Send pictures to us
Send us your pictures and video by text, email or by uploading. Click here to find out how. »
|
|
|
|
County labelled 'kiddie coke capital'
4:58pm Monday 15th October 2007
Comments (37)NHS figures have revealed Hampshire as the kiddie coke capital' after dishing out the highest number of psychiatric drugs to children in England labelled with so-called Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder'(ADHD).
Hampshire Primary Care Trust dished out 19,270 packets of ADHD drugs to children last year.
The Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), an international psychiatric watchdog, obtained the figures under the Freedom of Information Act from the NHS Business Services Authority.
The commission says they highlight how more and more children are being labelled with the Emperor's new suit', ADHD,' rather than finding out what is really wrong with the child.
A study from the University of Southampton, recently published in the Lancet, revealed a link between additives in food and poor childhood behaviour, strengthening the call to stop the psychiatric drugging of children and to start providing a more nutritious diet.
The commissioin says many of the ADHD' drugs are commonly known as kiddie coke' due to similarities with illicit amphetamine drugs. Warnings from drug regulatory agencies in the UK and around the world have heightened concerns about the use of psychiatric ADHD' drugs, detailing the serious side effects, where some of the drugs can cause visual hallucinations, suicidal thoughts, psychotic behaviour, violence and aggression.
Brian Daniels, spokesperson for CCHR in the UK, said that while the symptoms of so-called ADHD' are listed in psychiatric textbooks, a major failing is a complete lack of scientific evidence to show the cause of boisterous, argumentative or disruptive behaviour.
He said: "ADHD is like the Emperor's new suit: a profit-driven designer label worn by the boisterous, argumentative or disruptive child. But like the Emperor's suit, there's no evidence to show that the label called ADHD' exists. The psychiatric propaganda on the subject of children and education has thoroughly duped well-meaning parents, teachers and politicians alike.
"Children do experience problems and upsets in life that may result in mental troubles. But to represent that these troubles are caused by chemical imbalances' or neurobiological disorders' that can only be alleviated with dangerous drugs is dishonest, harmful and often deadly.
"This stigmatising charade called ADHD' has to stop."
CCHR is an international psychiatric watchdog that was co-founded in 1969 by the Church of Scientology and Dr Thomas Szasz, Professor of Psychiatry Emeritus, to investigate and expose psychiatric violations of human rights.
*What has your experience been? Add your comments below.
Your Say YourThis is Hampshire
Laszlo Rago, Berlin, Germany says...
8:54pm Mon 15 Oct 07
James Lightfield, says...
12:34am Tue 16 Oct 07
http://www.cchr.org
and
http://www.FreedomMa
g.org
It IS because of Scientology and CCHR that sufficient public awareness of psych drugs resulted in a ground swell of public demand for accurate information. This caused the FDA to release what it long new, alarming reports of adverse effects of psych drugs. This led to the FDA's requiring Black Box Warning Labels. The psych and pharmaceutical incestious relationship generates $2 Trillion world wide. The drug companies have to increase the number on drugs to make their stocks increase in value. The psychiatric industry assists with their fraudlent "mental disease du jour" claims and their ever increasing percentage of "X" group now suffering from "Y" mental disease. As for children, at not time in the history of civilization has any society until now condoned or permitted the wholesale drugging of its future generation. Get the children off of Television, get them active in daily sports and get them nourished and in households in which parents and children speak and share household duties, and you will quickly find that children (who are not suffering from real physical dysfunctons) will do quite well.
Buster, says...
7:38am Tue 16 Oct 07
Churchof Scientology. Why wasn't that mentioned in the article? The CCHR is not a creditable source. The CCHR has a nutty agenda, they see the psychiatric industry as competition to their expensive self help "religion". This article should come with a warning label.
Jame Lightfield, says...
9:01am Tue 16 Oct 07
CCHR was founded in 1969 by the Church of Scientology and the internationally acclaimed author, Dr. Thomas Szasz, Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry at the State University of New York, Syracuse. At that time, the victims of psychiatry were a forgotten minority group, warehoused under terrifying conditions in institutions around the world. Because of this, CCHR penned a Mental Health Declaration of Human Rights that has served as its guide for mental health reform.
