this may inflame someone, so here is another disclaimer, written in some slight annoyance at having to write it at all. yes, there are always cases where people are better off for having psych meds. i know this. i'm not talking about those cases. i'm talking about everybody else...
*sigh* let's start from the top:
via cryptogon:
for me, the first thing i would ask myself if my child seemed really wacked would be, "what am i doing that could be causing this behavior? is she fed healthy foods? is she getting enough sleep? enough social interaction? enough love and affection?" and finally, "am i stressed out?"
children are NOT adults. they react very differently to stresses than adults do--they haven't learned to "cope" by stuffing their feelings inside. they express. everything. and sometimes maybe their bodies induce emotional reactions when physical needs are not being properly met (i.e., you feed them nothing but processed pHoods and after a year or so they start having temper tantrums every day).
fundamental problem #1: we are treating them for things they may not have because we do not bother to look into alternative explanations. we fail to adequately research the cause and effect cycle of ALL things we take for granted in modern life.
and now this, via msnbc (just the best parts here):
fundamental problem #2: if you need a questionnaire at the pediatricians office to tell you your kid is sad, isolated, failing school, and doing drugs, YOU FAIL as a parent. period. where is the responsibility of the parents to observe and interact with their children, that something like this even needs to be suggested?!
fundamental problem #3: we need to screen EVERYONE because 6% of a sub-population may be affected. that is what you call a massive waste of resources. but, in fact, since the goal here is nothing grander than to boost profits for drug companies selling psych meds (see #4), it will perfectly do its job--so many "undiagnosed" cases will come to light, and all good parents give their kids meds when dr. concerned says they should. on a related note, maybe if we had an insanely high teenage suicide rate--i.e., if the entire 6% of the undiagnosed kids were offing themselves for lack of treatment--MAYBE this testing would be justified. but since apparently the majority of these kids move on to be typical adults, what is the issue?
fundamental problem #4: re-read the last two paragraphs in the quote above. now think for a second. there aren't enough psychiatrists trained to deal with kids, so pediatricians will have to fill in the gaps AND/BUT all they can do is prescribe medication, not provide counseling. ah ha! now i get it. (nevermind the big problem with docs prescribing meds for conditions they *admittedly* are not trained to deal with.) it's all about the profits. you heard it straight from MSNBC!
i won't call this one "fundamental," but i also have to wonder where they got the number of "undiagnosed" depression cases from? if they are undiagnosed, how the hell do they know how many there are? wtf?
i don't know... to me, the very idea of chemically altering a child's brain--which is in a constant state of flux and adaptation to the world, developing structures and learning connections and whatnot--is Evil. truly Evil. it can do nothing but harm, and i don't care what anyone says to the contrary. yes, i would rather put up with screaming fits for 2 years than know that i am irreversibly damaging my child's development--and entire life, as a result--so that i can have a little peace and quiet.
why is it that we didn't see this kind of behavior in kids 15, 20, 30 years ago? my list of hypotheses goes like this:
- routine, excessive vaccinations of vulnerable infants
- pHood (i.e., products so detached from the original substance that used to be food, that they are chemically unrecognizable; i.e., basically everything from a box, can, or plastic package)
- high-fructose corn syrup
- fluoridated/chlorinated water supplies
- overuse of any/all medications
- environmental pollutants (mostly the indoor kind, from cleaning products, cosmetics, etc, but perhaps also the more widespread type as well)
- and equally important, bad parenting. yes, i blame the parents in many cases. kids need to be shown BY EXAMPLE how to live effectively in the world. when you model disaffectation, stress, egoism, and apathy, that is what they learn. i think our entire society has suffered as a result of the 2-working parent system which shoves our younglings off to what amounts to foster care for the bulk of their developing years. it's worse than anybody wants to admit, in my opinion... and i know many families have 'no choice' and i can sympathize with that to an extent. because really, there is always a choice. you can always make sacrifices. the question is, is it worth it to you?
