Who Decides What Drugs Are Forced on Children?

[Guest guest]

from:

http://www.mercola.com/2001/mar/14/drugs_children.htm

Who Decides What Drugs Are Forced on Children?

by Phyllis Schlafly

All children must be injected with dozens of vaccines before

entering school or daycare, and some of these injections are

given to infants within the first weeks or even hours of

birth.

Parents are led to believe that these injections are

required.

Who mandated these vaccines and what is the decision-making

process?

Parents are excluded from the process of deciding what drugs

are injected into their children's bodies. Most states allow

a limited medical exemption and a religious exemption, and a

few states allow a philosophical (or conscientiously held

belief) exemption. But often great pressure is exerted on

parents who try to use these exemptions, and about 98% of

all children are vaccinated.

Since more vaccines are coming on the market every year and

more are being mandated, it's time to ask and answer several

questions about forced medical care of healthy children.

(1) Do we want government to have the power to force medical

treatment on children against their parents wishes?

(2) Is the process that produces these mandates honest --

scientifically, bureaucratically, legislatively, politically

-- and open to public scrutiny and peer review?

It's important to recognize that the government is using

popular support for vaccines to subsidize states to set up

vaccine registries to tag all children at birth and track

their medical records all their lives, and the CDC is

working to merge these registries into a national medical

database.

When completed, this will achieve one of the principal goals

of the discredited Clinton health care plan: computerizing

the health records of all Americans with unique personal

identifiers (Social Security numbers, if possible).

Vaccine mandates go into effect in America in an intricate

three-step procedure that evades accountability.

First, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and its

Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee

(VRBPAC) decide whether a vaccine can be licensed.

Second, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and its

Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) decide

whether to include the vaccine on the Child Immunization

Schedule, i.e., put on the list of vaccines that are

recommended to be given to all children.

Third, state legislatures specify which vaccines and how

many doses are required (or authorize a state health agency

to put new vaccines on the compulsory list). State

legislatures or agencies usually follow ACIP's

recommendations.

It is obvious that the FDA/ACIP/state decisions make the

approved vaccines immensely profitable by providing a

guaranteed market. Federal laws are supposed to prohibit

conflicts of interest, but commercial conflicts have emerged

as a major concern.

Conflicts of Interest about Vaccines

When a rotavirus (infant diarrhea) vaccine was suddenly

withdrawn from the market in 1999, the public was led to

believe that it was because new information about harmful

side effects had been discovered. At a June 15, 2000 hearing

conducted by Rep. Dan Burton's (R-IN) House Committee on

Government Reform, we learned that other factors influenced

the 1998 FDA licensing and CDC recommendation.

Most of the work of the CDC advisory committee is done in

" working groups " behind closed doors without public

scrutiny. Six of the ten working groups had financial ties

to pharmaceuticals that make rotavirus vaccines.

It turns out that half of those on the two key committees

voting for the rotavirus vaccine had financial ties to

vaccine manufacturers, such as being paid as consultants or

lobbyists or owning vaccine patents or owning stock in

pharmaceuticals.

In pre-licensure trials for the rotavirus vaccine, some

babies suffered obstructed bowels a week later, some

requiring surgery to remove a portion of the intestine, a

painful condition called intussusception.

Nevertheless, the committees approved the vaccine for

universal use, calling these reports statistically

insignificant. The study data were concealed, and the public

did not learn of the problem until more than 100 cases of

intussusception were reported, including one death.

The vaccine was not even considered to be all that effective

in preventing diarrhea in infants. In one U.S. multicenter

trial, the rotavirus vaccine only had a 49% efficacy rate in

preventing the rotavirus disease.

Within months after government approval, 1.5 million vaccine

doses were given to infants. The Department of Health and

Human Services, in its announcement, stated that " the most

common adverse vaccine reactions included moderate fever,

increased irritability, and decreased appetite and

activity, " with no mention of side effects requiring

hospitalization or surgery.

The Burton hearings provided some answers to help explain

this disaster. When the rotavirus vaccine was approved by

the FDA committee, 8 members were absent, 2 were excluded,

and 4 of the remaining 5 had conflicts of interest that

necessitated waivers. This was not a quorum so they were

joined by 5 temporary members, and then all voted to approve

the vaccine. The committee's own charter states that

temporary members are normally not to exceed 4.

The CDC routinely grants conflict-of-interest waivers to

every member of its advisory committee a year at a time, and

allows full participation in the discussions by all members

even if they have a financial stake in the decision.

