychotic medication that had been prescribed for her after a single examination, paid for by Medicaid, at a clinic where she received a diagnosis of bipolar disorder.
Why did she stop? Dr. Suite asked. “I can control my moods,” the girl said softly.
After evaluating her, Dr. Suite decided she was right. The girl had arguments with her mother and stepfather and some insomnia. But she was a good student and certainly not bipolar, in Dr. Suite’s opinion.
“Normal teenager,” Dr. Suite said, nodding. “No scrips for you.”
Because there can be long waits to see the psychiatrists accepting Medicaid, it is often a pediatrician or family doctor who prescribes an antipsychotic to a Medicaid patient — whether because the parent wants it or the doctor believes there are few other options.
Some experts even say Medicaid may provide better care for children than many covered by private insurance because the drugs — which can cost $400 a month — are provided free to patients, and families do not have to worry about the co-payments and other insurance restrictions.
“Maybe Medicaid kids are getting better treatment,” said Dr. Gabrielle Carlson, a child psychiatrist and professor at the Stony Brook School of Medicine. “If it helps keep them in school, maybe it’s not so bad.”
In any case, as Congress works on health care legislation that could expand the nation’s Medicaid rolls by 15 million people — a 43 percent increase — the scope of the antipsychotics problem, and the expense, could grow in coming years.
Even though the drugs are typically cheaper than long-term therapy, they are the single biggest drug expenditure for Medicaid, costing the program $7.9 billion in 2006, the most recent year for which the data is available.
To continue reading this report, go to:
http://www.ktradionetwork.com/2009/12/14/poor-children-more-likely-to-get-antipsychotic-drugs/
December 14, 2009 by JP
New York Times
By Duff Wilson
New federally financed drug research reveals a stark disparity: children covered by Medicaid are given powerful antipsychotic medicines at a rate four times higher than children whose parents have private insurance. And the Medicaid children are more likely to receive the drugs for less severe conditions than their middle-class counterparts, the data shows.
Those findings, by a team from Rutgers and Columbia, are almost certain to add fuel to a long-running debate. Do too many children from poor families receive powerful psychiatric drugs not because they actually need them — but because it is deemed the most efficient and cost-effective way to control problems that may be handled much differently for middle-class children?
The questions go beyond the psychological impact on Medicaid children, serious as that may be. Antipsychotic drugs can also have severe physical side effects, causing drastic weight gain and metabolic changes resulting in lifelong physical problems.
On Tuesday, a pediatric advisory committee to the Food and Drug Administration met to discuss the health risks for all children who take antipsychotics. The panel will consider recommending new label warnings for the drugs, which are now used by an estimated 300,000 people under age 18 in this country, counting both Medicaid patients and those with private insurance.
Meanwhile, a group of Medicaid medical directors from 16 states, under a project they call Too Many, Too Much, Too Young, has been experimenting with ways to reduce prescriptions of antipsychotic drugs among Medicaid children.
They plan to publish a report early next year.
The Rutgers-Columbia study will also be published early next year, in the peer-reviewed journal Health Affairs. But the findings have already been posted on the Web, setting off discussion among experts who treat and study troubled young people.
Some experts say they are stunned by the disparity in prescribing patterns. But others say it reinforces previous indications, and their own experience, that children with diagnoses of mental or emotional problems in low-income families are more likely to be given drugs than receive family counseling or psychotherapy.
Part of the reason is insurance reimbursements, as Medicaid often pays much less for counseling and therapy than private insurers do. Part of it may have to do with the challenges that families in poverty may have in consistently attending counseling or therapy sessions, even when such help is available.
“It’s easier for patients, and it’s easier for docs,” said Dr. Derek H. Suite, a psychiatrist in the Bronx whose pediatric cases include children and adolescents covered by Medicaid and who sometimes prescribes antipsychotics. “But the question is, ‘What are you prescribing it for?’ That’s where it gets a little fuzzy.”
Too often, Dr. Suite said, he sees young Medicaid patients to whom other doctors have given antipsychotics that the patients do not seem to need. Recently, for example, he met with a 15-year-old girl. She had stopped taking the antipsychotic medication that had been prescribed for her after a single examination, paid for by Medicaid, at a clinic where she received a diagnosis of bipolar disorder.
