Domination           Schools cause nervous breakdown(s)

Riane Eisler in her new book “Tomorrows Children” points out how the “Domination Model” of our society is failing in society, schools, and business. Business’s that are successful use a ‘partnership’ model. This book is a bit technical, however she does show the positive application’s of “Partnership” and the destruction that “Domination” instigates.

Schools use the domination model by ‘’stroking’” various “factions”, such as the “jocks”, religious cults, (all religions are cults, definition; see) and the academically gifted. This leaves the vast majority of students in a disrespected, no account status. After experiencing the disease of oppression, which was inflicted upon them, the student rebels. This is the natural and historically validated response.

The schools have a responsibility to teach and practice the values of this country: Life, Liberty, Equality, and Justice.

Society is no better! Clicks, cults, and factions continue to dominate people. The present government should be guiding our youth (and ourselves) in partnership to this task of living. In partnership, we could accomplish much. Instead, our government has sought to “lock-up” virtually everyone who makes any error. (except themselves, see “Justice”)

If their philosophy is that nobody can learn from their mistakes, why are they spending billions on education?



1. Parents of bullied girl to sue state
Jan 18 2000 17:45:02

The parents of a student plan to sue the Victorian Education Department, alleging their teenage daughter was so traumatised by bullies that she has no option but to study by correspondence.

The legal claim, to be filed within weeks in the Country Court, alleges the girl, now 14, has developed a serious obsessive compulsive disorder caused by the school's inaction against bullies.

The girl, who was then in years 7 and 8, is now taking anti-depressants and is prone to self-mutilation.

Her father told The Age: "Her psychologist has put her in the same category of trauma as the Kosovo refugees."

The incidents occurred in 1997 and 1998 at Footscray City College.

The girl transferred to another state school last year but withdrew because she could not cope with schooling after her previous experience of bullying, her parents said.

The girl has detailed prolonged bullying at the college, which included name-calling and incidents where she was:

Kicked and punched by a gang of girls in the school gym during a sports session.

Threatened with being stabbed with a piece of dry pottery in art class.

Ordered by the bullies not to walk in certain parts of the school or sit in specified seats in class.

Being stalked in the school grounds and at the nearby Highpoint Shopping Centre.

The family's lawyer, Mr Rob Matthews, of the law firm Slater and Gordon, said it was "one of the most wanton cases of school neglect of a student who was crying out for help".

"As a result of the experience at Footscray City College she can never avail herself of the school system which the perpetrators can," Mr Matthews said.

Her parents, who have asked not to be named as it would identify their daughter, said they had repeatedly sought help from the school but the authorities had failed to respond adequately.

The college's final response, the girl's mother said, was to suggest they take their daughter out of the school. In desperation early last year the girl took out intervention orders in the Sunshine Magistrates Court against the two main bullies.

The state Education Minister, Ms Mary Delahunty, said she could not comment on the particulars of the case but noted the bullying had "occurred in a context when the Kennett Government was ripping resources out of our schools".

Ms Delahunty, back from holiday yesterday, said she was drafting a memorandum to all state schools to go out before the school year began reminding them that they were "required to have anti-bullying strategies".

This story was found at:



2. Delahunty warns schools on bullies
Jan 18 2000 23:10:43

The Victorian Government warned state schools yesterday that strategies for dealing with bullying were mandatory and that extra school funding allocated late last year should be used to improve student welfare services.

The Education Minister, Ms Mary Delahunty, said yesterday that a memorandum would soon be sent to all state schools reminding them that the establishment of methods for dealing with bullying were compulsory.

She also disclosed that she would meet on Friday with the Association of Independent Schools to discuss the problem of bullying.

The minister's remarks coincided with more parent allegations of school bullying.

One parent complained on talkback radio yesterday morning that his two daughters, enrolled at Melbourne Girls' Grammar, had been bullied. The man criticized the school, saying it had refused to deal with the incidents properly.

The parent, "Bruce", said on 3LO that both his daughters were being bullied, with the elder constantly attacked by a gang of girls from year 7 to year 10. "They'd grab her schoolbag when she was walking into the school, throw her books on the ground ... they'd say, `That's right, pick them up, dog'," he said.

"Three-quarters of the school isn't affected, but they're too scared to stand up. They'd stand by and watch my daughter being victimised and they wouldn't say anything."

Discussions with the school principal, Mrs Christine Briggs, had not been effective, he said. "They said, `Look we're not prepared to discuss this ... you just take your daughters to a psychologist.' I wanted the school to run a Transport Accident Commission campaign, putting posters (up) and run(ning) sessions in the classes."

In response to the radio allegations, Mrs Briggs issued a statement. "All allegations of bullying are addressed in accordance with the policies and procedures of Melbourne Girls' Grammar School ... consistent with those policies and out of a deep concern to protect the privacy of students involved. I will be making no further comment in the matter," she said.

Ms Delahunty said yesterday the State Government had added $12.2 million to the year 2000 school budget for schools to employ extra student welfare coordinators if necessary.

"Like all parents of school-aged children, I am alarmed at any bullying and want it stopped," she said.

"This Government is serious about tackling bullying ... we want to change the culture and provide a safe, supportive environment where students are free to learn and achieve.

"To its great shame, the Kennett Government took resources out of schools and student welfare suffered."

But the Opposition spokesman on education, Mr Phil Honeywood, said the Government's funds were not budgeted for primary schools. He said the offer fell well short of the $20 million the coalition had earmarked at the last election for 400 welfare officers.