One member who cast three votes to recommend the rotavirus

vaccine owned a patent for another rotavirus vaccine and

admitted that he was paid by the pharmaceutical industry to

travel around the country and teach doctors that vaccines

are safe.

The public still has no access to the actual data concerning

side effects of the rotavirus vaccine or of the

controversial chicken pox or hepatitis B vaccines. If these

new vaccines are safe, there should be no objection to

releasing the actual data that demonstrate this.

The obvious incentive to conceal such data is to hide facts

that discredit the public recommendations.

At Burton's June 15 hearing, officials from the FDA and CDC

defended the various conflicts of interest because waivers

were granted. One CDC official went so far as to suggest

that it is good to use vaccine industry insiders on official

advisory committees because they are able to vote based on

secret drug-company information! That is tantamount to

letting vaccine industry lobbyists write their own

profitable government mandates, i.e., simply own the

process.

It is a great mistake to base vaccine policy on confidential

or trade-secret data. Scientific claims are most reliable

when all data and analyses are subject to public scrutiny.

Our political system demands that government decisions be

subject to democratic checks and balances.

The whole concept of the government forcing experimental

treatment on healthy individuals is disturbing to those who

value freedom. Mandatory vaccine policies depend on

overwhelming public acceptance, but public confidence is

eroded by conflicts of interest and secrecy of deliberations

and data.

Government should put all the data, analyses and meeting

minutes on a public website, and this should include a

risk-benefit analysis, cost-benefit analysis, and a

comparison against alternate policies. Only public data and

arguments should be considered. The CDC should appoint

advisory committee members with diverse points of view.

Scientists from other fields, consumer advocates, and even

vaccine critics would greatly improve the quality of the

recommendations because more policy implications would be

considered.

Who Imposes the Vaccine Mandates?

The December 27, 2000 issue of JAMA (Journal of the American

Medical Association) contains a very important caveat about

who is responsible for the decisions to mandate vaccines,

even though the article supports the widespread policy of

forcing all children to be vaccinated in order to enter

daycare or school.

The JAMA article reports on a Centers for Disease Control

(CDC) study that makes the unsurprising claim that

unvaccinated children are more likely to get measles and

pertussis than those who are vaccinated. The study used

Colorado data because that is one of 15 states that allow

parents a philosophical (conscientiously held belief)

exemption in addition to the religious and medical

exemptions. Only 1.4 percent claimed this exemption and more

than 98% of Colorado children were vaccinated in the year

cited by the study.

Vaccination is not effective in about 5 percent of children,

so when there is a measles outbreak, most of the cases are

among vaccinated children.

The CDC has declared that the United States has been free

from indigenous measles since 1998 and the only cases come

in with immigrants.

For the Colorado study, the researchers had to go back more

than ten years to find sufficient cases and include a

measles epidemic. If the researchers wanted to discuss

current risks accurately, they should have focused on

immigrants and ineffective vaccinations rather than on

children whom they disdainfully call " exemptors. "

It appears that the " experts " and the " authorities " won't be

happy until there is 100% compliance with vaccine mandates.

The real purpose of the JAMA report seems to be to shame or

scare the 1 to 2 percent of parents into not using a

philosophical exemption and to induce states to repeal this

exemption.

The same issue of JAMA includes an editorial commenting on

this study. It, too, is based on the premise that vaccine

mandates are desirable, and it deplores criticisms of

vaccines by parents, implying that their objections must be

based on ignorance or misinformation.

But buried in the JAMA editorial are some startling comments

and revelations. JAMA absolves ACIP, CDC and FDA from any

accountability for the mandating of vaccines in the

three-step process described above. The editorial says, " It

is not the responsibility of these advisory bodies to

determine which vaccines are mandated; that decision resides

with the state. "

The JAMA editorial issues a warning to state legislators.

They should not mandate a vaccine just because FDA licenses

it or ACIP recommends it; state legislators are responsible

to make their own decisions and cannot pass the buck to FDA,

ACIP or CDC, which only have power to recommend, but not

mandate, the vaccines.

Then comes the question, why do ACIP and FDA so gratuitously

put so many vaccines on the " recommended " list for all

children? JAMA's editorial reveals the answer:

these recommendations are monetary decisions masquerading as

medical decisions.