GOOD NEWS!
Just since January 2007, with help of CCHR, 204 psychiatrists have been convicted, awaiting trial or awaiting sentencing for crimes that include child molestation, rape and insurance fraud.
James Lightfield, says...
9:11am Tue 16 Oct 07
) is:
http://www.cchr.org/
index.cfm/5258
karen west, malaga says...
9:31am Tue 16 Oct 07
Kenwood, London says...
11:41am Tue 16 Oct 07
The CCHR, who refer to themselves as a human rights organisation, is very selective in talking about it's links to the Church of Scientology. I wonder if we could use the FIA to finally find out which planet they believe they originated from.
wil thompson, southampton says...
1:08pm Tue 16 Oct 07
Jon Ronnquist, Winchester says...
1:25pm Tue 16 Oct 07
As bluntness would appear to be the prevailing theme of both the article and the commentary, I shall adapt it in my own discourse.
The substance of this article is the reporting of undisputed figures of an alarming and dangerous situation involving the mass drugging of children. Lets be realistic. Those parents experiencing some relief from the effect of these drugs on their children are doing so at a cost that is perhaps beyond their immediate ability to appreciate. Psychotropic drugs have very real and permanent effects on the biochemistry of the human body, including severe changes to normal brain function. The scientific basis for these drugs is not a pre-diagnosed brain abnormality, but a suspicion that the changes these drugs effect, must be the root cause of the problem. This is a hit and miss stab in the dark reversal of cause and effect, totally unsubstantiated by any credible scientific methodology. What does exist on the scientific record is the dangerous and damaging effect these drugs have on the brain and the likelihood of inducing serious long term side effects including out right psychosis and possible suicide. So this is not about the odd child appearing to do better, this is a very serious issue. And to the parent with the ultimatum to the drug industry about improved drugs. The onus is not on the pharmaceutical industry to come up wit a miracle cure. That is never going to happen. The very nature of these drugs makes that an impossibility. The onus is on you as a parent to be fully informed about what it is you are doing. I suggest you pick up a copy of Robert Whitakers Mad in America, read it and re-evaluate your childs need for these drugs. You can get it for a fiver on Amazon. Please dont construe this as an attack on your parenting ability. I appreciate that you are dealing with real issues and the happiness of the people you love the most is at stake. And that is the reason I urge you read up on this.
There is a very good reason the term kiddie coke was coined. Its not a derogatory term dreamt up to scare people. Its an undisputed fact that many psychotropic drugs are of the same chemical construction and classified in the same category as cocaine. So it should not come as a surprise that people taking psychiatric versions of this drug experience a positive effect. If I had the time and I thought there was a point, Im sure we could get hundreds of recreational cocaine users on here singing the praises of modest cocaine use in taking the edge of lifes unpleasantries. So its really quite simple, if you dont want your kids doing coke, then you wont want them on psychotropic drugs. You could make superficial arguments about this, but the bottom line wont move .
James Lightfield, says...
1:32pm Tue 16 Oct 07
CCHR with its fast growing number of non-Scientology allies will continue to expand its reach throughout the world to document the crimes, fraud and human rights abuses of the psychiatric industry.
Great progress has been made during the past two years, including the nearly 29,000 legal suits filed against pharmaceutical corporations for damage done to the plaintiffs and/or their dead family members because of psychiatric drugs.
James Lightfield, says...
2:08pm Tue 16 Oct 07
Approximately 11 years ago, the psychiatric industry -- in an attempt to position itself more intimately with medical doctors -- began a Public Relations campaign that changed "mental illness" to "brain disease" and "psychiatric drugs" to "psychiatric medicine."
Do you honestly think that the psych and drug industries that receive a $2 trillion USD (worldwide) a year (primarily from taxes and insurance premiums)are going to do anything to clean up their own unethical practices?