Why did she stop? Dr. Suite asked. “I can control my moods,” the girl said softly.
After evaluating her, Dr. Suite decided she was right. The girl had arguments with her mother and stepfather and some insomnia. But she was a good student and certainly not bipolar, in Dr. Suite’s opinion.
“Normal teenager,” Dr. Suite said, nodding. “No scrips for you.”
Because there can be long waits to see the psychiatrists accepting Medicaid, it is often a pediatrician or family doctor who prescribes an antipsychotic to a Medicaid patient — whether because the parent wants it or the doctor believes there are few other options.
Some experts even say Medicaid may provide better care for children than many covered by private insurance because the drugs — which can cost $400 a month — are provided free to patients, and families do not have to worry about the co-payments and other insurance restrictions.
“Maybe Medicaid kids are getting better treatment,” said Dr. Gabrielle Carlson, a child psychiatrist and professor at the Stony Brook School of Medicine. “If it helps keep them in school, maybe it’s not so bad.”
In any case, as Congress works on health care legislation that could expand the nation’s Medicaid rolls by 15 million people — a 43 percent increase — the scope of the antipsychotics problem, and the expense, could grow in coming years.
Even though the drugs are typically cheaper than long-term therapy, they are the single biggest drug expenditure for Medicaid, costing the program $7.9 billion in 2006, the most recent year for which the data is available.
To continue reading this report, go to:
http://www.ktradionetwork.com/2009/12/14/poor-children-more-likely-to-get-antipsychotic-drugs/
The Ugly Facts About Adhd Medication
Dec13
The Ugly Facts About Adhd Medication
By Meds .
You may be shocked to know that the FDA (The Food and Drug Administration) had to issue a warning to doctors and pediatricians across the nation about psychostimulant drugs used in ADHD medication. They have warned of possible heart complications and even a risk of severe psychiatric symptoms which may develop in children who have been prescribed with these drugs. One of the drugs Strattera has been associated with suicidal thoughts in some children and adolescents. I could only shake my head in disbelief when I discovered that Strattera is only for adults with ADHD!
Another ADHD drug, Adderall was withdrawn in Canada because of the dangerous side effects.
It is interesting to note that a ADHD child may well have a parent who is suffering or has suffered in the past from ADHD – some experts say that there is a 30% – 40% chance. There is a strong hereditary link.
What side effects are common in these psychostimulant drugs for children? The most widely prescribed are Attenta, Ritalin, Adderall, Concerta. Children may have sleep disorders and they may suffer from stomach upsets. There are also problems of irritability. The fact that a child has to undergo an electrocardiogram, just in case of possible cardiovascular problems should set off alarm bells ringing in parents’ minds! Is the cure worse than the disease?
As regards heart related complications, the Pediatrics Journal claims there is a 20% chance of children reporting these problems if they are on these drugs. Fortunately heart attacks or seizures are rare. And yet we know that there has been an incredible spike in the numbers of children being prescribed these drugs.
Michael Phelps the Olympics swimming champion has recently been added to the list of famous people who suffered from ADHD when he was a child. While this is very positive for children with ADHD to identify with a successful role model, there is too much hype in some circles claiming that ADHD can be an advantage! We know that Michael Phelps did not become successful because he had ADHD! We do not know to what extent Michael Phelps suffered from ADHD.
Many parents, just like me, are turning to natural remedies, especially when they know that there are too many risks involved in conventional ADHD medications. They are looking for natural herbal remedies which will both stimulate the brain (to help keep it focused) and reduce hyperactivity. At the same time, the herbs will soothe and calm the child.
You may want to check out the link below which will tell you all you need to know about how effective natural remedies are in treating ADHD and that they are a perfectly valid alternative to conventional ADHD medication- without any of the nasty side effects. And a lot cheaper!
Robert Locke is a Health enthusiast who specializes in Children’s Health. He has written extensively on ADHD.