Here are JAMA's words: " Since federal funding for vaccines

is determined by the ACIP through the Vaccines for Children

(VFC) program, whenever possible the ACIP should endorse

funding for vaccines that physicians and parents wish to

administer. "

In other words, the real purpose of ACIP and FDA

recommendations is to release federal funds to buy the

vaccines from the manufacturers. Remember that Rep. Dan

Burton's investigation in June 2000 revealed many conflicts

of interest among those who sit on federal panels where they

can approve the recommendations that trigger the federal

funds.

JAMA issues a stern caveat to the states: " All vaccines that

are licensed and recommended for use in children should not

necessarily be legally mandated for day care or school

entry. Each state needs to assess each vaccine individually.

.. . . States should determine whether the disease to be

prevented by the vaccines is highly contagious, results in

significant morbidity and mortality, and poses a major

health problem to both the individual and the community. "

It's obvious that those are not the criteria used by the

ACIP and FDA in their pronouncements. Many states are now

amending their compulsory vaccination laws to add hepatitis

B and chicken pox. An independent assessment of these

vaccines by a state is unlikely to conclude that they meet

the criteria set forth by JAMA.

Rep. Burton should hold more hearings to expose the

government's vaccine licensing/recommendation/ mandate

process. Meanwhile, since the government's decision-making

procedure is not only defective but suspect, we need a

philosophical exemption in every state so that decisions can

be made by parents whose motive is the health of their

children, not promoting government purchases of vaccines.

Independent judgments by states and consumers might have

helped to avoid past blunders like the rotavirus vaccine

embarrassment last year that caused injuries to so many

babies. At a minimum, a philosophical exemption in every

state would create a market demand for improvement of

vaccines.

Recall Defective Tires, But Not Vaccines?

A July 18, 2000 hearing of the House Committee on Government

Reform produced evidence about the health dangers from

vaccines containing thimerosal (mercury). Babies who are

injected with the vaccines specified on the Universal

Childhood Immunization Schedule, which are typically

delivered in four to six shots during one doctor's visit,

may receive 40 times the amount of mercury that is

considered safe under Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

guidelines.

An independent evaluation conducted by the National Research

Council confirmed the EPA guidelines as accurate, and the

FDA's own website states that " lead, cadmium, and mercury

are examples of elements that are toxic when present at

relatively low levels. " Credible testimony was also given

regarding the possible relationship between symptoms of

mercury poisoning and the skyrocketing rate of autism, now

occurring in 1 in 500 children nationwide.

Committee Chairman Dan Burton sent letters to HHS Secretary

Donna Shalala and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

asking for the recall of all thimerosal-containing vaccines.

His requests and those of parents of vaccine-injured

children have been ignored. This is despite the fact that

the FDA admits that the vaccines on the Childhood

Immunization Schedule are all available in a thimerosal-free

version.

Apparently, the FDA is not planning to recall any of the 50

thimerosal-containing vaccines but only suggests a " phase

out " over time, thus allowing the pharmaceuticals to unload

their defective merchandise on unsuspecting children. For

years to come, these toxic vaccines will continue to be

injected in babies in public health clinics, doctor's

offices, and managed care facilities.

It is unconscionable to continue to put thousands of babies

every day at risk from mercury poisoning, especially when

the government is recommending use of these vaccines and the

schools are making them mandatory, and when safe

alternatives are easily available.

Leaving dangerous vaccines on the market so that the

pharmaceuticals can continue to receive revenue from current

inventories (instead of ordering a recall, as happened with

tires) seems to be the pattern.

Even after it was known that oral polio and whole-cell

pertussis vaccines caused a higher rate of adverse

reactions, clinics and doctors continued to use their

supplies for years rather than pitch them in favor of safer

vaccines. If there is any reason for HHS and FDA to continue

to put thousands of babies at risk from dangerous vaccines

other than to protect the profits of the powerful

pharmaceuticals, we'd like to know what that might be.

Should Schools Force Medical Treatment?

In Utica, NY, parents of 77 middle schoolers were warned in

October 2000 that their children would be taken and turned

over to Child Protective Services for neglect unless they

were vaccinated against hepatitis B within two weeks. There

was no emergency, no epidemic of hepatitis B against which

children need to be protected, and no evidence that

hepatitis B is being transmitted at school.

