Re: OT: Anti-Teenscreen case can go to trial

[Guest guest]

--- God forbid each and every child doesnt have a label. BTW

teachers do not have a license to diagnose anything.In

EOHarm , " anacat_11 " wrote:

>

> I met this mom at a conference last year. These teenscreen " mental

> health " screening tests are a scourge- if pharma can't induce

> disorders in every kid through vaccines, they'll just make them up.

> The school made the girl take the test without parental consent and

> then diagnosed her with whatnot for answering the following

question

> (roughly) in the affirmative:

>

> Do you ever find yourself doing things you don't want to do?

>

> According to her mother's presentation, the girl answered yes

because

> she found herself having to do chores and schoolwork when she'd

> sometimes rather do something else. From this she was deemed as

> suffering from a personality disorder of some sort which ended up

on

> her permanent record. The family is suing to, among other things,

get

> the mark removed.

>

>

>

>

>

> Subject: Federal Court Affirms Family's Right to Sue School RE:

> TeenScreen

> To: " Infomail1ahrp (DOT) org "

> Date: Thursday, August 7, 2008, 9:02 AM

>

>

> ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION

> Promoting Openness, Full Disclosure, and Accountability

> http://www.ahrp.org and http://ahrp.blogspot.com

>

> FYI

> A federal court has given the green light for a lawsuit to proceed

> against

> the school which had subjected 15 year old Chelsea Rhoades to a

> controversial mental screening test, TeenScreen, without her

parents'

> written informed consent.

>

> For those unfamiliar with TeenScreen: It is one of the most

insidious

> government endorsed dragnets.

> A mental screening tool with an 84% false-positive rate----as

> acknowledged

> by its author, Dr. Shaffer, child psychiatry chairman of

> Columbia

> University. [1]

>

> Hard to imagine that a screening tool whose predictive accuracy is

> only

> 16%--yet it is being promoted and used in schools across the

country--

> 43

> states in 450 schools. Healthy children are being branded as

mentally

> unstable and /or suicidal, serving as a means to increase the

market

> for

> psychotropic drugs.

> See:

> http://ahrp.blogspot.com/2007/01/mental-screening-drganet-targets-

> every.html

>

> However, such a mental disorders dragnet assures the mental health

> industry--in particular, psychotropic drug manufactures--an endless

> supply

> of young clients who are deemed by an invalid subject test to

suffer

> from

> otherwise undiagnosed " mental disorders. "

>

> The Rutherford Institute is representing Chelsea and her parents in

> this

> precedent-setting case on the basis of violation of written informed

> consent.

>

>

> Reference:

> The Columbia SuicideScreen: Validity and Reliability of a Screen

for

> Youth

> Suicide and Depression

> DAVID SHAFFER, F.R.C.PSYCH. (LOND), MICHELLE SCOTT, PH.D., HOLLY

> WILCOX,

> M.A., CAREY MASLOW, PH.D., ROGER HICKS, B.A., CHRISTOPHER P. LUCAS,

> M.D.,

> ROBIN GARFINKEL, PH.D., AND STEVEN GREENWALD, M.A. Journal of the

> American

> Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 2004; 43(1), 71-79

>

> Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav

> veracare@...

>

>

>

> http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/press_release.asp?

article_id=723

> For Immediate Release: AUGUST 6, 2008

> Teen Screen Lawsuit Advances: Federal Court Affirms Family s

> Right

> to Sue School for Subjecting Teen to Mental Health Test Without

> Parental

> Consent

>

> SOUTH BEND, Ind. A federal court has given the green light to

> a

> civil rights lawsuit filed by Rutherford Institute attorneys in

> defense of a

> 15-year-old Indiana student who was subjected by school officials

to a

> controversial mental health examination without the knowledge or

> consent of

> her parents. In ruling that the lawsuit filed on behalf of Chelsea

> Rhoades

> and her parents, and Rhoades, may proceed to trial,

> the U.S.

> District Court for the Northern District of Indiana upheld the

claims

> that

> the local school district deprived the Rhoades family of their

federal

> constitutional rights to family integrity and privacy when it

> subjected

> Chelsea to the " TeenScreen " examination. A copy of the lawsuit is

> available

> here <http://www.rutherford.org/PDF/Filed_Complaint.pdf> .

>

> " This ruling rightly recognizes that parents have an

> intrinsic right

> to control their children's education, as well as safeguard their

> mental

> and

> physical well-being, " stated W. Whitehead, president of The

> Rutherford

> Institute.

>

> On December 7, 2004, Chelsea Rhoades, a student at Penn High

> School

> in Mishawaka, Ind., was subjected to a mental health examination

> known as

> TeenScreen by personnel with the Madison Center for Children, a

local

> mental health center. The mental health exam consisted of questions

> seeking

> only a yes or no answer, with no opportunity to explain or

offer

> an

> alternative response. Only students with an opt-out slip were

excused

> from

> taking the exam. All other students were divided into groups of 10-

15,

> herded into classrooms and placed in front of computers.

>

> After completing the examination and being escorted into a

> private

> hallway by an employee of Madison Center, Chelsea was informed

that,

> based

> on her responses that she liked to clean and didn t like to party

> very much,

> she suffered from at least two mental health problems, obsessive

> compulsive

> disorder and social anxiety disorder. Chelsea was also told that if

> her

> condition worsened, her mother should take her to the Madison

Center

> for

> treatment. According to Chelsea, a majority of the students who were

> subjected to the TeenScreen exam were also told they were suffering

> from

> some sort of mental or social disorder. Chelsea s parents were not

> informed about the mental health screening exam until after it had

> taken

> place, when Chelsea spoke to them about her so-called diagnosis.

>

> In September 2005, Rutherford Institute attorneys filed suit

> in

> federal district court on behalf of the Rhoades family, charging

that

> school

> officials violated Chelsea s constitutional right to be free from

> unnecessary intrusions by the state. In rejecting the school

district

> s

> attempt to have the case dismissed, the court also ruled that the

> school is

> liable for the false diagnosis of mental illness that was given to

> Chelsea.

>

>

> Mental health screening exams like TeenScreen have

> increasingly been

> adopted by schools in 43 states, reportedly as part of an effort to

> identify

> students with mental health problems or at-risk tendencies for

> suicide that

> cannot be seen outwardly. However, while federal and state law

> generally

> requires that parents grant written consent in order for their

> children to

> take mental health screening exams, some schools had relied

> on " passive

> consent " forms in order to administer the exams. Passive consent

> requires

> parents to return a form only if they do not want their child to

> participate

> in the screening. However, according to the federal Protection of

> Pupil

> Rights Amendment, as well as Indiana state law, schools are

required

> to

> obtain " written parental consent " before engaging in such programs

as

> mental

> health screening.

>

[Guest guest]

I met this mom at a conference last year. These teenscreen "mental health" screening tests are a scourge .. personality disorder of some sort which ended up on her permanent record. Permanent Record? Jeez. I'm generally in favor of screening for mental illness, as there is a LOT of denial with parents (mine included..). But they keep a permanent record of this stuff like a criminal record? My God. I read an article last year about some program somewhere to identify "potential sexual predators" as early as elementary school.. Talk about creeping facism (galloping is more like it!)Jim

[Guest guest]

Another reason to keep your kids off psychotropic drugs......... there's a permanent record right there.RoxI met this mom at a conference last year. These teenscreen "mental health" screening tests are a scourge .. personality disorder of some sort which ended up on her permanent record. Permanent Record? Jeez. I'm generally in favor of screening for mental illness, as there is a LOT of denial with parents (mine included..). But they keep a permanent record of this stuff like a criminal record? My God. I read an article last year about some program somewhere to identify "potential sexual predators" as early as elementary school.. Talk about creeping facism (galloping is more like it!)Jim

[Guest guest]

This teen screen isn't anything, but another way to destroy the masses.

Kids and or adults who are on this stuff are killing themselves and or

their loved ones. Just think of the mass bloodshed they can have if the

masses are on their trash they call medicine. And that IS their

objective!

Connie

> > I met this mom at a conference last year. These teenscreen " mental

> > health " screening tests are a scourge .. personality disorder of

> > some sort which ended up on

> > her permanent record.

> >

> Permanent Record? Jeez. I'm generally in favor of screening for

> mental illness, as there is a LOT of denial with parents (mine

> included..). But they keep a permanent record of this stuff like a

> criminal record? My God. I read an article last year about some

> program somewhere to identify " potential sexual predators " as early

> as elementary school.. Talk about creeping facism (galloping is

more

> like it!)

>

> Jim

>

[Guest guest]

Well, if anyone can figure out what constitutes " mental health " , I

suppose screenings would be okay. So what's healthy? Members of the FDA

and CDC? And the NIMH? By their own assessment tools, I don't think

it's a stretch to say most qualify for either some sort of deficient

personality disorder (see crime but don't report it) or some kind of

generalized personality disorder for lying, criminal behavior, etc.

These are the people who decide what's health and illness, so we're

screwed if we let them " screen " for it. Why aren't they screening

childen for sequestered metal poisoning? Sort of more to the point

these days.

As far as screening for criminality in grade school, that's total nazi

eugenics all right. First off, they're diagnosing all these toxically

injured children with pediatric bipolar disorder, which never existed

before and then confusing toxic injuries with diagnostic criterion

which formerly represented emotionally injured children. So if a kid is

lead poisoned, they could be viewed as a child molester? And then if a

child shows " signs " of becoming a child molester, what then? Remove

them from their family? It's insane. But almost always, the focus is on

genes. There's no gene for violence or criminality. Your read stuff

from time to time that makes it seem as if it's a fait accompli that

this genetic link has been made but it's totally untrue. For instance

there was this Dutch study for men who had an extra y chromosome. They

tried to imply that it led to violent behavior in adulthood. All they

really proved was that individuals with an extra y tended to have lower

intelligence which could be a factor in ending up jail only if you

added poverty, lack of education and the usual domestic violence and

lack of services. Then there was the Federal Violence Initiates, which

constituted three attempts by the NIMH and the APA to launch a research

program targeting black, inner-city children: the implication was clear-

- they were trying to prove a racial component to violence along with a

genetic one. They did scary experiments on toddlers and young children,

including giving ten times the dose of phentynl to preteen boys which

would make an adult ill and doing spinal taps.

Read " The War Against Children of Color " for details on all of it and

why we should never, ever let the government politicize medicine or

mental health.

> > I met this mom at a conference last year. These teenscreen " mental

> > health " screening tests are a scourge .. personality disorder of

> > some sort which ended up on

> > her permanent record.

> >

> Permanent Record? Jeez. I'm generally in favor of screening for

> mental illness, as there is a LOT of denial with parents (mine

> included..). But they keep a permanent record of this stuff like a

> criminal record? My God. I read an article last year about some

> program somewhere to identify " potential sexual predators " as early

> as elementary school.. Talk about creeping facism (galloping is

more

> like it!)

>

> Jim

>

[Guest guest]

> Why aren't they screening childen for sequestered metal poisoning?

>

Every kid would have something.. Don't want to create problems

for the EPA.

> There's no gene for violence or criminality.

>

Wait, I thought that was that little runt called 'Y'..

Jim

[Guest guest]

On that note, no-one in Canada or the US is screening kids for effects of fluorosis, even though close to 1/3 of American children have dental fluorosis. An overload of fluoride will not only cause white spots or mottling on your teeth, but can cause other systemic effects also. Yet, I don't believe there is anywhere in the US or Canada, where we can have urine or blood tested for fluoride levels. I heard a rumor that this may be available (or becoming available in the near future) at Doctor's Data Lab (in Chicago, I believe,...correct me if I'm wrong). Just adding this on to our vaccine woes and worries, Aasa Jim Witte wrote: > Why aren't they screening childen for sequestered metal poisoning?>Every kid would have something.. Don't want to create problems for the EPA.> There's no gene for violence or criminality.>Wait, I thought that was that little runt called 'Y'.. :)Jim

[Guest guest]

Aasa,

My asd ds has teeth like this. As a matter of fact, at his last

dentist appt., the dentist suspected he was overdosed with flouride

as a toddler/young child. But, I've never given him flouride drops,

we don't drink tap water, and I've never let the dentist give him

flouride treatments.

Are there other exposures that cause the white spots / molting on

teeth? I always suspected it was abnormal mineral transport, but

the dentist scoffed at that.

Sally

> > Why aren't they screening childen for sequestered metal

poisoning?

> >

> Every kid would have something.. Don't want to create problems

> for the EPA.

> > There's no gene for violence or criminality.

> >

> Wait, I thought that was that little runt called 'Y'..

>

> Jim

>

[Guest guest]

Fruit juice, even if watered down, can do it, especially if he got it through a baby bottle (perhaps even a sippy cup, but the bottle would be worse, as the juice is in contact with the teeth for a longer period of time). Our dentist told us that there is fluoride even in apple juice. I don't know whether it is in the apples, or in the water that is used to reconstitute the concentrated apple juice, or whether it is added as a preservative, even though it is not listed in the ingredients, or some combo of all of the above (I've heard it could be any of the latter, especially). Anyway, several of my kids used to love their apple juice mixed with water in their bottles when they were babies (before I knew any of this stuff) and I would let them have it, as it seemed to settle some of them down. Well, that was not a good idea, as some of them now have dental fluorosis. Another big thing to deal with (in my mind,

anyway, as I did not have the opportunity to bandy this idea about with others who were wondering about fluorosis and autism), was the need to find ways to get kids with sensory issues away from their bottle "fixes" and over their sensory issues with having/getting their teeth brushed as youngsters. That was a huge issue, especially with my youngest son, and it was not easy at all for us to help him brush his teeth when he was younger and relatively nonverbal. He always put up a great fight and did not want any of us near his teeth. If I had known then, what the repercussions/consequences could be, I would have put up a bigger fight him/ have been more persistent, come what may (bruises, bites, and all, sometimes). Anyway, even though I did not get a chance to speak my mind on this point at the conference, I do not think fluoride issues play a big part in causing autistic spectrum disorders, but I do think they

can play a part in aggravating what is going on. Then again, we do not know. That is the worst part: we do not know, because not enough research is being done in the area of fluoride safety, vaccine safety, pesticide safety, etc., especially in our own countries. Aasa sam_hsmom wrote: Aasa,My asd ds has teeth like this. As a matter of fact, at his last dentist appt., the dentist suspected he was overdosed with flouride as a

toddler/young child. But, I've never given him flouride drops, we don't drink tap water, and I've never let the dentist give him flouride treatments.Are there other exposures that cause the white spots / molting on teeth? I always suspected it was abnormal mineral transport, but the dentist scoffed at that.Sally> > Why aren't they screening childen for sequestered metal poisoning?> >> Every kid would have something.. Don't want to create problems > for the EPA.> > There's no gene for violence or criminality.> >> Wait, I thought that was that little runt called 'Y'.. > > Jim>

[Guest guest]

This makes me wonder how much flouride is in fruit juice. We assume

it's just apple juice, but i'm betting is spiked pretty good with

this poison.

Connie

> > > Why aren't they screening childen for sequestered metal

> poisoning?

> > >

> > Every kid would have something.. Don't want to create problems

> > for the EPA.

> > > There's no gene for violence or criminality.

> > >

> > Wait, I thought that was that little runt called 'Y'..

> >

> > Jim

> >

>

[Guest guest]

As far as I understand, testing for fluorosis is like testing for

heavy metal exposure-- it sequesters to bone and organs after a time,

so the testing options are diminished after the period of chronic

exposure and the substance is no longer really detectable in blood.

They could probably test baby teeth but I haven't heard of tests for

indirect markers for fluorosis.

Furthermore, fluorine is in Prozac (fluoxetine). This adds to the

controversy and adds a powerful special interest which isn't so

interested in seeing testing for this condition become formalized. I

don't know whether a child could hypothetically get congenital

exposure through his mother's fluorosis for whatever reason (either

because she took the drugs or had fluorosis from water or fluoride

treatments). The child could get fluorine exposure if they were

prescribed the drug. So the very existance of some formal testing

procedure would not only call into question the water fluoridation

process (there's also Prozac in tap water) but would also call into

question yet ANOTHER safety concern for the class of drugs. The long

term effects of sequestration of fluorine in bone is unknown. Such a

familiar term, huh-- " Never tested " .

>

> On that note, no-one in Canada or the US is screening kids for

effects of fluorosis, even though close to 1/3 of American children

have dental fluorosis. An overload of fluoride will not only cause

white spots or mottling on your teeth, but can cause other systemic

effects also. Yet, I don't believe there is anywhere in the US or

Canada, where we can have urine or blood tested for fluoride levels.

I heard a rumor that this may be available (or becoming available in

the near future) at Doctor's Data Lab (in Chicago, I

believe,...correct me if I'm wrong).

>

>