Currently in the United States, only two states (New York and Pennsylvania) still report the number of patients dying in state run psychiatric facilities. Until 1994, every state was required, and it was documented that more than 1,000,000 Americans died during a ten year period (1995-1994).
How many people are dying in the UKs psychiatric facilities? Anyone know?
James Lightfield, says...
2:11pm Tue 16 Oct 07
Kenwood, London says...
5:46pm Tue 16 Oct 07
Scientology is a criminal organization, says...
5:51pm Tue 16 Oct 07
hive/fischer/) found that:
1) dianetic therapy does not exert a systematic influence either favorably or adversely upon intellectual functioning;
(2) dianetic therapy does not exert a systematic influence either favorably or adversely upon mathematical ability; and
(3) dianetic therapy does not exert a systematic influence either favorably or adversely upon the degree of personality conflicts.
Other unethical practices include, but are not limited to: using front groups like CCHR and Narconon to funnel people into Scientology, forcing members to "disconnect" with friends or family that the CHURCH deems enemies, unlawfully detaining members in labor camps ("Rehabilitation Project Force"), using thought reform tactics to obtain and retain members, and it's "Fair Game" policy of suing, slandering, harassing and threatening any and all critics of Scientology.
Now, to say that Scientology is guilty of unethical practices does not relieve "psychs" or the drug industry of crimes of which they themselves may or may not be guilty. Yes, abuse occurs. But I would strongly question any statistics or claims the Church of Scientology makes about the abuse by others, when its own "proven science" is proved only by circumstantial evidence and NO scientific data, and it appears to be pointing fingers in order to hide its own history of abuse.
James Lightfield, says...
6:44pm Tue 16 Oct 07
http://www.Scientolo
gyHandbook.org
You mentioned DIANETICS ("what the soul is doing to the body"). Glad you did.
Anyone can read L Ron Hubbard's first book posted on line at:
http://www.dianetics
-theevolutionofascie
nce.org/
You mention Narconon. Glad you did. Mr. Hubbard made a major contribution in his drug detoxification program. One example is the program given free to anyone who helped in the cleanup of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. More than 800 firemen and other emergency responders and workers who became extremely ill due to toxins ingested during their cleanup of the World Trade Center have recovered.
Two recent newspaper articles reporting results:
http://www.philly.co
m/inquirer/health_sc
ience/daily/20071007
_Clinics_results_mak
e_9_11_responders_be
lieve.html
http://www.philly.co
m/inquirer/hot_topic
s/20071005_Patient_N
o__1__and_a_towel_st
ained_purple.html
The Hubbard Sauna Detox method has received independent, peer-reviewed, mainstream scientific evidence supporting this method does indeed exist, and continues to gain momentum in respected scientific circles. A sampling of independent research (not connected to Scientology or Scientologists) which references and supports the Hubbard sauna detox method includes the following:
RESEARCH PAPERS (available at the medical research PubMed.com website):
Altern Ther Health Med. 2007 Mar-Apr;13(2):S154-6
. Components of practical clinical detox programs--sauna as a therapeutic tool. Crinnion W.
Environmental Medicine Center of Excellence, Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine in Tempe, Arizona, USA. J Altern Complement Med. 1998 Spring;4(1):77-86.
Chemical sensitivity after intoxication at work with solvents: response to sauna therapy. Krop J. St. Joseph's Health Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
BOOKS
"Sauna Therapy" (Lawrence Wilson, MD); "Detoxify or Die" (Sherry A. Rogers, MD); "Sauna Detoxification Therapy" (Marilyn G. McVicker).
Philadelphia Inquirer
http://www.philly.co
m/inquirer/health_sc
ience/daily/20071007
_Clinics_results_mak
e_9_11_responders_be
lieve.html
http://www.philly.co
m/inquirer/hot_topic
s/20071005_Patient_N
o__1__and_a_towel_st
ained_purple.html
stephanie, US says...
6:54pm Tue 16 Oct 07
Ms Trentham, Hampshire, UK says...