The " emergency " was that the school district would lose a

substantial amount of state funding if students did not

comply with the vaccine mandate. So school district

physician Dr. Mark Zongrone, giving his financial (not

medical) diagnosis, said, " We refuse to let that happen. "

How did we get to a circumstance in America where a school,

for its own financial self-interest, imposes medical

treatment on children in opposition to their parents'

wishes? Is this America or Nazi Germany? Hepatitis B is

primarily an adult disease spread by multiple sex partners,

drug abusers, and those in occupations where they are

exposed to blood. Unless the child is born to an infected

mother, children under the age of 14 are three times more

likely to die or suffer adverse reactions from the hepatitis

B vaccine than from the disease itself.

Parents of two students in separate schools filed suit on

January 24 against the New York City Board of Education,

claiming that it violated state and federal law by refusing

to grant religious exemptions to forced inoculations. New

York law requires schoolchildren to be injected with a long

list of various vaccines, but allows both medical and

religious exemptions.

Seventh grader Rotella refused the hepatitis B

vaccination, asserting a religious exemption. She was sent

to the administrative office and her parents were called to

take her home. After she missed several days, the school

demanded an affidavit from the family's clergy, which

's father obtained. After she returned to school,

two security guards barged into the middle of a class and

physically escorted to the principal's office

where she was denied the religious exemption and not allowed

to return to school without the vaccination.

Second grader Maja Leibovitz was evicted from school last

November 16 because she had not been vaccinated, even though

her parents, Christian Scientists, claimed a religious

exemption. The principal said he would hold Maja back a

grade because she was not attending school, and then called

Child Protective Services, claiming that the mother was

guilty of educational neglect for not placing her child in

school.

On January 26, a federal court ordered the New York City

Board of Education to allow these two students to return to

school. They were represented by Liberty Counsel of Orlando.

Why did it take a lawsuit to get the school to obey the law?

Can a Court Order Kids to Take Drugs?

Can a judge constitutionally order a controversial drug to

be given to a child over the opposition of his parents? Such

action by a Family Court Judge in Albany, NY has touched off

a national debate pitting public schools and the courts

against parental rights.

Seven-year-old Carroll of Berne, NY, was diagnosed by a

psychologist as having ADHD (Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity

Disorder) and a physician prescribed the psychotropic drug

Ritalin. The boy soon exhibited two of the drug's common

side effects, sleeplessness and appetite loss.

When 's parents told school officials they wanted to

temporarily discontinue the medication, they got a visit

from the Albany County Child Protective Services and a

petition to appear in court. The school district accused the

Carrolls of " educational neglect " and they received what

amounted to an order from Judge Gerard E. Maney to start

using Ritalin again.

Under what was described as " at least the theoretical threat

of having their child removed from their custody, " the

Carrolls agreed to " an adjournment in contemplation of

dismissal (ACOD). " There was no fact-finding hearing before

Judge Maney, no testimony taken, and no written decision

rendered. According to law guardian Pamela J. Joern of

Albany, who supported the school's position, " The consent

ACOD directed the parents to comply with the doctor's

treatment regimen, which was a prescription for Ritalin.

They could get a second opinion, but they couldn't ignore

the problem. "

In order to avoid a prolonged court battle, the Carrolls

compromised, which is usually what happens when parents are

subjected to intimidation by state child protection

agencies. The injustice of Judge Maney's decision will go

unreviewed by higher courts, but the Carroll case has

kicked up a storm of protest on the internet.

This case underscores the need for better medical privacy

protection in order to safeguard against government

intervention in personal medical decisions.

A family's decision whether or not to use Ritalin is not the

government's business.

This judicial activism would never be known outside of the

local community if it were not for the flow of information

on the Internet

Ritalin does not treat an objective physical illness as, for

example, insulin treats diabetes. Ritalin is a serious drug

used to control behavior problems and is very attractive to

the schools because it makes the child more likely to shut

up, sit down, and do what he's told. There are some 3.8

million schoolchildren, mostly boys, who are said to have

ADHD, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Estimates are that most of them are on Ritalin or similar

psychotropic drugs.

The number of children labeled ADHD and taking Ritalin has

greatly increased since 1991 when ADHD was covered under the

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), a

federal program that brings more funding to public schools

in order to provide extra services. Under IDEA, the school

is required to craft an Individualized Education Plan (IEP)

to accommodate each child, which may include drugs

prescribed by a medical doctor, and that's how happened

to be given Ritalin.

Eagle Forum February 2001

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

----

DR. MERCOLA'S COMMENT:

There are many many reasons why your child should not be on

Ritalin. Phyllis Schlafly does an excellent review on the

inappropriate social reasons why children are put on this

medication.