``To blame the social problem of school bullying on any government is offensive to those who have suffered emotionally and physically as a result,'' he said.

Mr Honeywood said that mandatory reporting by teachers of bullying would be the ``ultimate sanction'' and should be examined. But a spokesman for Ms Delahunty, Mr Jim Tennison, said there were no plans for mandatory reporting.

A meeting of Camberwell Grammar parents whose sons have been bullied will press the school for a firm policy on the matter, a spokesman said yesterday.

This story was found at:

Story3. Ducking the blows in a bully's paradise
Jan 18 2000 01:00:51

AT MY first high school, a common act of bullying was knocking someone's bundle of textbooks out of their arms while they were waiting to enter class. I was a victim of this. I would pick up my folders and textbooks from the floor, knowing I was not the type to give the culprit the belt in the mouth I felt that he deserved.

The recent allegations of bullying at Camberwell Grammar reopened these memories. For me, bullying was mildly present at primary school, but it reached new levels at high school.

My experience, I have learnt, is not unusual. Research from the Centre for Adolescent Health at the Royal Children's Hospital shows that 53per cent of year eight students get picked on; in hindsight, the co-educational eastern suburban state school I attended fitted that average.

The bullying ranged from the theft of personal items through to insults, being spat at and, in addition to the book-knocking, physical assaults.

When I laughed at a classmate's error in a lunchtime ball game - par for the course at primary school - I copped a head butt to the face. Stunned, I walked off, ignoring my friend's exertion to hit the bully back. The incident was on everyone's lips when class began and all eyes were on me when I walked in, head down, embarrassed and teary. ``The kid's a wimp,'' said the bully, shrugging his shoulders and almost sounding apologetic.

Of course, many others in that year level received similar treatment. That was the nature of bullying at this school - it happened to so many, you felt powerless to stop it. One friend, who was tied to the veranda post at music camp and laughed at, spent the afternoon sobbing in his bunk. He left for another school soon after.

Kids in my year were bullied for the usual reasons: ``wrong'' racial background, too fat, too small, too shy, too unattractive, too slow, too much of a ``swot''.

To make matters worse, for the first two years you were stuck in the same class with the same kids, and my class was short on friends and long on bullies. The minority who didn't blend with the in crowd and share their pursuits of graffiti and teacher baiting became targets.

So we, the minority, had to put up with it. Put up with constantly being called ``geek'', ``nerd'' and - if you were a girl, ``dog''. Put up with ridicule for wearing shorts or being suspected of reading a newspaper. Once I announced the time precisely as 3.42 instead of quarter to four and copped an ear-bashing. Of course, the uncool minority weren't invited to class parties and getting picked on in front of girls did nothing for your confidence around them.

This ostracism leads to pressure to conform. I made efforts to fit in, thinking something was wrong with me, but what I didn't realise was that no one likes an approval seeker. I began talking back to the science teacher one day, hoping to score popularity points. Fortunately, she knew what was going on, took me aside after class, and gently encouraged me to stay the course.

Another teacher also had a quiet word, to sympathize with the hard time I was getting from the ``fellas''.

There are two ways to deal with bullying: fight back or complain through official channels. The first option led to tears and a bloody nose from a fight in the toilets. When a teacher saw me and pulled me aside I, fearing reprisals, didn't dare tell her who the culprit was.

Taking the non-violent road was no better. Some of us met the year coordinator to voice our troubles, and he made a fine speech to the class about how bad it is to get called names. But after talking with the bullies and the bullied, and trying to appear evenhanded, he implied that our tormentors thought us snobs. On that damp squid note, resistance failed.

I could have told my parents and they would probably have got me moved to another class. But that would have been admitting wimphood to others (why has he been moved?) and myself. Better, I thought, to fake it and pretend everything's OK, even if I had developed a nervous stutter requiring speech therapy. Everyone thought it was because I talked too fast. In fact, it was because I was sick to death of being criticized for what I did say.

Fortunately, a solution arrived. But, in contrast to those who say that bullying is character building, it wasn't a case of acquiring new fighting or assertiveness skills. At year nine the classes were reorganized and, of the new forms, I found myself in the best. With the luxury of getting on with everyone, education again became a pleasant experience.

But I didn't take any chances. I didn't go to the camp, and at the end of the year left that school for another - where, happily, I wasn't bullied.

Stephen Cauchi is an Age journalist. E-mail:

This story was found at:


Medicating our Kids, is it Dangerous? At the very least, Drugs should be a last resort, and studies indicate should be used on a short term basis.




3. Oppression and Asthma

Oppression, such as our children are experiencing is linked to Asthma. (Asthma has recently been considered epidemic in our children) We are causing health and mental problems in our children! Three studies here.


WebMD - News Article

Home Tue. November 16, 1999


      Anxiety and depression linked to asthma onset

NEW YORK, Nov 05 (Reuters Health) -- Adults who report higher levels of anxiety and depression are more than twice as likely to develop asthma than those with lower levels, according to a report published in the current issue of the Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research.

The researchers note that the risk of asthma linked to anxiety and depression was even higher—three times more likely—in nonsmokers with healthy lungs.