7:20pm Tue 16 Oct 07
spninja, says...
8:14pm Tue 16 Oct 07
du/~dst/Library/Shel
f/la90/la90-4a.html#
healthmed)
Those Philadelphia Inquirer articles are more examples of non-scientific "evidence". Publishing a book on Dianetics does not make it true. More non-scientific "evidence". If Scientology and Dianetics "works" by introducing a planned, coercive thought reform program, as I claim it does, then of course people SAY it works. If you're brainwashed, you don't know that you're brainwashed. The lack of hard evidence I believe speaks volumes of how false and dangerous those programs are.
But these ladies are correct, this is all off-topic. I personally believe that ADD and ADHD are likely diagnosed too quickly, but that there do exist cases where medication is necessary. Perhaps we are overmedicated as a society, but at least there is published scientific data to support the efficacy of drugs. There is NO SCIENTIFIC DATA supporting Scientology, Dianetics, or Narconon detox programs. There is only the claim that it works, which is drilled into Scientologists.
jack, says...
8:40pm Tue 16 Oct 07
James Lightfield, says...
8:42pm Tue 16 Oct 07
Your daughter has a problem with "impulse control." You're doing the best you can.
The existence of a category or a named symptom is NOT the issue. The issue is the fraudulent promotion of a fictitious "reason" called chemical imbalance that is used to drug children. They never were before and we had a healthy, saner culture.
Now every aspect of society, from how to raise children, to school curriculum to the judicial system -- even to training of ministers and priests is impacted by psychiatric dogma.
In the comments posted by myself and Jon Ronquist (whom I do not know) you have information and website links that of which you may not have previously been aware.
I wish you well and your daughter a happy and healthy life.
James Lightfield
anonymous, United States says...
12:03am Wed 17 Oct 07
spninja, says...
1:09am Wed 17 Oct 07
James Lightfield, says...
4:20am Wed 17 Oct 07
wil thompson, wolverhampton UK says...
8:47am Wed 17 Oct 07
James Lightfield, 361-015 says...
11:27am Wed 17 Oct 07
No answer? Why not?
L. Ron Liar, UK says...
12:19pm Wed 17 Oct 07
lf psychiatric conspiracy.
So, psychiatry does some good in helping these kids lead better lives, a method that doesn't involve their particular brand of idiocy. To them, it can't be right. What's what? "LRH" didn't come up with it, or at least claim he was there at the start? Then it must be false!
Of course, these people believe that large doses of niacin and sauna therapy will cure radiation poisioning and prevent further damage simply because L. Ron told them it was true.
James Lightfield, says...
12:35pm Wed 17 Oct 07
Still no answer. Why not?
James Lightfield, says...
12:39pm Wed 17 Oct 07
http://www.bonafides
cientology.org/Appen
d/07/index.htm
Michael Westen, London / Newbury says...
1:31pm Wed 17 Oct 07
The actual science behind 'ADHD' is indeed controversial. In fact there is no valid evidence to establish ADHD as a medical/neurological disease, "chemical imbalance" or brain abnormality. There is no medical test that can be done to show it's existence ('testing' is purely subjective, based on questionnaires, checksheets and opinion).
In fact there is no evidence to confirm that ANY mental 'disorder', as propagated by the psychiatric industry, is medical in nature or that the drugs used in "treatment" are anything other than non-specific alterers of normal brain physiology.
Claims to the contrary are usually made by organisations with strong ties to the pharmaceutical industry. A recent study undertaken in America found that 100% of psychiatrists who compile the diagnostic criteria for all mood and psychotic disorders (a category where the first line treatment is usually drug-use) has ties to drug companies.
"No abnormality of serotonin in depression has ever been demonstrated."
David Healy M.D., psychiatrist, former Secretary of the British Association for Psychopharmacology; author of "Let Them Eat Prozac".
"Chemical imbalance...it's a shorthand term really, it's probably drug industry derived. We don't have tests because to do it." Dr. Mark Graff, Chair of the Committee of Public Affairs for the American Psychiatric Association.