Threatening parents with their children's loss of access to

their tax supported school facilities seems cruel punishment

to families who are already stressed with the emotional

challenges of raising an ADHD child.

The sad reality of the entire situation though is that the

vast majority of these children would have enormous

improvement if they only removed all grains and sugar from

their diets and only drank pure water.

How does anyone reasonably expect these children to improve

when they are drinking sodas and juices all day long and

regularly having Happy Meals at Mc's with trans fat

French fries?

[Guest guest]

from:

http://www.mercola.com/2001/mar/14/drugs_children.htm

Who Decides What Drugs Are Forced on Children?

by Phyllis Schlafly

All children must be injected with dozens of vaccines before

entering school or daycare, and some of these injections are

given to infants within the first weeks or even hours of

birth.

Parents are led to believe that these injections are

required.

Who mandated these vaccines and what is the decision-making

process?

Parents are excluded from the process of deciding what drugs

are injected into their children's bodies. Most states allow

a limited medical exemption and a religious exemption, and a

few states allow a philosophical (or conscientiously held

belief) exemption. But often great pressure is exerted on

parents who try to use these exemptions, and about 98% of

all children are vaccinated.

Since more vaccines are coming on the market every year and

more are being mandated, it's time to ask and answer several

questions about forced medical care of healthy children.

(1) Do we want government to have the power to force medical

treatment on children against their parents wishes?

(2) Is the process that produces these mandates honest --

scientifically, bureaucratically, legislatively, politically

-- and open to public scrutiny and peer review?

It's important to recognize that the government is using

popular support for vaccines to subsidize states to set up

vaccine registries to tag all children at birth and track

their medical records all their lives, and the CDC is

working to merge these registries into a national medical

database.

When completed, this will achieve one of the principal goals

of the discredited Clinton health care plan: computerizing

the health records of all Americans with unique personal

identifiers (Social Security numbers, if possible).

Vaccine mandates go into effect in America in an intricate

three-step procedure that evades accountability.

First, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and its

Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee

(VRBPAC) decide whether a vaccine can be licensed.

Second, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and its

Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) decide

whether to include the vaccine on the Child Immunization

Schedule, i.e., put on the list of vaccines that are

recommended to be given to all children.

Third, state legislatures specify which vaccines and how

many doses are required (or authorize a state health agency

to put new vaccines on the compulsory list). State

legislatures or agencies usually follow ACIP's

recommendations.

It is obvious that the FDA/ACIP/state decisions make the

approved vaccines immensely profitable by providing a

guaranteed market. Federal laws are supposed to prohibit

conflicts of interest, but commercial conflicts have emerged

as a major concern.

Conflicts of Interest about Vaccines

When a rotavirus (infant diarrhea) vaccine was suddenly

withdrawn from the market in 1999, the public was led to

believe that it was because new information about harmful

side effects had been discovered. At a June 15, 2000 hearing

conducted by Rep. Dan Burton's (R-IN) House Committee on

Government Reform, we learned that other factors influenced

the 1998 FDA licensing and CDC recommendation.

Most of the work of the CDC advisory committee is done in

" working groups " behind closed doors without public

scrutiny. Six of the ten working groups had financial ties

to pharmaceuticals that make rotavirus vaccines.

It turns out that half of those on the two key committees

voting for the rotavirus vaccine had financial ties to

vaccine manufacturers, such as being paid as consultants or

lobbyists or owning vaccine patents or owning stock in

pharmaceuticals.

In pre-licensure trials for the rotavirus vaccine, some

babies suffered obstructed bowels a week later, some

requiring surgery to remove a portion of the intestine, a

painful condition called intussusception.

Nevertheless, the committees approved the vaccine for

universal use, calling these reports statistically

insignificant. The study data were concealed, and the public

did not learn of the problem until more than 100 cases of

intussusception were reported, including one death.

The vaccine was not even considered to be all that effective

in preventing diarrhea in infants. In one U.S. multicenter

trial, the rotavirus vaccine only had a 49% efficacy rate in

preventing the rotavirus disease.

Within months after government approval, 1.5 million vaccine

doses were given to infants. The Department of Health and

Human Services, in its announcement, stated that " the most

common adverse vaccine reactions included moderate fever,

increased irritability, and decreased appetite and

activity, " with no mention of side effects requiring

hospitalization or surgery.