Dr. Bruce S. Jonas of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Hyattsville, Maryland, led a team of researchers who studied over 5,000 men and women, aged 25 to 74, over a 13-year period. Participants were part of a scientifically selected group enrolled in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey in the early 1970s. None had any history of asthma.  The subjects filled out questionnaires about symptoms of anxiety and depression when they began the study. In the early 1980s, they were asked whether they had been treated or diagnosed with asthma.  Smokers were more likely than nonsmokers to report higher baseline levels of anxiety and depression, but the severity of these symptoms did not predict the development of asthma. In nonsmokers, however, those with more severe anxiety and depression were significantly more likely to develop asthma.

The researchers compared subjects who had no respiratory symptoms or impaired lung function at baseline with those who had. They found that the relationship between high levels of anxiety and depression and later asthma was much stronger in those without signs of impaired lung function, especially if they were nonsmokers.  Jonas and his team suggest that because smokers and people with signs of lung problems had higher levels of anxiety and depression to start with, and because both smoking and early lung problems increase the risk for asthma by themselves, the relationship between mood symptoms and later asthma in these subjects might have been masked.

The study authors conclude that anxiety and depression are strong predictors of later asthma, and that this cannot be explained by the fact that smokers tend to be more anxious and depressed. The results show clearly that these psychological factors are an important part of the process in nonsmokers.

Jonas and colleagues call for more careful research into the relationship between psychological factors and the onset of asthma.


Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research 1999;4:91-100.

Copyright 1998 Reuters Limited. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.





WebMD - News Article on Health

Home Tue., November 16, 1999



Bronchial reactivity linked to atopic status in pediatric asthma

WESTPORT, Oct 26 (Reuters Health) - Children with nonatopic asthma

show greater bronchial hyperresponsiveness to methacholine challenge

than atopic asthmatic children do, according to Japanese researchers.


In the September issue of Chest, Dr. Hiroyuki Mochizuki and colleagues from Gunma University School of Medicine, in Maebashi, note that it appears to be possible that “...the fundamental mechanism of [bronchial hyperresponsiveness] in nonatopic asthma is different from that in atopic asthma.” To investigate, the researchers studied 14 children with nonatopic asthma, 24 with atopic asthma and 20 healthy controls. Each underwent inhalation challenge with progressively doubling doses of methacholine. This procedure was followed by inhalation of nebulized salbutamol. The team measured the speed of bronchoconstriction due to methacholine and the speed of reversal due to salbutamol.  Nonatopic asthmatics responded more swiftly to methacholine than did atopic asthmatics or controls. They also had a faster response to salbutamol than did atopics, but their response did not differ significantly from that of controls.  “These data suggest that the hyperreactivity of airway smooth muscle may be one of the fundamental mechanisms of [bronchial hyperresponsiveness] in nonatopic asthma, and that it has an effect on the exacerbation of nonatopic asthma,” Dr. Mochizuki’s team writes. “ is still unclear whether it is smooth muscle fiber itself or the number or kind of receptors on the muscle that has the most effect.”

Chest 1999;116:619-624.

·        Westport Newsroom 203 319 2700






Stress and Asthma: What’s the Connection?


Most experts would agree that there is a connection between emotional stress and asthma but beyond that, a great deal of controversy still exists. Does emotional stress trigger asthma or make an attack worse? Or is emotional stress the result of asthma symptoms?

“I believe there’s a link between people’s emotions and asthma attacks,” observes Stuart A. Tousman, Ph.D., associate professor of psychology at Rockford College in Rockford, IL.

Nationally recognized for his work in this area, he conducted

a workshop on the connection between asthma/allergies and

stress at the 56th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of

Allergy, Asthma and Immunology in San Diego

While studies show a clear relationship between emotional stress/anxiety, frequency of attacks, amount of medication needed to control symptoms and hospitalizations due to asthma, there are several possible explanations for this. Emotional stress could act as a trigger for asthma, and it could also make an attack worse as it is occurring. At the same time, symptoms and other factors associated with the disease could interfere with an individual’s life to the point of damaging his or her self-esteem, and that can be very stressful.

Some researchers believe that individuals with asthma experience much of their stress as a result of asthma attacks or poorly controlled asthma. Many of these experts worry that seeing stress primarily as the trigger might lead health care providers to underestimate the impact that an individual’s asthma symptoms are having on his or her emotional health.

On the other hand, researchers who believe that stress can trigger asthma symptoms or make them worse sometimes fear that other healthcare professionals aren’t doing enough to help patients with asthma manage the stress in their lives.

While individual experts might focus on one explanation over others, the reality may be a combination of each, and recent studies suggest that adding psychological techniques such as muscle relaxation training and asthma self-management training to conventional asthma treatment can further improve a patient’s response to asthma treatment.

Such programs work because they help patients identify and cope with stress related to their disease, and they provide education about asthma and its treatment so that patients can take better care of themselves. In addition, programs like this help patients and their health care providers to identify factors that might be keeping the patient from complying with treatment—such as an inability to pay for prescriptions or the presence of unpleasant medication side effects.

Patients in one study experienced a reduction in asthma symptoms and anxiety level and an increased quality of life with the addition of psychological techniques to their treatment plan.

Another study, conducted by Dr. Tousman and his colleagues, examined 13 patients who completed a seven-week program that included interactive education, social support, relaxation training and humor therapy. Each week during the study, patients were asked to make a specific behavioral change such as exercising for 30 minutes or practicing relaxation for 30 minutes.