in my world, we wouldn't need Supernanny because we would have communication and interaction on a level that makes sense for the child. we'd have time for them. sometimes i wonder if our parents didn't fail us... it was by their example that we learned to be parents, and so many of us are really terrible at it. was it just the 70s/80s/90s mentality that materialism is the ultimate goal that ruined everything? because that was so important to our parents, and we (i say "we" loosely here*) were left in daycare and fed convenience foods since they knew no better... and it left us without a model for good parenting? because most of us can say for sure that our parents were raised very differently than we were. i think the break came as they took their roles and parents and forgot what their own parents had taught them... they were too distracted by material acquisition and "doing better for [our] sakes." only it ended up producing a generation of ineffective, depressed, and gullible people who want somebody else to fix their problems. just a thought.
back to the point; my dear friend at cryptogon would say this program of screening and medicating children on a massive scale has more to do with long-term population control (through submission) and social engineering than anything else--as he mentions, and i mentioned, profits are a big factor, but there really does seem to be something else going on. Evil. why do we push so hard to ruin the future (our childrens' brains)? or better yet, why do we let THEM tell us we should?! why do they want to?
who benefits from this? certainly not the children...
*for the record, my parents were awesome. i never went to forced daycare, my mom was lucky enough to work at home and be there for us 24/7, they fed us real food and taught us how to be respectful people with integrity and self-confidence. and practical frugality. sadly, however, i think they are not the norm. i truly hope to be as good with my kids as they were with us.
*sigh* let's start from the top:
via cryptogon:
Is there something more at work here besides chasing profits? The diabolical nature of this seems to go beyond the usual chasing profits explanation.This has an inky black, low murmuring evil feel to it. Echoes of Dr. Mengele.
Also, pay attention to the “food” that these people are ingesting, and the physical appearance of the mothers. Holy crap. Have another breakfast stick, now with even more obesity and diabetes. Toxic waste for food and strong antipsychotics, antidepressants and mood stabilizers. This is the breakfast of champions for millions of American children, some as young as two.
Via: PBS Frontline:
In recent years, there’s been a dramatic increase in the number of children being diagnosed with serious psychiatric disorders and prescribed medications that are just beginning to be tested in children. The drugs can cause serious side effects, and virtually nothing is known about their long-term impact. “It’s really to some extent an experiment, trying medications in these children of this age,” child psychiatrist Dr. Patrick Bacon tells FRONTLINE. “It’s a gamble. And I tell parents there’s no way to know what’s going to work.”
as of january 2008 PBS had enough material--and there was enough controversy--to make a documentary questioning the wisdom of using UNTESTED psych meds on children diagnosed with very vague and broad-spectrum symptoms of various psychiatric disorders. the video is disturbing... poor kids are damaged permanently from the side effects of these drugs before they even have a fighting chance to develop normally and outgrow their "issues."
for me, the first thing i would ask myself if my child seemed really wacked would be, "what am i doing that could be causing this behavior? is she fed healthy foods? is she getting enough sleep? enough social interaction? enough love and affection?" and finally, "am i stressed out?"
children are NOT adults. they react very differently to stresses than adults do--they haven't learned to "cope" by stuffing their feelings inside. they express. everything. and sometimes maybe their bodies induce emotional reactions when physical needs are not being properly met (i.e., you feed them nothing but processed pHoods and after a year or so they start having temper tantrums every day).
fundamental problem #1: we are treating them for things they may not have because we do not bother to look into alternative explanations. we fail to adequately research the cause and effect cycle of ALL things we take for granted in modern life.
and now this, via msnbc (just the best parts here):
Panel: All teens should be tested for depressionholy f*&^. did we completely FORGET that teenagerdom is characterized by some amounts of depression/anxiety/stress which naturally accompany the vast physical, mental, and emotional changes going on during that period of our normal human development? what just happened here? but nevermind that, let's move on.
2 million in U.S. are affected but most are undiagnosed, task force says
...
The task force said that when followed by treatment, including psychotherapy, screening can help improve symptoms and help kids cope. Because depression can lead to persistent sadness, social isolation, school problems and even suicide, screening to treat it early is crucial, the panel said.
...Yet at the same time psychiatrists specializing in treating children and teens are scarce. A separate report, also released Monday in the Pediatrics journal, says primary care doctors including pediatricians and family physicians will need to get more involved in mental health care.
...