The Burton hearings provided some answers to help explain

this disaster. When the rotavirus vaccine was approved by

the FDA committee, 8 members were absent, 2 were excluded,

and 4 of the remaining 5 had conflicts of interest that

necessitated waivers. This was not a quorum so they were

joined by 5 temporary members, and then all voted to approve

the vaccine. The committee's own charter states that

temporary members are normally not to exceed 4.

The CDC routinely grants conflict-of-interest waivers to

every member of its advisory committee a year at a time, and

allows full participation in the discussions by all members

even if they have a financial stake in the decision.

One member who cast three votes to recommend the rotavirus

vaccine owned a patent for another rotavirus vaccine and

admitted that he was paid by the pharmaceutical industry to

travel around the country and teach doctors that vaccines

are safe.

The public still has no access to the actual data concerning

side effects of the rotavirus vaccine or of the

controversial chicken pox or hepatitis B vaccines. If these

new vaccines are safe, there should be no objection to

releasing the actual data that demonstrate this.

The obvious incentive to conceal such data is to hide facts

that discredit the public recommendations.

At Burton's June 15 hearing, officials from the FDA and CDC

defended the various conflicts of interest because waivers

were granted. One CDC official went so far as to suggest

that it is good to use vaccine industry insiders on official

advisory committees because they are able to vote based on

secret drug-company information! That is tantamount to

letting vaccine industry lobbyists write their own

profitable government mandates, i.e., simply own the

process.

It is a great mistake to base vaccine policy on confidential

or trade-secret data. Scientific claims are most reliable

when all data and analyses are subject to public scrutiny.

Our political system demands that government decisions be

subject to democratic checks and balances.

The whole concept of the government forcing experimental

treatment on healthy individuals is disturbing to those who

value freedom. Mandatory vaccine policies depend on

overwhelming public acceptance, but public confidence is

eroded by conflicts of interest and secrecy of deliberations

and data.

Government should put all the data, analyses and meeting

minutes on a public website, and this should include a

risk-benefit analysis, cost-benefit analysis, and a

comparison against alternate policies. Only public data and

arguments should be considered. The CDC should appoint

advisory committee members with diverse points of view.

Scientists from other fields, consumer advocates, and even

vaccine critics would greatly improve the quality of the

recommendations because more policy implications would be

considered.

Who Imposes the Vaccine Mandates?

The December 27, 2000 issue of JAMA (Journal of the American

Medical Association) contains a very important caveat about

who is responsible for the decisions to mandate vaccines,

even though the article supports the widespread policy of

forcing all children to be vaccinated in order to enter

daycare or school.

The JAMA article reports on a Centers for Disease Control

(CDC) study that makes the unsurprising claim that

unvaccinated children are more likely to get measles and

pertussis than those who are vaccinated. The study used

Colorado data because that is one of 15 states that allow

parents a philosophical (conscientiously held belief)

exemption in addition to the religious and medical

exemptions. Only 1.4 percent claimed this exemption and more

than 98% of Colorado children were vaccinated in the year

cited by the study.

Vaccination is not effective in about 5 percent of children,

so when there is a measles outbreak, most of the cases are

among vaccinated children.

The CDC has declared that the United States has been free

from indigenous measles since 1998 and the only cases come

in with immigrants.

For the Colorado study, the researchers had to go back more

than ten years to find sufficient cases and include a

measles epidemic. If the researchers wanted to discuss

current risks accurately, they should have focused on

immigrants and ineffective vaccinations rather than on

children whom they disdainfully call " exemptors. "

It appears that the " experts " and the " authorities " won't be

happy until there is 100% compliance with vaccine mandates.

The real purpose of the JAMA report seems to be to shame or

scare the 1 to 2 percent of parents into not using a

philosophical exemption and to induce states to repeal this

exemption.

The same issue of JAMA includes an editorial commenting on

this study. It, too, is based on the premise that vaccine

mandates are desirable, and it deplores criticisms of

vaccines by parents, implying that their objections must be

based on ignorance or misinformation.

But buried in the JAMA editorial are some startling comments

and revelations. JAMA absolves ACIP, CDC and FDA from any

accountability for the mandating of vaccines in the

three-step process described above. The editorial says, " It

is not the responsibility of these advisory bodies to

determine which vaccines are mandated; that decision resides

with the state. "

The JAMA editorial issues a warning to state legislators.

They should not mandate a vaccine just because FDA licenses

it or ACIP recommends it; state legislators are responsible

to make their own decisions and cannot pass the buck to FDA,

ACIP or CDC, which only have power to recommend, but not

mandate, the vaccines.