Study participants reported that the program relieved the tightness in their chest, made them feel less tired, improved their ability for achievement and improved their ability to control their asthma. These patients felt they had benefited most from education about medication options for their illness and learning how others cope with their asthma. The study also indicated that patients adhered to their medication plan better and felt more empowered to make lifestyle changes likely to improve their health.

© 07/00 All rights reserved.





Psychotropic Drugs Dangerous?


Kids RX Danger

The Denver Post Online: Legislature 1999 

       Related Chuck Green column Drugs for unruly kids attacked

         By Peter G. Chronis

Denver Post Staff Writer

Nov. 10 - A parade of experts appeared before a group of legislators Tuesday to point accusatory fingers at psychotropic medications, such as Ritalin and Luvox, claiming a connection between the drugs and an epidemic of school shootings.

Tuesday’s hearing coincides with a drive before the state Board of Education to pass a resolution forbidding schools from making parents put disruptive children on Ritalin. The board will hear additional testimony today and is expected to vote on the resolution Thursday.  Several speakers Tuesday hinted at a sinister alliance of pharmaceutical companies and health professionals to prescribe the drugs for unruly school kids. Some said attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, for which the drugs often are prescribed, was an illness made up by the psychiatric profession.

Countering the well-orchestrated blitz of out-of-town experts were local mental health advocates who said much of the information was skewed and out of context.

Children and Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, or CHADD, is planning a Nov. 17 news conference in Washington, D.C., to present scientific information supporting the medical diagnosis of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, a spokesman for the group said.  The group of legislators that met Tuesday, chaired by Rep. Penn Pfiffner, RLakewood, has no power to pass or recommend legislation.  The group met to explore a possible link between the drugs and school violence because suicidal Columbine killer Eric Harris had been on Luvox, and schoolyard killers elsewhere supposedly took similar medications.  Leading off at the hearing was Bruce Wiseman of California, national president of the Citizens Commission on Human Rights, which he said is a watchdog group.

Pfiffner confirmed that the commission is linked to the Church of Scientology.

Wiseman called medicating children “one of the most dangerous and insidious” issues facing the nation and blamed increased violence on giving 5 million children “mind-altering drugs” for “a mental disorder that has no basis in fact.”

The drugs, Wiseman said, make students more violent, cause suicide and create “kid killers.”

Wiseman said such drugs were linked to killings, including the May 1997 murder of a 7-year-old girl in a Las Vegas casino restroom by Jeremy Strohmeyer, and school killings in Pearl, Miss., West Paducah, Ky., Jonesboro, Ark., and Springfield, Ore.

Dr. Peter Breggin, an M.D. and psychiatrist, flew in from London to testify that Ritalin reduces difficult behavior for about five or six weeks but there’s “no evidence that Ritalin improves long-term behavior.” Breggin said he had obtained data that showed Harris was taking Luvox, which he said has a “cocaine-like effect” that can cause violent behavior.

Breggin said the “scietific evidence is irrefutable” that Luvox causes “psychotic mania” in about 4 percent of the young people who take it.  On the other side, Dr. Marshall Thomas, associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Colorado Medical School, speaking on behalf of the Colorado Behavioral Health Care, told Pfiffner he was concerned about violence in children but hoped the committee’s inquiry would be balanced and “not politicized.”

The quality of some information presented, Thomas said, was “somewhat suspect, . . . not balanced” and the “presentations were very skewed.” Thomas said sometimes a child diagnosed as depressed is really suffering from bipolar disorder and treating the depression “brings out the manic side.” The medications, he noted, don’t create the manic behavior.  During questioning by Sen. Jim Congrove, R-Arvada, Thomas said that although one Columbine killer was on Luvox, “the other (Dylan Klebold) wasn’t. Why was the other one involved?” “You don’t know that he wasn’t,” Congrove said.  But Jefferson County sheriff’s spokesman Steve Davis told The Denver Post, “As far as I know, Klebold had no drugs in him. I’m very sure of that. I never heard anything about him being prescribed anything.”

The national center for Children and Adults with

Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, based in Landover, Md., sent a letter last week to the Colorado Board of Education.  The letter expresses the agency’s “outrage” and “strong opposition” to any proposal that would ban the use of psychotropic drugs among public school students.

The center estimates 3 percent to 5 percent of the student population nationwide has been diagnosed with some form of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

“Medication should not be precluded” as a form of treatment, said Stephen Spector, director of government relations for Children and Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. But other forms of intervention should also be used, he said.

Evan Dreyer contributed to this report.

Copyright 1999 The Denver Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.



Who BANS Ritalin and Why?

A dangerous drug marketed by liars

·  In 1968, Sweden banned the use of Ritalin because of potential for abuse of the drug.

·  In 1971, the World Health Organization concluded that Ritalin, amphetamine (chief ingredient in Adderall), and methamphetamine were pharmacologically similar among themselves and to cocaine in their abuse patterns.

·  Novartis (Ciba), the manufacturer of Ritalin, through a front group it subsidizes, CH.A.D.D. (Children and Adults with Attention Deficit Disorder), lobbied the DEA to reclassify the drug from a Schedule II to a Schedule III. CH.A.D.D. claimed that Ritalin was "a beneficial and relatively benign medication." The DEA refused.

·  The International Narcotics Review Board: "Methylphenidate (Ritalin), due to its high abuse potential, was one of the first substances to be placed under international control in Shedule II (along with morphine, opium, heroin, cocaine, and barbituates)"



Two Year Olds get Psycho drugs


This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit

World Net Daily

Sunday, February 27, 2000


2-year-olds now get psychotropic drugs
Report revives debate over causes, cures for 'attention deficit disorder'

by Julie Foster


The Journal of the American Medical Association has released a report showing "psychotropic medications prescribed for preschoolers increased dramatically between 1991 and 1995," causing a revival in the debate over a "medical condition" some are saying is not a behavioral disorder requiring medication, but rather the result of bad parenting.

JAMA's report, issued last week, said the number of 2- to 4-year-olds on psychiatric drugs including Ritalin and anti-depressants like Prozac soared 50 percent in the early '90s.

Experts said they are troubled by the findings, because the effects of such drugs in children so young are largely unknown. Many doctors worry such powerful drugs could be dangerous for children's development.

Dr. Joseph T. Coyle of Harvard Medical School's psychiatry department said the study reveals a troubling trend, "given that there is no empirical evidence to support psychotropic drug treatment in very young children and that there are valid concerns that such treatment could have deleterious effects on the developing brain."

"These disturbing prescription practices suggest a growing crisis in mental health services to children and demand more thorough investigation," Coyle wrote in an editorial accompanying the study.

The report's authors reviewed Medicaid prescription records from 1991, 1993 and 1995 for preschoolers from a Midwestern state and a mid-Atlantic state, as well as for those in an HMO in the Northwest. The states were not identified.

Use of stimulants, anti-depressants, anti-psychotics and clonidine -- a drug used in adults to treat high blood pressure and increasingly for insomnia in hyperactive children -- were examined.

Substantial increases were seen in every age and drug category examined except anti-psychotics, though in some cases the actual number of prescriptions was quite small.

The number of children getting any of the drugs totaled about 100,000 in 1991, and jumped 50 percent to 150,000 in 1995. That year, 60 percent of the youngsters on drugs were age 4, 30 percent were 3 and 10 percent were 2-year-olds.

The use of clonidine skyrocketed in all three groups. Although the numbers were small, the researchers said the clonidine increases were particularly remarkable because its use for attention disorders is "new and largely uncharted." They noted that slowed heartbeat and fainting have been reported in children who use clonidine with other medications for attention disorders.

Michelle Barker, mother of an ADHD-diagnosed child whose doctor prescribed Ritalin to modify her son's behavior, has anecdotal evidence suggesting -- as the researchers do -- the number of youngsters on psychiatric drugs is still rising. Through her involvement in Internet support groups for parents of children with behavior problems, Barker said she is hearing of more and more 3- and 4-year-olds being put on drugs like Prozac.

"It's become a quick fix," said Barker, 39, of Hot Springs, Ark.

Although the study did not examine reasons for the increases, Julie Magno Zito, the lead author and an assistant professor of pharmacy and medicine at the University of Maryland, suggested a few possibilities.

With an increasing number of children attending daycare, parents may feel pressured "to have their children conform in their behavior," Zito said. She also said there is a much greater acceptance in the 1990s of psychoactive drugs.

Dr. David Fassler, chairman of the American Psychiatric Association's council on adolescents and their families, said the medications studied "can be extremely helpful for some children, even quite young children." But they should be prescribed only after a comprehensive evaluation and in conjunction with other therapy, he said.

However, because their effects on younger children and their development aren't known, Fassler said, the Food and Drug Administration has recently instructed pharmaceutical companies to study the connection.

Their use is increasing in part because doctors are getting better at diagnosing behavior disorders at an early age, Fassler said.

One of the more commonly known behavior disorders is Attention Deficit Disorder, with or without hyperactivity -- known as ADD/ADHD.

Grad L. Flick, who earned his Ph.D. in clinical psychology, has over 25 years' experience in both research and clinical practice with children who have ADD, learning disabilities, and behavior disorders. He and his wife, also a doctor and social worker, raised a child of their own with ADHD.

In defining ADD, Flick said, "Recent research suggests that ADD is a physiological disorder characterized by some structural or chemically-based neurotransmitter problem in the nervous system. It appears to be inherited, although ADD-like behavior can also be acquired through brain injury, exposure to toxins, or high fever."

Dr. Flick's website lists symptoms of the condition, which he says is diagnosed by observing the child in question:

If symptoms have "persisted for at least 6 months to a degree that is maladaptive and inconsistent with developmental level," then the child is a possible ADD case.

But not all doctors believe ADD "symptoms" warrant drug use, or even a disorder diagnosis.

Dr. Peter Breggin, a veteran psychiatrist, author and founder of the Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology, told WorldNetDaily the "disorder" of ADD is a sham.

"ADHD is a false diagnosis to encourage the prescription of drugs," he said. "It is simply a list of behaviors with no scientific basis."

Breggin said by pumping drugs into a child's system, the "brain is growing in an environment of toxic drugs."

"Psychiatry and the drug companies have convinced the public that the problems children have are biological and genetic, and this has opened the road to medicating soon after birth," said Breggin. "Soon they'll be giving drugs to pregnant women if the baby's overactive in the womb."

He also noted there is currently no technology for measuring chemicals in the brain, so claims such as Flick's that ADD is a "structural or chemically-based neurotransmitter problem in the nervous system" are merely speculation. The Maryland doctor believes the "cure" to ADD is not in drugs, but in parenting.

"We're a quick-fix society," Breggin explained. "Parents don't have the time or the motivation to properly raise our children. The attention deficit is in us, not our children."