To date, no individual or organisation has yet to provide scientifically valid evidence for the following:
1. EVIDENCE THAT CLEARLY ESTABLISHES the validity of 'schizophrenia,' 'depression' or other 'major mental illnesses' as biologically-based brain diseases.
2. EVIDENCE FOR A PHYSICAL DIAGNOSTIC EXAM -- such as a scan or test of the brain, blood, urine, genes, etc. -- that can reliably distinguish individuals with these diagnoses (prior to treatment with psychiatric drugs), from individuals without these diagnoses.
3. EVIDENCE FOR A BASELINE STANDARD of a neurochemically-bala
nced 'normal' personality, against which a neurochemical 'imbalance' can be measured and corrected by pharmaceutical means.
4. EVIDENCE THAT ANY PSYCHOTROPIC DRUG can correct a 'chemical imbalance' attributed to a psychiatric diagnosis, and is anything more than a non-specific alterer of brain physiology.
For more information visit:
http://www.mindfreed
om.org
http://ahrp.blogspot
.com/
For information on "ADHD" and the junkscience behind it visit:
http://www.adhdtesti
ng.org
http://www.adhdfraud
.org
http://www.ritalinde
ath.com
Michael Byrne, London says...
2:59pm Wed 17 Oct 07
anonymous, united states says...
6:20pm Wed 17 Oct 07
http://www.guardian.
co.uk/prisons/story/
0,,2174115,00.html
According to the article, 600 people died "in all forms of custody" in 2006. This includes being in prison or in a state run lock down psychiatric hospital. It does not say anything about normal, publicly accessible psychiatric units. So, the article says that 200 of the 600 are suicides, and 400 of the 600 are from natural causes. This is a small number. By comparison, the amount of suicides in the US among U.S. white male medical doctors per year is about 250. This includes psychiatrists, dentists, podiatrists, oncologists, etc. Source:
http://www.emedicine
.com/emerg/topic952.
htm
So, we've possibly had more doctors kill themselves in the US in 2006 than the 200 people who have died in state custody in the UK. The two figures are simply anecdotal on my part, and shouldn't be seen as hard evidence that there is a correlation between them. It's just to prove a point: the CCHR should cite credible, independent, and objective sources for their information. Evidence from iconoclastic psychiatrists is not objective. Granted, psychiatrists who criticize psychiatry are not necessarily a bad thing. But when they ignore evidence to protect their worldviews (like to say that schizophrenia doesn't exist or that there's no evidence of a chemical imbalance in the brain that causes it), they cross the bridge over from skepticism to cynicism. On a final note, the CCHR seems to operate with more presumption than the current skeptics movement that seeks to test the validity of ESP or the existence of ghosts. If there is no such thing as a chemical imbalance, then show us that the evidence supporting that theory is flawed, or give us your own data. Neurological data. I am not optimistic though. Argument with the CCHR seems to always lead to either sparkling generalities or ad hominem attacks. We're here. We're listening. Give us a real reason to believe you.
spninja, says...
6:36pm Wed 17 Oct 07
@Michael Western: I think it makes a huge difference that the CCHR has links to Scientology. It's not just a link, the CCHR serves as a front group to funnel people into Scientology, and espouses their vitriolic anti-psychiatry agenda. I posit that the REAL reason Hubbard promoted this agenda (and thus became part of Scientology's agenda, besides getting everyone "on the bridge") is that Scientology/Dianetic
s is threatened by psychiatry. It's simple economics. Scientology wants to be the only mental health racket around, and the only way they can do that is to lie to and trick people by slandering psychiatrists and drug companies.
Again, I am NOT saying that abuses don't occur between doctors and patients, or that pharmaceutical use is higher than it needs to be. And if Scientology/Dianetic
s/Narconon actually worked, then I might not have such a problem with it being an alternative to classical psychiatry. But Scientology --and by extension, Nacronon, CCHR, etc-- has _no_ scientific data to support their claims. NONE. There is NO SCIENTIFIC DATA. They seem to think that by asking sensational questions like "How many have died in 'psych' facilities?", that makes their methods somehow more legitimate.