Most pediatricians aren't trained to do psychotherapy, but they can prescribe depression medication and monitor patients they've referred to others for therapy, he said.
fundamental problem #2: if you need a questionnaire at the pediatricians office to tell you your kid is sad, isolated, failing school, and doing drugs, YOU FAIL as a parent. period. where is the responsibility of the parents to observe and interact with their children, that something like this even needs to be suggested?!
fundamental problem #3: we need to screen EVERYONE because 6% of a sub-population may be affected. that is what you call a massive waste of resources. but, in fact, since the goal here is nothing grander than to boost profits for drug companies selling psych meds (see #4), it will perfectly do its job--so many "undiagnosed" cases will come to light, and all good parents give their kids meds when dr. concerned says they should. on a related note, maybe if we had an insanely high teenage suicide rate--i.e., if the entire 6% of the undiagnosed kids were offing themselves for lack of treatment--MAYBE this testing would be justified. but since apparently the majority of these kids move on to be typical adults, what is the issue?
fundamental problem #4: re-read the last two paragraphs in the quote above. now think for a second. there aren't enough psychiatrists trained to deal with kids, so pediatricians will have to fill in the gaps AND/BUT all they can do is prescribe medication, not provide counseling. ah ha! now i get it. (nevermind the big problem with docs prescribing meds for conditions they *admittedly* are not trained to deal with.) it's all about the profits. you heard it straight from MSNBC!
i won't call this one "fundamental," but i also have to wonder where they got the number of "undiagnosed" depression cases from? if they are undiagnosed, how the hell do they know how many there are? wtf?
i don't know... to me, the very idea of chemically altering a child's brain--which is in a constant state of flux and adaptation to the world, developing structures and learning connections and whatnot--is Evil. truly Evil. it can do nothing but harm, and i don't care what anyone says to the contrary. yes, i would rather put up with screaming fits for 2 years than know that i am irreversibly damaging my child's development--and entire life, as a result--so that i can have a little peace and quiet.
why is it that we didn't see this kind of behavior in kids 15, 20, 30 years ago? my list of hypotheses goes like this:
- routine, excessive vaccinations of vulnerable infants
- pHood (i.e., products so detached from the original substance that used to be food, that they are chemically unrecognizable; i.e., basically everything from a box, can, or plastic package)
- high-fructose corn syrup
- fluoridated/chlorinated water supplies
- overuse of any/all medications
- environmental pollutants (mostly the indoor kind, from cleaning products, cosmetics, etc, but perhaps also the more widespread type as well)
- and equally important, bad parenting. yes, i blame the parents in many cases. kids need to be shown BY EXAMPLE how to live effectively in the world. when you model disaffectation, stress, egoism, and apathy, that is what they learn. i think our entire society has suffered as a result of the 2-working parent system which shoves our younglings off to what amounts to foster care for the bulk of their developing years. it's worse than anybody wants to admit, in my opinion... and i know many families have 'no choice' and i can sympathize with that to an extent. because really, there is always a choice. you can always make sacrifices. the question is, is it worth it to you?
in my world, we wouldn't need Supernanny because we would have communication and interaction on a level that makes sense for the child. we'd have time for them. sometimes i wonder if our parents didn't fail us... it was by their example that we learned to be parents, and so many of us are really terrible at it. was it just the 70s/80s/90s mentality that materialism is the ultimate goal that ruined everything? because that was so important to our parents, and we (i say "we" loosely here*) were left in daycare and fed convenience foods since they knew no better... and it left us without a model for good parenting? because most of us can say for sure that our parents were raised very differently than we were. i think the break came as they took their roles and parents and forgot what their own parents had taught them... they were too distracted by material acquisition and "doing better for [our] sakes." only it ended up producing a generation of ineffective, depressed, and gullible people who want somebody else to fix their problems. just a thought.
back to the point; my dear friend at cryptogon would say this program of screening and medicating children on a massive scale has more to do with long-term population control (through submission) and social engineering than anything else--as he mentions, and i mentioned, profits are a big factor, but there really does seem to be something else going on. Evil. why do we push so hard to ruin the future (our childrens' brains)? or better yet, why do we let THEM tell us we should?! why do they want to?
who benefits from this? certainly not the children...
*for the record, my parents were awesome. i never went to forced daycare, my mom was lucky enough to work at home and be there for us 24/7, they fed us real food and taught us how to be respectful people with integrity and self-confidence. and practical frugality. sadly, however, i think they are not the norm. i truly hope to be as good with my kids as they were with us.
Posts
Post a Comment