Discover what ADHD Alternative Therapy is available.
http://www.zillarx.com/the-ugly-facts-about-adhd-medication/
The Ugly Facts About Adhd Medication
By Meds .
You may be shocked to know that the FDA (The Food and Drug Administration) had to issue a warning to doctors and pediatricians across the nation about psychostimulant drugs used in ADHD medication. They have warned of possible heart complications and even a risk of severe psychiatric symptoms which may develop in children who have been prescribed with these drugs. One of the drugs Strattera has been associated with suicidal thoughts in some children and adolescents. I could only shake my head in disbelief when I discovered that Strattera is only for adults with ADHD!
Another ADHD drug, Adderall was withdrawn in Canada because of the dangerous side effects.
It is interesting to note that a ADHD child may well have a parent who is suffering or has suffered in the past from ADHD – some experts say that there is a 30% – 40% chance. There is a strong hereditary link.
What side effects are common in these psychostimulant drugs for children? The most widely prescribed are Attenta, Ritalin, Adderall, Concerta. Children may have sleep disorders and they may suffer from stomach upsets. There are also problems of irritability. The fact that a child has to undergo an electrocardiogram, just in case of possible cardiovascular problems should set off alarm bells ringing in parents’ minds! Is the cure worse than the disease?
As regards heart related complications, the Pediatrics Journal claims there is a 20% chance of children reporting these problems if they are on these drugs. Fortunately heart attacks or seizures are rare. And yet we know that there has been an incredible spike in the numbers of children being prescribed these drugs.
Michael Phelps the Olympics swimming champion has recently been added to the list of famous people who suffered from ADHD when he was a child. While this is very positive for children with ADHD to identify with a successful role model, there is too much hype in some circles claiming that ADHD can be an advantage! We know that Michael Phelps did not become successful because he had ADHD! We do not know to what extent Michael Phelps suffered from ADHD.
Many parents, just like me, are turning to natural remedies, especially when they know that there are too many risks involved in conventional ADHD medications. They are looking for natural herbal remedies which will both stimulate the brain (to help keep it focused) and reduce hyperactivity. At the same time, the herbs will soothe and calm the child.
You may want to check out the link below which will tell you all you need to know about how effective natural remedies are in treating ADHD and that they are a perfectly valid alternative to conventional ADHD medication- without any of the nasty side effects. And a lot cheaper!
Robert Locke is a Health enthusiast who specializes in Children’s Health. He has written extensively on ADHD.
Discover what ADHD Alternative Therapy is available.
http://www.zillarx.com/the-ugly-facts-about-adhd-medication/
Lilly In Limbo...Randy Hart Rewrites History But Not The CPS Handbook
Lilly In Limbo...Randy Hart Rewrites History But Not The CPS Handbook
The Willard family has been trying for months to have their granddaughter returned to them. After lies by the department there was a second home study ordered. The results were phoned in to the grandparents today.
No one has a copy of the study yet. CPS wants you to suffer without the study in hand. I maintain they called just to feel the pain in some one's heart. I mean...if they had just mailed the study they could not have heard the cry in response. Why else would you have someone wait 8 months and then not just mail it to them. What was the rush except to be the bearer of bad news!
Three sins were recounted according to the messenger:
1. The grandparents rent and do not own a home,
2. The grandparents have had financial problems (bankruptcy a few years ago).
3. The grandmother reportedly is in poor health (unknown source). She is rumored to have breast cancer.
For the sake of consistency I mentioned to Randy Hart (apparently he still works there) that we don't take kids for reasons of renting...or financial condition...or over rumors.
"This is not our best work," said Hart to me.
"Then you should correct your errors and get it right," I said. (Good gosh...a child is in the balance here. Hart is the consummate ass cover for the department.)
Hart said that the department was making changes and the Stuth Case was a good example of that. O.K. so I went after him for that stupid statement and reminded him that the department argued for placement with the drunken foster adopt woman, in the court room, just 18 hours after the 4 year-old was removed on an emergency basis from the same foster woman from which they removed the child. All this proving that Mr. Hart is a revisionist when it comes to history. NO ONE CAN DEAL WITH SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT WANT TO MAKE CHANGES SUSAN. GET RID OF THE RIFF-RAFF. YOU WILL NEVER KNOW TRUTH WITH A GUY LIKE HART WASTING MY TIME AND YOURS.
So...then Hart proceeds to tell me the real reasons that Lilly will not be going back with the good grandparents that raised her from birth. All rumors....
Tune in tomorrow for the grandmother's defense. See again the differences in the way people are treated. See why maybe the hope was false. After all, if you can not correct your errors...but only justify them...you are dishonest to the people and should be replaced. We demand a higher standard and we demand a standard that is already set in law.
I suggested to Mr. Hart that the report had better state the facts of all the community service awards received by Mrs. Willard, the grandmother. He was pretty silent. I am guessing he has read the study though he claims he did not. And, he knows that he has to go back and put that stuff in there. It wasn't in the first home study either. I complained about it and posted pictures of the trophies on this blog. I am guessing they will use this blog to find the stuff....How funny is that?
Posted by State Senator Pam Roach at 11:28 PM
http://pamroachreport.blogspot.com/
The Willard family has been trying for months to have their granddaughter returned to them. After lies by the department there was a second home study ordered. The results were phoned in to the grandparents today.
No one has a copy of the study yet. CPS wants you to suffer without the study in hand. I maintain they called just to feel the pain in some one's heart. I mean...if they had just mailed the study they could not have heard the cry in response. Why else would you have someone wait 8 months and then not just mail it to them. What was the rush except to be the bearer of bad news!
Three sins were recounted according to the messenger:
1. The grandparents rent and do not own a home,
2. The grandparents have had financial problems (bankruptcy a few years ago).
3. The grandmother reportedly is in poor health (unknown source). She is rumored to have breast cancer.
For the sake of consistency I mentioned to Randy Hart (apparently he still works there) that we don't take kids for reasons of renting...or financial condition...or over rumors.
"This is not our best work," said Hart to me.
"Then you should correct your errors and get it right," I said. (Good gosh...a child is in the balance here. Hart is the consummate ass cover for the department.)
Hart said that the department was making changes and the Stuth Case was a good example of that. O.K. so I went after him for that stupid statement and reminded him that the department argued for placement with the drunken foster adopt woman, in the court room, just 18 hours after the 4 year-old was removed on an emergency basis from the same foster woman from which they removed the child. All this proving that Mr. Hart is a revisionist when it comes to history. NO ONE CAN DEAL WITH SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT WANT TO MAKE CHANGES SUSAN. GET RID OF THE RIFF-RAFF. YOU WILL NEVER KNOW TRUTH WITH A GUY LIKE HART WASTING MY TIME AND YOURS.
So...then Hart proceeds to tell me the real reasons that Lilly will not be going back with the good grandparents that raised her from birth. All rumors....
Tune in tomorrow for the grandmother's defense. See again the differences in the way people are treated. See why maybe the hope was false. After all, if you can not correct your errors...but only justify them...you are dishonest to the people and should be replaced. We demand a higher standard and we demand a standard that is already set in law.
I suggested to Mr. Hart that the report had better state the facts of all the community service awards received by Mrs. Willard, the grandmother. He was pretty silent. I am guessing he has read the study though he claims he did not. And, he knows that he has to go back and put that stuff in there. It wasn't in the first home study either. I complained about it and posted pictures of the trophies on this blog. I am guessing they will use this blog to find the stuff....How funny is that?
Posted by State Senator Pam Roach at 11:28 PM
http://pamroachreport.blogspot.com/
WA State Closing Down CPS...It Has Already Started
Sunday, December 13, 2009
WA State Closing Down CPS...It Has Already Started
There is legislation that is ready to pass but the rumor is that the state has not waited for the governor's signature. (Or, the governor has not waited for the legislation.)
It is a very bad idea to transfer CPS services over to a nonprofit agency because there will be no openness or accountability.
Right now a legislator can have a waiver signed by the complaining parties and then that legislator can make inquiries into the system. The citizen waives the right to privacy for the legislator. In making inquiries one learns how the process works. It allows the problems to surface and in that way new laws are proposed! It has been my experience that the current department takes no suggestions. Not one that I can see...yet. Nothing has changed. This move makes it worse.