Then comes the question, why do ACIP and FDA so gratuitously

put so many vaccines on the " recommended " list for all

children? JAMA's editorial reveals the answer:

these recommendations are monetary decisions masquerading as

medical decisions.

Here are JAMA's words: " Since federal funding for vaccines

is determined by the ACIP through the Vaccines for Children

(VFC) program, whenever possible the ACIP should endorse

funding for vaccines that physicians and parents wish to

administer. "

In other words, the real purpose of ACIP and FDA

recommendations is to release federal funds to buy the

vaccines from the manufacturers. Remember that Rep. Dan

Burton's investigation in June 2000 revealed many conflicts

of interest among those who sit on federal panels where they

can approve the recommendations that trigger the federal

funds.

JAMA issues a stern caveat to the states: " All vaccines that

are licensed and recommended for use in children should not

necessarily be legally mandated for day care or school

entry. Each state needs to assess each vaccine individually.

.. . . States should determine whether the disease to be

prevented by the vaccines is highly contagious, results in

significant morbidity and mortality, and poses a major

health problem to both the individual and the community. "

It's obvious that those are not the criteria used by the

ACIP and FDA in their pronouncements. Many states are now

amending their compulsory vaccination laws to add hepatitis

B and chicken pox. An independent assessment of these

vaccines by a state is unlikely to conclude that they meet

the criteria set forth by JAMA.

Rep. Burton should hold more hearings to expose the

government's vaccine licensing/recommendation/ mandate

process. Meanwhile, since the government's decision-making

procedure is not only defective but suspect, we need a

philosophical exemption in every state so that decisions can

be made by parents whose motive is the health of their

children, not promoting government purchases of vaccines.

Independent judgments by states and consumers might have

helped to avoid past blunders like the rotavirus vaccine

embarrassment last year that caused injuries to so many

babies. At a minimum, a philosophical exemption in every

state would create a market demand for improvement of

vaccines.

Recall Defective Tires, But Not Vaccines?

A July 18, 2000 hearing of the House Committee on Government

Reform produced evidence about the health dangers from

vaccines containing thimerosal (mercury). Babies who are

injected with the vaccines specified on the Universal

Childhood Immunization Schedule, which are typically

delivered in four to six shots during one doctor's visit,

may receive 40 times the amount of mercury that is

considered safe under Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

guidelines.

An independent evaluation conducted by the National Research

Council confirmed the EPA guidelines as accurate, and the

FDA's own website states that " lead, cadmium, and mercury

are examples of elements that are toxic when present at

relatively low levels. " Credible testimony was also given

regarding the possible relationship between symptoms of

mercury poisoning and the skyrocketing rate of autism, now

occurring in 1 in 500 children nationwide.

Committee Chairman Dan Burton sent letters to HHS Secretary

Donna Shalala and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

asking for the recall of all thimerosal-containing vaccines.

His requests and those of parents of vaccine-injured

children have been ignored. This is despite the fact that

the FDA admits that the vaccines on the Childhood

Immunization Schedule are all available in a thimerosal-free

version.

Apparently, the FDA is not planning to recall any of the 50

thimerosal-containing vaccines but only suggests a " phase

out " over time, thus allowing the pharmaceuticals to unload

their defective merchandise on unsuspecting children. For

years to come, these toxic vaccines will continue to be

injected in babies in public health clinics, doctor's

offices, and managed care facilities.

It is unconscionable to continue to put thousands of babies

every day at risk from mercury poisoning, especially when

the government is recommending use of these vaccines and the

schools are making them mandatory, and when safe

alternatives are easily available.

Leaving dangerous vaccines on the market so that the

pharmaceuticals can continue to receive revenue from current

inventories (instead of ordering a recall, as happened with

tires) seems to be the pattern.

Even after it was known that oral polio and whole-cell

pertussis vaccines caused a higher rate of adverse

reactions, clinics and doctors continued to use their

supplies for years rather than pitch them in favor of safer

vaccines. If there is any reason for HHS and FDA to continue

to put thousands of babies at risk from dangerous vaccines

other than to protect the profits of the powerful

pharmaceuticals, we'd like to know what that might be.

Should Schools Force Medical Treatment?

In Utica, NY, parents of 77 middle schoolers were warned in

October 2000 that their children would be taken and turned

over to Child Protective Services for neglect unless they

were vaccinated against hepatitis B within two weeks. There

was no emergency, no epidemic of hepatitis B against which

children need to be protected, and no evidence that

hepatitis B is being transmitted at school.