Breggin's latest book, "Reclaiming Our Children: A healing plan for a nation in crisis," outlines parenting skills he believes are the answer to so-called behavioral disorders.

A review of the book by Jodi Mailander Farrell said, "His views on child-rearing tactics sometimes go against the grain: He's not an advocate of time-outs as a means of discipline, for example. And his child-centered ideas may frustrate some parents in the throes of dealing with a 2-year-old's tantrums or a disrespectful teen's defiance."

"Overly permissive parents, absentee fathers, working mothers, disconnected families -- they all take the blame in Breggin's well-reasoned argument for renewing the importance of children in our lives," said Farrell.

"His plea for making children a priority is a much-needed, logical voice that should cause some parents to pause and rethink their hectic lives," she concluded.




Wednesday, 29-Nov-00 21:33:23 writes:

On Sun, 26 Nov 2000 00:41:37 -0500 (EST) wrote:
========== Electronic Edition ========================
. .
. ---November 23, 2000--- .
. ========== .
. Environmental Research Foundation .
. P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403 .
. Fax (410) 263-8944; E-mail: .
. ========== .
. All back issues are available by E-mail: send E-mail to .
. with the single word HELP in the message. .
. Back issues are also available from .
. To start your own free subscription, send E-mail to .
. with the words .
. The Rachel newsletter is now also available in Spanish; .
. to learn how to subscribe in Spanish, send the word .
. AYUDA in an E-mail message to .


by Rachel Massey*

A new report by a group of physicians says that millions of
children in the U.S. exhibit learning disabilities, reduced IQ
and destructive, aggressive behavior because of exposures to
toxic chemicals.[1] “Neurodevelopmental disabilities are
widespread, and chemical exposures are important and preventable
contributors to these conditions,” the report says (pg. 117).

Titled IN HARM’S WAY, the report was written by physicians Ted
Schettler and Jill Stein and two of their colleagues and was
published by Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility
in partnership with the Clean Water Fund. IN HARM’S WAY links
toxic exposures during early childhood, or even before birth, to
lifelong disabilities including attention disorders, reduced IQ
and poorly-controlled aggression.

IN HARM’S WAY reviews scientific and medical information on a
range of toxins to which most or all American children are
exposed, and draws links to the rising number of children
diagnosed each year with abnormal brain development or function.
The report is a call to action for everyone interested in
children’s welfare and the future of our society. To avert brain
damage in growing numbers of children, we have to reclaim our
government from corporate special interests, the report

Developmental disabilities such as autism, attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), dyslexia and uncontrollable
aggression currently affect an estimated 12 million children
under age 18 in the U.S.—almost one child in five.
Furthermore, the incidence of some of these disabilities appears
to have increased dramatically in recent decades. For example,
nationwide, the number of children classified with learning
disabilities and placed in special education programs increased
191% between 1977 and 1994. The number of children taking the
drug Ritalin to combat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD) has approximately doubled every 4 to 7 years since 1971.
Experts estimate that autism rates have risen from around 4 per
10,000 in the early 1980s to between 12 and 20 per 10,000 in the
1990s. According to a recent article in US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT,
the number of children in New York classified with learning
disabilities rose 55 percent between 1983 and 1996. [2]

Some argue that reported disabilities are increasing because of
improved diagnosis and rising expectations as children are
required to learn more complicated skills at younger ages. But
many parents, teachers, and physicians who work with children
think these explanations are only partially correct because “they
can not imagine that such disabilities escaped notice in the
past,” the report says. (pg. 11)

Experts may argue about the exact number of children suffering
from individual disorders, but the undisputed reality is that
huge numbers of children currently suffer with serious
developmental disabilities and they are exposed to many toxic
chemicals that are known to produce such disabilities. “We
believe we can no longer ignore the mounting evidence that
chemical exposures contribute to the epidemic of developmental
disabilities,” the report says. (pg. 9)

IN HARM’S WAY walks us through a sampling of neurotoxic
substances to which many or all American children are exposed --
metals (lead, mercury, manganese); nicotine; pesticides;
persistent organochlorine compounds (e.g., dioxin and PCBs);
solvents, including alcohol; fluoride; and food additives—and
reviews existing human and animal data on developmental effects
of these chemicals. These effects can vary dramatically depending
on the exact timing of exposures. Tiny exposures that would have
no noticeable effect at most stages of development can produce
devastating permanent damage if they occur during a “window of
vulnerability” when certain organs are developing rapidly. (pg.

Here is a sampling of the toxins that can misdirect the
development of a child’s brain.—Lead exposure in infants and children is associated with
attention deficit, aggression, and reduced IQ. Blood lead levels
below those labeled “safe” by U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) are associated with learning problems, and no
threshold has been identified below which adverse effects do not
occur. Young monkeys exposed to lead show symptoms including
heightened distractability and inappropriate responses to
stimuli. One million American children currently live with blood
lead levels above the threshold recognized by EPA as affecting
behavior and cognition. Millions more would be added to this list
if EPA’s threshold were updated to take account of the most
current science on the effects of lead in children.—At low doses, mercury exposure can produce impairments in
language ability, attention, and memory; at high doses it can
cause mental retardation, vision problems, and problems walking.
Mercury enters the environment through waste incinerators and
coal-burning power plants. It bioaccumulates in fish in its most
toxic form, methylmercury (see REHW #597). The EPA estimates that
1.16 million women of childbearing age “eat sufficient amounts of
mercury-contaminated fish to pose a risk of harm to their future
children.” (pg. 64)

