DR. WHITAKER'S HEALTH UPDATE FOR August 19, 2004

HELP SPREAD THE WORD

If you have young children or grandchildren, the information I'm going to share should scare you. It should make you angry. But above all it should make you want to stand up and protect them from what I consider a very dangerous threat: mandatory psychiatric screening of each and every school-aged child.

That's right. The plans are in motion to screen every schoolchild for ADHD, depression, social anxiety disorder, and behavior problems. In fact, it's already in effect in Illinois, Texas, and New Jersey.

A Disturbing Trend in Our Schools

In April 2002, President Bush created the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. Its objective was to enhance mental health services to those in need. But it has taken a diabolical twist. The commission has concluded that there is a need to search for mental disorders, especially in children, and to do this, they plan mandatory mental health screening for everyone, starting with preschoolers.

According to the Commission's 2003 report, "Quality screening and early intervention should occur in readily accessible, low-stigma settings, such as primary health care facilities and schools."

It is irrational to think that you need to screen 52 million schoolchildren to find those who need help. The ones who really need help are obvious.

But it gets worse. The report goes on to say, "the extent, severity, and far-reaching consequences make it imperative that our Nation adopt a comprehensive, systemic approach to improving the mental health status of children." That means drugging them!

52 Million Potential Customers

The New Freedom Commission's proposed treatment programs are based on the Texas Medication Algorithm Project (TMAP). TMAP, which was first used in Texas in 1996 and has since expanded to other states, is a set of very specific medication recommendations, virtually all of them the newest, most expensive, psychotropic drugs available.

It doesn't take a genius to see that this sinister scheme has been masterminded by the pharmaceutical companies, who stand to gain billions of dollars by pushing expensive drugs on our children.

According to Allen Jones, an inspector who worked in the Pennsylvania Office of the Inspector General, many of these companies contribute large sums of money to political parties and to people in key decision-making roles. When he blew the whistle on this, he was promptly sacked.

Trolling for Patients

If you want to see just how biased and ridiculous these screening procedures are, visit some of the drug companies' websites and look at their questionnaires. Whether they are trying to weed out depression, social anxiety disorder, ADHD, or other psychological maladies, the types of questions they ask are equally absurd.

I took one test, entitled the Zung Assessment Tool, at the Prozac website. You respond to 20 phrases with one of the following: not often, sometimes, often, or all the time. Phrases include, "I feel downhearted, blue, and sad." "I have trouble sleeping through the night." "I eat as much as I used to." "I have trouble with constipation." "My mind is as clear as it used to be." "I am more irritable than usual." "I find it easy to make decisions." (As you see, some of these questions are confusing, if not irrational.)

I selected "sometimes" for every phrase, as a normal, healthy person would. My score was 50, and I was advised to show this test to my doctor and "ask him or her to evaluate you for depression."

Folks, sometimes feeling irritable, unable to sleep, etc., are hardly indicative of a serious mental malfunction. Feeling out of sorts from time to time is a normal part of being human. Yet according to this test, I may be a candidate for an antidepressant.

Drugging of Children Is Evil

Widespread psychiatric screening of our children isn't only unnecessary, it's evil.

Children are not miniature adults. Childhood is filled with dreams, vivid imagination, and rollercoaster rides of emotion that we as grownups only vaguely recall. The totality of these experiences is essential in order for children to become fully developed adults.

Psychotropic drugs prevent children from truly experiencing childhood. The drugged child is not real. He doesn't grow into and out of various life stages, whether pleasant or unpleasant. Psychiatric drugs prevent normal development.

The pharmaceutical drug lords, lusting for the billions of dollars that massive psychiatric screening and treatment will add to their coffers, will destroy the essence of your child.

Think back on your childhood. Remember your experiences. Now ask yourself, would you be better off today if five or six years of your childhood had been spent in a drugged-out state?

In my opinion, psychotropic drugs are even worse than some illegal ones. Children are drugged simply because some harebrained test designed by a pharmaceutical company says they should be drugged. Neither the child nor the parent has any say at all in the matter.

What Can You Do?

