Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Hillary Clinton and the Epidemic Rise in Institutional Drugging of Toddlers and Children

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
K Gardner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 01:24 PM
Original message
Hillary Clinton and the Epidemic Rise in Institutional Drugging of Toddlers and Children
Edited on Sat Apr-12-08 01:38 PM by K Gardner
In February of 2000, an alarming report was released about the increase in psychotropic drugging of very small children. Anyone familiar with the epidemic and sometimes forced use of Ritalin and other amphetamine-type drugs in children will understand this "epidemic". Researchers found a three-fold increase in prescriptions for two to four-year-old toddlers for stimulants and antidepressants, even though none were FDA approved for such use. Three out of the four children studied were on Medicaid and were disproportionately from minority groups. This study was released along with an editorial by Dr. Joseph Coyle, of Harvard.

The official media spin below:

The Zito Report and Hillary Clinton

In February 2000, University of Maryland researcher Julie Magno Zito published a report in the Journal of the American Medical Association which found that psychotropic medications such as Ritalin and Adderall were being prescribed to preschoolers at alarmingly high rates, especially considering that many of the drugs have not been approved by the FDA for use in children under 6, and there's little research about their effects on young children.

Zito examined data from two state Medicaid programs and a health maintenance organization, and found that as many as 1.5 percent of children between the ages of 2 and 4 were being prescribed stimulants, anti-depressants, or anti-psychotic drugs. The findings suggested that prescription rates had increased as much as 50 percent between 1990 and 1995. Although the study did not identify which conditions the children were being treated for, in the Washington Post, Zito said she believed that the rise in prescription rates for very young children was definitely related to the recent national increase in Ritalin prescriptions for school-aged children.

Zito's report drew strong media coverage and also attracted the attention of Hillary Clinton, who embarked on a campaign to learn more about the effects of drugs like Ritalin on preschoolers. Subsequently, the National Institute of Mental Health gave $6 million to a consortium of six institutions, led by Dr. Laurence Greenhill of Columbia University, to conduct a five-stage, 40-week study on Ritalin use in preschoolers. This is the first extensive study to be done on this issue.

The Preschool ADHD Treatment Study (PATS) will examine dosing issues, side effects questions, and the efficacy of Ritalin in preschool aged children. As of April 2001, the recruitment of children into the study is underway at the six sites across the country. The effort is to find out how well children ages 3-6 do on a trial of methylphenidate in the short term and over the relative long term (1 year). In order to compare how Ritalin affects younger children to older children, the study will also recruit subjects between 6 and 8 years old.



The real story, as reported by Dr. Peter R. Breggin in "Talking Back to Ritalin", pp. 21-24

The Zito Report and Dr. Coyle's editorial caused immediate public concern and an avalanche of mainstream media coverage. What the above snippet does not relay is that at the time, Hillary Clinton was running for the U.S. Senate and she now seemed to do a 180-degree turn from her previous advocacy of psychiatric drugs for children. After receiving POSITIVE PUBLICITY for "raising concerns about the drugging of preschool children", she claimed to have held a conference of professionals concerned about the issue. In fact, it was a damage control meeting of the relevant Clinton appointees, including NIMH director Steven Hyman, Surgeon General David Satcher and FDA Commissioner Jane Henney, as well as the President of the Am. Psychiatric Assoc, Allan Tasman. It was a rogue's gallery of professionals wedded to biological psychiatry and drug interventions.

In response to Clinton's "concerns", NIMH announced plans for MASSIVE experimentation on preschoolers. Clinton's endorsement of the "new research" on children was greeted by many as a positive advance. But in fact, Mrs. Clinton had enabled the government to carry out unethical, scientifically unjustified research on the very young. Those who could not protect themselves.

Prior to Clinton's encouragement, the National Institute of Mental Health would have been afraid of media and public outrage over plans to expose hundreds of preschoolers to psychiatric drugs. The endorsement of this project the by First Lady put an aura of sanctity around this new expression of technological child abuse.

According to child psychiatrist Laurence Greenhill, government plans for clinical trials on toddlers were already underway before Hillary Clinton's public endorsement. It was being done under the cover of silence until Mrs. Clinton's endorsement. her call for more "research" did not promote the interests of America's children; instead, in ennobled plans already in the works by the nations most avid drug advocates. The FDA Drug Modernization Act of 1997, a Clinton Administration maneuver, required drug companies to start testing their drugs on children in 2002.


On March 21, 2000, 14-year-old Matthew Smith collapsed and died. Cause of Death: Heart disease caused by ten years of exposure to Ritalin. He is not the only one, and over the years public awareness and outrage of the epidemic drugging of the nation's school-age children has increased. Now, the alarms are sounding about an entire generation of toddlers, whose government-approved drugging started with the endorsement of soon-to-be NY State Senator, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Note: I found this obscure and little known fact while perusing some books this weekend in preparation of a paper on institutional drugging of children. It was news to me. And in the days of Bittergate and Pastorgate, it will probably attract little attention. God knows, there are such more weighty issues facing us, aren't there. But it solidifies in my mind the TRUTH about the motives of the woman running for President of these United States. It's all about her. It's all about political expediency and gain. It is still, today, Anything To Win.


I guess it Takes a Village to Drug a Child




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
1. It seems like 3 out of 4 kids I know is on some kind of psychotropic medication. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K Gardner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. You would be nearly right in that number.. the incidents are staggering. It is epidemic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lyonn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 02:18 PM
Response to Original message
3. Sounds like an issue that needs some serious investigation
The Medicaid aspect is suspect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K Gardner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. It is still frightening, even to me, how powerful the pharmaceutical industry
is. However, this particular research I'm doing, involving the youngest and most vulnerable, is terribly disturbing. The poor are disproportionately affected due to lack of access to information and fear/intimdation tactics used by schools and courts to often force children (whose behavioral issues may be environmental/traumatic) onto medication.

No surprise that politicians' and lobbyists' names are surfacing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 06:59 PM
Response to Original message
5. WEhenever anyone has touted Hillary getting medical benefits for kids I have always cringed
Most people think that med benefits for kids is one political arena that has no down side.

But those of us who know that what it means is not so much the care and the health of kids but rather it is about their pharmaceutical strait jacketing. And we get scared silly over this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 07:03 PM
Response to Original message
6. That's very interesting
I've been troubled about the drugs pushed on young children.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Voice for Peace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 07:07 PM
Response to Original message
7. K&R
The long term effects on these kids is very very bad. Totally fucks up their brain chemistry. Early alzheimers likely.. I mean, really REALLY early alzheimers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cbayer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 08:20 PM
Response to Original message
8. You can't have it both ways.
The major objection I have to the widespread use of psychotropic medications in children is that they have not been tested in children. Therefore, you can not reliably say that they are helpful or harmful or to what extent they are helpful or harmful.

Endorsing further testing is not a bad thing and is the route to validating when and why these medications should be used.

There are children with real psychiatric disorders - brain disorders - children whose lives are saved by appropriate treatment. That treatment sometimes involves medications.

It is better that the NIMH run scientifically valid studies then the alternative of continuing to prescribe without scientific evidence.

Dr. Breggin does not present the "real story". He has a very clear agenda that is outside the views of many of his peers. You may agree with his position but it is no more scientifically valid than using the medications without study.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Frank Booth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 08:22 PM
Response to Original message
9. Hillary's quite the piece of work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 08:27 PM
Response to Original message
10. Hillary Hoover, making sure multinationals get a fair shake
and looking great doing it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 01:32 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC