what does this mean? Though any number of suicides of
children are shocking, the corollary that the psychiatric
community is making - i.e. that all of these children have a
mental disorder - for example, major depressive disorder or
bi-polar - is just bad science and a slap in the face of
Dr. David Cohen, Professor of Social Work at Florida
International University, is quoted in an article in April
of 2006 as saying, "Unless one has been living in a cave the
past 20 years, one knows that youth with psychological/
behavioral learning problems are likely to be referred for
psychotropic medications. If this is so it should, in
effect be considered to be one of the major "purposes" of
youth screening." . "Encouraging
screening as presently constituted simply encourages
children to be put on medications
- with no idea what this will do to the suicide rate,
and with some indications that it could "increase" suicide."
This is not to say that children do not get depressed. It
happens to everyone at some time or another. There are
generally identifiable reasons however, which have nothing
to do with the chemical reactions in their brains. Whether
those reasons stem from hopelessness, loss, medical
difficulties or just the human condition, pretending
understanding where there is none is just an arrogant
betrayal of man. If we take the recent example of farmers in
India's Andra Paradesh State who, in the last 6 years over
3000 of them, have committed suicide under the crush of
insurmountable debt, do we conclude without at least a nod
in recognition of their plight, that they all had "mental
illnesses?" Would we actually think that the correct
solution is let's drug them so they aren't bothered by their
situation, or would we seek to fix the deplorable conditions
which have driven them to this outcome? If the tire were
flat why would we kick the tail pipe?
such a way we must consider the source of our children's
upsets as palpable, real conditions that are unique to each
child and that cannot be diagnosed, or even determined by
their filling out a canned, invasive and divisive survey
designed with the particular goal of creating a "patient for
life" for the psychiatric and pharmaceutical community.
the TeenScreen Questionnaire.
Has there been a
time when nothing was fun for you and you just weren't interested in
Has there been a
time when you felt you couldn't do anything well or that you weren't as
good-looking or as smart as other people?
How often did your
parents get annoyed or upset with you because of the way you were
feeling or acting?
Have you often
felt very nervous when you've had to do things in front of people?
Have you often
worried a lot before you were going to play a sport or game or do some
Have you tried to
kill yourself in the last year?
Are you still
thinking of killing yourself?
Have you thought
seriously about killing yourself?
Have you often
thought about killing yourself??
Have you ever
tried to kill yourself?
Food for thought for your 12 year old!
Not surprisingly, TeenScreen and it's supporters
- after being exposed for
their true intentions -
are now trying to distance themselves from the inevitable
outcome that will result from children who are found to be
"at risk" from a mental disorder - that of psychiatric
evaluation and more often than not, a label and a
TeenScreen's director, Leslie McGuire recently stated, "The
program (TeenScreen) is not
affiliated with or funded by pharmaceutical companies." And
"does not involve treatment and does not recommend or
endorse any particular kind of treatment for the youth who
are identified as at risk by the screening."
Her Co-director, Laurie Flynn, in
direct opposition to Ms. McGuire's pronouncement stated
"Treatment is the long term goal for TeenScreen."
Interesting, in that according to the Journal of the
American Academy of Child Psychiatry in 2002, a survey of
recently trained child psychiatrists found the treatment for
9 out of 10 children consisted of drugging.
Couple this with the knowledge that Ms. Flynn was the former
director of the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI),
a psychiatric/pharmaceutical front group. NAMI received
millions of dollars in funding from various pharmaceutical
companies during Flynn's tenure. These funds were to promote
the validity and acceptability of "mental illnesses," and
forward and reward the "concerns" of its patrons, the
psychiatric and pharmaceutical industries. Their denial of
this incestuous relationship and their agenda to medicate
our children is preposterous.
Perhaps TeenScreen is trying to distance themselves from
their pharmaceutical connections because they realize they
need to be more guarded of their "alliances." This will be a
difficult task for them however as TeenScreen, from its
inception was developed by
psychiatrist David Shaffer who is a consultant and apologist
of pharmaceutical companies. Shaffer has served as an expert
witness for various drug companies and as a consultant on
various psychotropic drugs.
The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP) sent
out a press release on May 8, 2000, that said Shaffer was
their president and they had just released a national survey
they had done on suicide. The funder of the survey? Pfizer,
Inc. Shaffer's AFSP has also received $1,250,000 from Solvay
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (http://www.psychsearch.net/advisors.html)
the goal of screening may sound admirable, its actual intent
is a wolf in sheep's clothing, skulking around, preying on
the sympathies of concerned parents and legislators, despite
the outcries of the thousands who have been harmed or who
recognize in psychiatry's duplicitous methods the terrible
threat not only to the children of this country but to all
of our individual freedoms.
Right now there are plans afoot by proponents of mental
health screening to screen everyone in the country.
President Bush's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health has
opened the door for psychiatry to now spread to all sectors
of our society. This includes seniors, school children, and
pregnant and new mothers. Even babies and toddlers are now
being drugged and are targeted as the up-and-coming group of
potential patients. Tell me, just how does one determine if
a baby is depressed?
this to be the fate of our citizenry, checking in routinely
for mental health "exams" which will adjudicate our need for
medication? Is this what we want for our children? Are we so
scared by all the propaganda that our children will kill
themselves without intervention by psychiatry that we would
subject them to such ridiculous, ineffective and even
dangerous programs such as TeenScreen?
at the FDA Black Box warnings that are prevalent on many
psychotropic medications. They caution against risk of
suicidal thinking and behavior in children and adolescents
but are used as "treatment" for depression and suicidiality.
Find out about the many high profile school shootings and
the suicides by children already under psychiatric care or
on psychotropic medication. Examine the deaths from heart
failure and other medical causes from these drugs, not to
mention the mental effects. Is this fraudulent practice to
be regarded as the "savior" of our children?
the obvious goal of billions of dollars into psychiatric and
pharmaceutical coffers - 3.3 billion dollars realized on
Zoloft sales alone in 2005 - will we see a society where the
continued labeling and fraudulent "diagnosing" of our
children by unscientific means will be the catalyst by which
their rights and personal freedoms will be usurped? Will
this medicated homogenizing of all of our children's
singular gifts for the spurious purpose of "protecting" them
result in children with less thoughts of suicide? Or will
we label and medicate our future's brightest hopes for no
more reason than they were unfortunate enough to wrongly
answer their survey? Yes, even psychiatrist David Shaffer
stated that TeenScreen "does identify a whole bunch of kids
who aren't really suicidal, so you get a lot of
billions of dollars that are now spent by US taxpayers to
medicate our country's children, were funneled into workable
programs instead of medications, would we be more likely to
effect real changes for the better? If our focus was
centered more on educational or social activities and
programs which fostered communication, compassion for abused
or neglected children, productive ideals, and which promoted
an understanding of life's worth and capabilities, would we
not see changes in our children which would spread into the
future like an ever widening road, instead of the dead end
path upon which we have now set so many children?
can say why one child will commit suicide and not another.
Life is not a predictable activity and people's viewpoints
of life are as varied as the people that possess them.
Who's to say that by locating a particular set of feelings
in a child that that child will be at risk or not? Life
cannot be distilled down to such predictable uniformity.
Perhaps the best we can do is to provide a caring
environment that nurtures our children's goals and offer a
supportive shoulder for their concerns and troubles.
Perhaps the worst we can do is to take from them their right
to best their own demons and in so doing condemn them to
lives as victims of every pharmaceutically contrived
chemical reaction that will course in their brains.
Email from Author
page may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been
specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available in my efforts to advance understanding of environmental,
political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice
issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted
material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In
accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.