Here's what you can do about it. First of all, refuse to sign those consent forms when they come home from your child's school - if they can't test them, they can't drug them. Next, take a moment to write your congressional representatives and voice your concerns. You can locate them at http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/. Also, email Laura Bush at first.lady@whitehouse.gov . Ask her how she'd like to have her daughters screened and drugged without her or their consent. We need to get mothers involved.

Finally, don't just say no to drugs. Say no to psychiatric screening.

Julian Whitaker, M.D.


Informant: arkmayebway

FBI “anti-terror” task force targets Bush administration opponents
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/aug2004/fbi-a18.shtml

We Must Fight!

March 23, 1775

Speech By: Patrick Henry

http://www.rebelswithavision.com/Patrick-Henry.net/


Informant: Harry Mobley

http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/50096


Nachricht von der BI Bad Dürkheim

by Paul Craig Roberts

AntiWar.Com

08/17/04

President George Bush and his Attorney General, John Ashcroft, have resurrected the 'Star Chamber,' made infamous by the Stuart kings in the 17th century for arbitrary, secret proceedings with no right of appeal. Today, American citizens can be arrested and held in secret indefinitely without being charged...

http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=3314


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

If we don't recognize the distinction between passionate political speech and terrorism now, it may be too late to protest later...

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/12/opinion/12lith.html?ex=1250049600&en=a460e6f8a6a97f8c&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

http://tinyurl.com/5calo


From Information Clearing House

Police in England and Wales could be given powers to arrest people for minor offences such as graffiti or litter...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3557266.stm


From Information Clearing House

by ADAM LIPTAK

Published: August 10, 2004

Federal judge in Washington held a reporter for Time magazine in contempt of court yesterday and ordered him jailed for refusing to name the government officials who disclosed the identity of an undercover C.I.A. officer to him. The magazine was also held in contempt and ordered to pay a fine of $1,000 a day.

The judge, Thomas F. Hogan, chief judge of the Federal District Court in Washington, suspended both sanctions while Time and its reporter, Matthew Cooper, pursued an appeal. But the judge firmly rejected their contention that the First Amendment entitled journalists to refuse to answer a grand jury's questions about confidential sources.

"The information requested," Judge Hogan wrote, "is very limited, all available means of obtaining the information have been exhausted, the testimony sought is necessary for completion of the investigation, and the testimony sought is expected to constitute direct evidence of innocence or guilt."

The ruling came in an investigation into whether Bush administration members illegally disclosed the identity of a covert C.I.A. officer.

Legal experts said yesterday that the potential jailing of a journalist represented perhaps the most significant clash between federal prosecutors and the news media since the 1970's. The case is one of several making their way through federal courts in which journalists have been ordered to reveal their sources.

The subpoenas for Mr. Cooper and other journalists were issued by a special prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, trying to learn who told the syndicated columnist Robert Novak the identity of an undercover C.I.A. officer, Valerie Plame. Ms. Plame is married to Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former diplomat who asserted in a July 6, 2003, Op-Ed article in The New York Times that President Bush had relied on discredited intelligence when he said, in his 2003 State of the Union address, that Iraq had sought uranium from Africa.

On July 14, 2003, Mr. Novak wrote in his column that "two administration officials" told him that Ms. Plame "is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." Disclosing the identity of a covert officer for the Central Intelligence Agency officer can be a crime. Mr. Wilson has suggested that the White House might have leaked his wife's name as retribution for his criticism of the president.

It is not known whether Mr. Novak has received a subpoena or, if he did, how he responded. His lawyer, James Hamilton, declined to comment yesterday.

On July 17, 2003, Time reported that "some government officials" had disclosed Ms. Plame's identity to the magazine.

Mr. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and a number of White House officials have been questioned in the inquiry, which Mr. Fitzgerald, the United States attorney in Chicago, took over after Attorney General John Ashcroft recused himself in December.

Like Mr. Cooper, Tim Russert, of the NBC program "Meet the Press," received a subpoena in May. In a decision dated July 20 but made public yesterday, Judge Hogan ordered Mr. Russert and Mr. Cooper to testify before the grand jury.

Mr. Cooper refused, leading to the contempt order yesterday. By contrast, Mr. Russert agreed to cooperate.

In a statement, NBC said Mr. Russert was interviewed under oath by prosecutors on Saturday. NBC said Mr. Russert had not been a recipient of a leak and was not asked questions that would have required him to disclose a confidential source.

"The questioning focused on what Russert said when Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, phoned him last summer," NBC reported Saturday. "Russert told the special prosecutor that at the time of the conversation he didn't know Plame's name or that she was a C.I.A. operative and did not provide that information to Libby."

A spokesman for Mr. Fitzgerald declined to comment on the investigation.

A Washington Post reporter, Glenn Kessler, was interviewed by prosecutors in June. The Post reported then that he had testified about conversations with Mr. Libby at Mr. Libby's request and that he did so without violating any promises to confidential sources.

A second Post reporter, Walter Pincus, said he received a subpoena yesterday. He referred questions about whether The Post would challenge the subpoena to the paper's lawyers. Neither The Post's in-house lawyers nor its outside lawyer, Seth P. Waxman, responded to messages seeking comment.

Legal experts, including some sympathetic to the arguments by Mr. Cooper and Time, said the appeals court was unlikely to reverse Judge Hogan's decision.

"I think we're going to have a head-on confrontation here," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. "I think Matt Cooper is going to jail."

Time's managing editor, James Kelly, said the judge had given too little weight to the importance to the public of allowing reporters to pledge confidentiality to their sources in exchange for important information.

Several reporters, including James Risen and Jeff Gerth of The New York Times, have been ordered to reveal their confidential sources in a case brought by Wen Ho Lee. Mr. Lee, a scientist at the Los Alamos nuclear laboratory, was suspected of espionage in 1999 but ultimately pleaded guilty to a single felony count of mishandling secrets. Mr. Lee is suing the federal government, alleging violations of his privacy.

Later this month, Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, also of the Federal District Court in Washington, is scheduled to rule on a motion by Mr. Lee's lawyers to hold the reporters in contempt. Mr. Lee's case is a civil one, seeking money, while the Plame investigation is a criminal one.

In his ruling in the Plame matter last month, Judge Hogan said a federal Supreme Court decision from 1972 known as Branzburg required Mr. Cooper to disclose his sources.

Judge Hogan wrote, "Branzburg makes clear that neither the First Amendment nor the common law protect reporters from their obligations shared by all citizens to testify before the grand jury when called to do so."

Floyd Abrams, a lawyer for Time and Mr. Cooper, said the decision would make it harder for reporters like Mr. Cooper to do their jobs.

"The story was essentially critical of the administration for leaking information designed to focus the public away from what Ambassador Wilson was saying was true and toward personal things," Mr. Abrams said of the Time article. "That sort of story, about potential government misuse of power, is precisely the sort of thing that is impossible to do without the benefit of confidential sources."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/10/politics/10leak.html?ex=1093106049&ei=1&en=89b66074d905d824


Informant: Laurel

EU-Verfassung und Co.: Worüber das Volk abstimmen darf, sollte es selbst entscheiden

10.08.04

Rechtschreibreform oder Länderneugliederung - worüber sollen die Deutschen abstimmen dürfen? Aus Sicht der Bürgeraktion Mehr Demokratie sollte diese Entscheidung den Bürgern überlassen bleiben. Die laufende Debatte zeige, wie wichtig die Einführung bundesweiter Volksinitiativen, Volksbegehren und Volksentscheide sei, erklärte Vorstandssprecher Gerald Häfner. "Die Bürger sind der Souverän und wissen selbst am besten, welche Fragen sie bewegen und worüber sie direkt entscheiden wollen", sagte Häfner. Damit dies auch praktisch möglich wird, fordert er die Einführung bundesweiter Volksinitiativen, Volksbegehren und Volksentscheide. Ein entsprechender Vorschlag von Mehr Demokratie liege schon seit langem vor...

Die ganze Nachricht im Internet:

http://www.ngo-online.de/ganze_nachricht.php4?Nr=9064