-- Many pesticides kill insects by exerting a toxic effect on
cells in the nervous system. Not surprisingly, such pesticides
can disrupt the development and functioning of the human nervous
system by the same mechanisms. Animal studies show that
neurotoxic pesticides can produce permanent changes in brain
structure and functioning when exposures occur on a single
critical day of development. For example, some effects occurred
in newborn mice if exposures occurred on day 10 of development,
but not if exposures occurred on day 3 or 19. (pg. 82)
Short-lived “pulse” exposures may have devastating developmental
effects and yet can be difficult or impossible to identify after
the fact (see REHW # 648).—One pesticide exposure study examined children in two Mexican
communities. The two communities were very similar in ethnic
composition and culture, but one community practiced
chemical-intensive agriculture while the other used few farm
chemicals. Children in the community with chemical-intensive
agriculture scored substantially lower on measures of memory,
physical stamina and coordination, and had trouble with ordinary
children’s activities such as drawing a simple picture of a
person. (pgs. 82-83) Children in the pesticide-exposed group also
displayed more aggressive behavior than their unexposed
counterparts (see REHW #648).—Dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are
organochlorine compounds that bioaccumulate in fatty tissue and
are found at significant levels in human breast milk. Both animal
and human studies show strong links between these pollutants and
developmental disorders. Monkeys exposed before birth to dioxin
in the range of human breast milk contamination levels were
impaired in their ability to reverse a learned behavior in
response to new stimuli. Young monkeys exposed to PCBs at levels
typically found in human breast milk showed retarded learning as
well as abnormally repetitive behavior. Studies of human children
have found lowered IQs associated with PCB exposure in the womb,
and a study of babies whose mothers ate PCB-contaminated fish
from Lake Ontario found impaired development including abnormal
reflexes and startle responses. (pgs. 76-79) These are just a few
of the studies covered in IN HARM’S WAY.

Government officials set “safe” exposure levels based on
individual chemicals. But in the real world children are exposed
to many chemicals simultaneously. Such multiple exposures can be
far more damaging than exposure to single chemicals. For example,
one study found that certain combinations of pesticides produce
changes in thyroid levels that are not observed when the
chemicals are tested individually, and thus the combination may
produce unexpected developmental effects (see REHW #648). Proper
thyroid levels are essential for brain development. Other studies
reveal that exposure to a combination of mercury and PCBs, two
pollutants that accumulate in fish, can produce even greater
effects on neurological development than either pollutant alone.
(pg. 67)

Under our current regulatory system, industrial chemicals need
not be tested for toxicity before they are marketed. (pg. 108)
EPA estimates that somewhere between 2400 and 4000 industrial
chemicals now on the market are neurotoxic. (pg. 107) However,
this number is “highly speculative” (pg. 107) because most
chemicals in commercial use have not been tested for
neurotoxicity. EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) -- which
covers just 625 out of 80,000 industrial chemicals—reported
that nearly a billion pounds of known neurotoxins were released
directly into air and water in 1997. (pg. 103) Pesticides must be
tested before marketing, but not for toxicity to the nervous
system. Of 890 pesticide “active ingredients” EPA believes 140
are neurotoxins. Some 20 million U.S. children under age 5 eat an
average of 8 different pesticides on their food each day. (pg.

The authors of IN HARM’S WAY point out that there is no reason to
delay protecting our children; we don’t need more scientific
information before taking precautionary action. “We should not
need to identify with certainty exactly how much and through what
mechanism a neurotoxic pesticide impairs brain development before
coming to the conclusion that public health is not protected when
the urine of virtually every child in this country contains
residues of these chemicals. ... We do not need to exhaustively
understand the mechanism by which methylmercury interferes with
normal fetal brain development before concluding that it is not
acceptable for freshwater and many ocean fish to be sufficiently
contaminated with mercury to threaten developing brains. We know
how to reduce the environmental releases of mercury so that fish
are once again safe to eat regularly. We can modify manufacturing
practices so that lead use in products goes steadily down instead
of up. We can eliminate or modify outmoded technologies that
produce the dioxin that contaminates fetuses and breast milk. We
know how to do these things.” (pgs. 121-122)

In order to do these things, we have to take back control of our
regulatory system. As things stand now, corporations that benefit
financially by exposing children to toxic substances are accepted—even by most environmentalists—as valid “stakeholders” in
the process that determines “safe” levels of exposure. As a
result, we have failed to protect our children from industrial
As the authors of IN HARM’S WAY put it, “The role of
special interests in the regulation of environmental chemicals is
an important matter for public debate, as it has direct relevance
to the neurological development of children now and in the
future.” (pg. 121) In sum, our current regulatory system is like
a trial in which the criminal defendant gets to serve on the
jury. If we want to have children who can play, think and learn
normally, we will have to change corporations and our government
so that protecting brain development comes ahead of protecting

* Rachel Massey is a consultant to Environmental Research

[1] Ted Schettler, Jill Stein, Fay Reich, Maria Valenti, and
(Cambridge, Mass.: Greater Boston Physicians for Social
Responsibility [GBPSR], May 2000). Available on the web at or as a paper copy from GBPSR in
Cambridge, Mass.; telephone 617-497-7440.