If you don't know what is happening you do not know how to fix the problems.
I have been asking for transparency in government for years. And, CPS is the very agency that could benefit the most from openness. I said months ago that we need the public involved in solving the problems.
In a step that will bury, absolutely bury, the "how we handle" children in this state, CPS will be dissolved under the new regime and turned over to a nonprofit (Catholic Community Services, perhaps...was there an open bid process for this contract?)
This is definitely an area that should not be privatized. Will the way in which this transfer occurs guarantee openness? Will there be any legislative oversight? Will the press learn of the child deaths? Will the press learn of anything? Will legislators and the interested public know what is going on and will there be an ombudsman for an entity that is not a part of government?
Rumor has it that the governor has not waited for the legislation and is in the process of dismantling CPS in Yakima.
I will check it out in the morning. The legislation was being talked up last session. It is supported by the Senate Human Services and Corrections Chair and, I believe, the ranking member. Colleagues...DO NOT drive this agency underground and use the budget as the reason. It would only indicate to me that there will be more of the same and potentially worse. (Maybe I will get a call from CCS and get an explanation of how this will be better.)
Posted by State Senator Pam Roach at 7:36 PM
http://pamroachreport.blogspot.com/
WA State Closing Down CPS...It Has Already Started
There is legislation that is ready to pass but the rumor is that the state has not waited for the governor's signature. (Or, the governor has not waited for the legislation.)
It is a very bad idea to transfer CPS services over to a nonprofit agency because there will be no openness or accountability.
Right now a legislator can have a waiver signed by the complaining parties and then that legislator can make inquiries into the system. The citizen waives the right to privacy for the legislator. In making inquiries one learns how the process works. It allows the problems to surface and in that way new laws are proposed! It has been my experience that the current department takes no suggestions. Not one that I can see...yet. Nothing has changed. This move makes it worse.
If you don't know what is happening you do not know how to fix the problems.
I have been asking for transparency in government for years. And, CPS is the very agency that could benefit the most from openness. I said months ago that we need the public involved in solving the problems.
In a step that will bury, absolutely bury, the "how we handle" children in this state, CPS will be dissolved under the new regime and turned over to a nonprofit (Catholic Community Services, perhaps...was there an open bid process for this contract?)
This is definitely an area that should not be privatized. Will the way in which this transfer occurs guarantee openness? Will there be any legislative oversight? Will the press learn of the child deaths? Will the press learn of anything? Will legislators and the interested public know what is going on and will there be an ombudsman for an entity that is not a part of government?
Rumor has it that the governor has not waited for the legislation and is in the process of dismantling CPS in Yakima.
I will check it out in the morning. The legislation was being talked up last session. It is supported by the Senate Human Services and Corrections Chair and, I believe, the ranking member. Colleagues...DO NOT drive this agency underground and use the budget as the reason. It would only indicate to me that there will be more of the same and potentially worse. (Maybe I will get a call from CCS and get an explanation of how this will be better.)
Posted by State Senator Pam Roach at 7:36 PM
http://pamroachreport.blogspot.com/
NYC Family Court judge denies Child Protective Services permission to enter hotline subject’s home
NYC Family Court judge denies Child Protective Services permission to enter hotline subject’s home
December 15, 2009 by Dissent
Filed under Court, Youth
Daniel Weaver reports:
In a decision posted yesterday, Kings County Family Court Judge, Jeanette Ruiz, refused to grant the Administration for Children’s services permission to enter the home of J. Smith. Children’s Services had applied for a pre-petition ex-parte court order as part of an ongoing investigation which began when someone anonymously called the State Central Register hotline on J. Smith in July of 2009.
[...]
“No objective basis has been presented to the Court to show the CPS worker’s investigation cannot be completed because she needs to examine the home environment in order to make an adequate determination that the children are safe. Instead, on multiple occasions the CPS worker confirmed that the children were appropriately groomed and dressed and appeared well. They were attending summer camp and attending school with no reports or concerns raised by any of the mandated reporters who interacted with the children on an almost daily basis and who the CPS worker spoke to during the course of her investigation.