And let's talk about abuse for a moment. Lisa McPherson died at the hands of Scientology when she was denied actual medical treatment. If a member even KNOWS someone that is willing to voice their criticisms of the church, then they have to cut that person off or be kicked out of the the group, even if it is a family member or close friend. If a member even questions any directives of the church (which is a more appropriate term than "teachings of the church"), their 'ethics' are found to be 'out', and can be forced to perform manual labor. In the right situation, they can be sent to a FORCED LABOR CAMP.
I'm not really hoping to reach James and the other apologists, they are obviously deep into this cult. I believe they mean well, I truly do, but they have been subjected to a coercive thought-reform program. I know that they have seen contradictions and abuses in their group, but have been discouraged from coming forward, because to disagree with ANYTHING in the church is tantamount to an Ethics violation (heresy), and thus punishment. But to anyone else out there, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do research on what Scientology actually teaches, and not just what they say they teach:
www.xenu.net
www.xenu-directory.n
et
www.scientology-lies
.com
anonymous, United States says...
9:32pm Wed 17 Oct 07
http://www.intenex.n
et/pipermail/mindfre
edom-news/2005-Novem
ber/000017.html
In short, studies have shown that the drugs were more effective than placebo for depression. However, another study put forth in this article says that ssri's are no more effective than placebo in some patients. The chemical imbalance theory appears to lack evidence. Despite this though, ssri's have alleviated depression regardless of what any of us preach about them. I should know. I take drugs for my depression, and some drugs have worked, and others haven't. Would I prefer to be on a drug that is alleviating my suffering, or would I go to a Scientology mission and take a class or get some auditing. Well, I'd rather take drugs that atleast have some demonstrated efficacy. The evidence behind Scientology techniques is anecdotal at best, and at worst placebo effect.
Marco Polo, Japan says...
12:26pm Wed 31 Oct 07
JeraldR, USA says...
8:06pm Fri 9 Nov 07
Lets face facts. Far to many adults and children are on these meds. That doesn't mean the meds don't work. The proof is in the millions of lives and families these meds have saved over the years.
Do we need more study and better controls. Of course we do.
But CCHR, scientology and James Lightfield have one goal in mind. To keep anyone from getting these meds or mental heath help that is not tied to scientology and the silly stuff Hubbard wrote over fifty years ago. This man had no training in any health field and really didn't know what he was talking about.
He wrote a simple self heath book that pretty much copied from books other people had writen before. He had no real training or science to back up his books or claims.
Histry has shown that Hubbards life and his claims were lies and scientology and CCHR still repete those lies.
James's question was ment to mislead and confuse. Its not how many have died. These people were sick to start with. Its how did they die and what was done to prevent it.
But James won't tell you that. He will toss a number out there that will shock you untill you know it covers 50 to a 100 year time span.
Don't let cchr/scientology smoke and mirrors fool you. Check for yourself.
And to learn more about the cchr/scientology connection check out xenu.net and xenutv.com
JeraldR, USA says...
8:10pm Fri 9 Nov 07
Can we have a non scientology sorce for this claim James? I would love to check it out.
In this section
- Wotte sacked
- The Echo ‘gets behind our boys’
- Armed police in dramatic drugs swoop
- Forest chief vows to press ahead with controversial changes
- Exclusive interview with Liebherr's closest advisor
- £10,000 model steam engine stolen
- Actor’s careless driving cost a life
- Land Rover hunt after armed robbery
- Jodie to get his hour of fame on the Fourth Plinth ...at 2am Sunday!
- IBM accused of pension ‘bullying’
Sponsored Links
|
|
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Stephanie, US says...
6:12pm Mon 15 Oct 07
The medication works, so if you don't like the "kiddie coke" then find a medication that will help these children without the harmful side-effects, then I, along with many other parents who hate the medication, will listen to what you have to say.