[2] Sheila Kaplan and Jim Morris, “Kids At Risk,” US NEWS AND
WORLD REPORT Vol. 128, No. 4 (June 19, 2000), pgs. 47-53.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes.
Environmental Research Foundation provides this electronic
version of RACHEL’S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY free of charge
even though it costs the organization considerable time and money
to produce it. We would like to continue to provide this service
free. You could help by making a tax-deductible contribution
(anything you can afford, whether $5.00 or $500.00). Please send
your tax-deductible contribution to: Environmental Research
Foundation, P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403-7036. Please do
not send credit card information via E-mail. For further
information about making tax-deductible contributions to E.R.F.
by credit card please phone us toll free at 1-888-2RACHEL, or at
(410) 263-1584, or fax us at (410) 263-8944.—Peter Montague, Editor


Any election in which only two individuals are allowed exposure is, by
definition, a fraud. We are an occupied nation.


UK allow Drugs, taking away liberty?


UK News


Mind-control drug threat for children,4678,0-141145,00.html

Doctors could soon prescribe behaviour-controlling chemicals to pre-teens against their parents' wishes

Anthony Browne, Health Editor
Sunday February 27, 2000

More than three-quarters of a million children could be given drugs to control their behaviour - against their wishes and those of their parents. The spectre is raised by legislation planned by the Government to give more powers to psychiatrists.

Mental health workers are warning that the new legislation is being drawn so widely that doctors will be given the right to drug children just because they have a difficulty with maths or spelling.

The concern over the legislation follows alarming evidence that tens of thousands of schoolchildren with mild behaviour problems are being drugged with Ritalin - dubbed the 'chemical cosh' or 'kiddie crack' - simply in order to control them.

In England, the number of prescriptions for the mind-drug Ritalin - which is given to so-called 'hyperactive' children to improve concentration - has shot up from just 3,500 in 1993 to 126,500 in 1998.

The UK is rapidly following in the path of the US, where a report last week showed that three million children - one in every 30 - are now being given Ritalin. Children as young as two are being given mood-altering drugs, including anti-depressants.

The new legislation will give far greater powers to psy chiatrists to give compulsory treatment in the community to both adults and children. A Green Paper on reform of the Mental Health Act proposes that doctors will be able to drug people, including child-ren, if they have 'any disability or disorder of the mind or brain, whether permanent or temporary, which results in an impairment of disturbance of mental functioning'.

A spokeswoman for the charity Young Minds said: 'Around 10 per cent of children have a diagnosable mental disorder. This is drawn so widely that it could cover a lot of children who have a learning disability. The implication for kids is considerable.'

Under the present legisla tion, people can only be given treatment against their will if they show 'seriously irresponsible or abnormally aggressive behaviour'. However, the reformed legislation would do away with that safeguard.

Margaret Pedler, head of policy development at the mental health charity Mind, said: 'The new Act gives compulsory powers in the community even for children. The definition is far too wide and could catch all sort of people who shouldn't be given compulsory treatment. It is a great concern.'

The Government has followed the advice of an expert committee, chaired by Professor Genevra Richardson. But Dinah Morley, professional services manager of Young Minds, said: 'It's not impossible it could be used very widely on children against their wishes.'

The drug is usually prescribed for children suffering from the highly controversial medical condition called Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), even though there is no agreement on what causes it, or even whether it really exists.

Two years ago Dr Edward Hamlyn, a founding member of the Royal College of General Practitioners, described ADHD as 'a fraud intended to justify starting these children on a life of drug addiction'. Many medical experts believe that attention deficit or hyperactivity can simply be the result of glandular disorders, nutritional problems or even just tiredness, and so no mind-altering drugs such as Ritalin are required.

The Green Paper, 'Reform of the Mental Health Act', is out for consultation until the end of March. Brian Daniels of the Citizen's Commission on Human Rights, a religious lobby group, said: 'The implications of the Green Paper as it stands are tantamount to social control. Well-meaning parents, teachers and politicians are being duped that "normal" childhood behaviour is no longer normal and that it is mental illness.'

(an eggy editorial)


UK & US losing Liberty


Subject: [citizen-policy] Compulsery Medication of kids and adults, without due process of law.


UK to medicate people without their consent.

Liberty, Rights, Justice, it seems governments around the world are writing legislation to have more control. With each measure, our Liberty and Rights are being eroded. Like the zero tolerance in schools, our liberty is being bled away. I am from the US and we are losing here. I am concerned that Liberty throughout the world must be increased, not squashed.

The Mental Health Act was developed because people were being locked in asylums, even though they had no reason to be there. The Doctors on staff did not release these people! Legislation was developed so if an individual disagreed with receiving treatment, a court hearing and order was necessary to require the individual to be treated. This is good law and it protects the people.

Now, the UK Government is considering revising that law. Although the article identifies children, (parents would loose their right to determine their children’s medical treatment) it is written broadly and adults would also be affected. Doctors would be given the right to administer medication to children and adults without their consent, and without “Due Process of Law.” Basic Rights are at stake.

The Observer revealed that a “Green paper was being considered by the government.

Written by Anthony Browne, Health Editor  Sunday February 27, 2000,3879,141145,00.html
Quoting the article:  Margaret Pedler, head of policy development at the mental health charity Mind, said: 'The new Act gives compulsory powers in the community even for children. The definition is far too wide and could catch all sort of people who shouldn't be given compulsory treatment. It is a great concern.'

The Green Paper, 'Reform of the Mental Health Act', is out for consultation until the end of March.

Don’t loose your Liberty, or Justice on this!





Links: Excellent information here




Education                                      Home