Moreover, the family’s refusal to permit the CPS worker into the home cannot be the sole basis for an order of entry into the home. The intent of the amendments to FCA 1034 as well as the plain language of the statute is to provide child protective investigators the tools they need to complete investigations where there is reason to believe a child’s life or health is in immediate danger, or where probable cause exists that a neglected or abused child may be found in the home and an assessment of the home environment is necessary to make an adequate determination that the child is safe. Here, petitioner’s application does not involve children who have not been seen or located, or where there is any reason to believe their life of health are in immediate danger, or any reason offered for the necessity to assess the home environment to determine their safety.”
Read more on Examiner.com.
December 15, 2009 by Dissent
Filed under Court, Youth
Daniel Weaver reports:
In a decision posted yesterday, Kings County Family Court Judge, Jeanette Ruiz, refused to grant the Administration for Children’s services permission to enter the home of J. Smith. Children’s Services had applied for a pre-petition ex-parte court order as part of an ongoing investigation which began when someone anonymously called the State Central Register hotline on J. Smith in July of 2009.
[...]
“No objective basis has been presented to the Court to show the CPS worker’s investigation cannot be completed because she needs to examine the home environment in order to make an adequate determination that the children are safe. Instead, on multiple occasions the CPS worker confirmed that the children were appropriately groomed and dressed and appeared well. They were attending summer camp and attending school with no reports or concerns raised by any of the mandated reporters who interacted with the children on an almost daily basis and who the CPS worker spoke to during the course of her investigation.
Moreover, the family’s refusal to permit the CPS worker into the home cannot be the sole basis for an order of entry into the home. The intent of the amendments to FCA 1034 as well as the plain language of the statute is to provide child protective investigators the tools they need to complete investigations where there is reason to believe a child’s life or health is in immediate danger, or where probable cause exists that a neglected or abused child may be found in the home and an assessment of the home environment is necessary to make an adequate determination that the child is safe. Here, petitioner’s application does not involve children who have not been seen or located, or where there is any reason to believe their life of health are in immediate danger, or any reason offered for the necessity to assess the home environment to determine their safety.”
Read more on Examiner.com.
CPS review of Houston cases targets caseworkers
YouNews™
CPS review of Houston cases targets caseworkers
by Associated Press
Posted on December 15, 2009 at 11:09 AM
Updated today at 11:09 AM
AUSTIN, Texas -- Risk and safety were properly evaluated in only about half of the Child Protective Services cases in the Houston region during an internal review.
Details are from a review of 95 randomly selected caseworkers conducted by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services.
The report, released Monday in Austin, found caseworkers regularly missed warning signs that children were in danger.
CPS spokesman Patrick Crimmins says workers always tried to keep children safely in their own homes or with their extended family, if possible.
Suggestions for improvement included using more of the agency’s "special investigators," those workers with a law enforcement background. Another recommendation is to enroll parents more quickly in parenting classes and substance abuse treatment.
Reports on other CPS regions of Texas are expected next year.
http://www.khou.com/news/local/CPS-review-of-Houston-cases-targets-caseworkers--79317002.html
CPS review of Houston cases targets caseworkers
by Associated Press
Posted on December 15, 2009 at 11:09 AM
Updated today at 11:09 AM
AUSTIN, Texas -- Risk and safety were properly evaluated in only about half of the Child Protective Services cases in the Houston region during an internal review.
Details are from a review of 95 randomly selected caseworkers conducted by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services.
The report, released Monday in Austin, found caseworkers regularly missed warning signs that children were in danger.
CPS spokesman Patrick Crimmins says workers always tried to keep children safely in their own homes or with their extended family, if possible.
Suggestions for improvement included using more of the agency’s "special investigators," those workers with a law enforcement background. Another recommendation is to enroll parents more quickly in parenting classes and substance abuse treatment.
Reports on other CPS regions of Texas are expected next year.
http://www.khou.com/news/local/CPS-review-of-Houston-cases-targets-caseworkers--79317002.html
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)