The " emergency " was that the school district would lose a

substantial amount of state funding if students did not

comply with the vaccine mandate. So school district

physician Dr. Mark Zongrone, giving his financial (not

medical) diagnosis, said, " We refuse to let that happen. "

How did we get to a circumstance in America where a school,

for its own financial self-interest, imposes medical

treatment on children in opposition to their parents'

wishes? Is this America or Nazi Germany? Hepatitis B is

primarily an adult disease spread by multiple sex partners,

drug abusers, and those in occupations where they are

exposed to blood. Unless the child is born to an infected

mother, children under the age of 14 are three times more

likely to die or suffer adverse reactions from the hepatitis

B vaccine than from the disease itself.

Parents of two students in separate schools filed suit on

January 24 against the New York City Board of Education,

claiming that it violated state and federal law by refusing

to grant religious exemptions to forced inoculations. New

York law requires schoolchildren to be injected with a long

list of various vaccines, but allows both medical and

religious exemptions.

Seventh grader Rotella refused the hepatitis B

vaccination, asserting a religious exemption. She was sent

to the administrative office and her parents were called to

take her home. After she missed several days, the school

demanded an affidavit from the family's clergy, which

's father obtained. After she returned to school,

two security guards barged into the middle of a class and

physically escorted to the principal's office

where she was denied the religious exemption and not allowed

to return to school without the vaccination.

Second grader Maja Leibovitz was evicted from school last

November 16 because she had not been vaccinated, even though

her parents, Christian Scientists, claimed a religious

exemption. The principal said he would hold Maja back a

grade because she was not attending school, and then called

Child Protective Services, claiming that the mother was

guilty of educational neglect for not placing her child in

school.

On January 26, a federal court ordered the New York City

Board of Education to allow these two students to return to

school. They were represented by Liberty Counsel of Orlando.

Why did it take a lawsuit to get the school to obey the law?

Can a Court Order Kids to Take Drugs?

Can a judge constitutionally order a controversial drug to

be given to a child over the opposition of his parents? Such

action by a Family Court Judge in Albany, NY has touched off

a national debate pitting public schools and the courts

against parental rights.

Seven-year-old Carroll of Berne, NY, was diagnosed by a

psychologist as having ADHD (Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity

Disorder) and a physician prescribed the psychotropic drug

Ritalin. The boy soon exhibited two of the drug's common

side effects, sleeplessness and appetite loss.

When 's parents told school officials they wanted to

temporarily discontinue the medication, they got a visit

from the Albany County Child Protective Services and a

petition to appear in court. The school district accused the

Carrolls of " educational neglect " and they received what

amounted to an order from Judge Gerard E. Maney to start

using Ritalin again.

Under what was described as " at least the theoretical threat

of having their child removed from their custody, " the

Carrolls agreed to " an adjournment in contemplation of

dismissal (ACOD). " There was no fact-finding hearing before

Judge Maney, no testimony taken, and no written decision

rendered. According to law guardian Pamela J. Joern of

Albany, who supported the school's position, " The consent

ACOD directed the parents to comply with the doctor's

treatment regimen, which was a prescription for Ritalin.

They could get a second opinion, but they couldn't ignore

the problem. "

In order to avoid a prolonged court battle, the Carrolls

compromised, which is usually what happens when parents are

subjected to intimidation by state child protection

agencies. The injustice of Judge Maney's decision will go

unreviewed by higher courts, but the Carroll case has

kicked up a storm of protest on the internet.

This case underscores the need for better medical privacy

protection in order to safeguard against government

intervention in personal medical decisions.

A family's decision whether or not to use Ritalin is not the

government's business.

This judicial activism would never be known outside of the

local community if it were not for the flow of information

on the Internet

Ritalin does not treat an objective physical illness as, for

example, insulin treats diabetes. Ritalin is a serious drug

used to control behavior problems and is very attractive to

the schools because it makes the child more likely to shut

up, sit down, and do what he's told. There are some 3.8

million schoolchildren, mostly boys, who are said to have

ADHD, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Estimates are that most of them are on Ritalin or similar

psychotropic drugs.

The number of children labeled ADHD and taking Ritalin has

greatly increased since 1991 when ADHD was covered under the

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), a

federal program that brings more funding to public schools

in order to provide extra services. Under IDEA, the school

is required to craft an Individualized Education Plan (IEP)

to accommodate each child, which may include drugs

prescribed by a medical doctor, and that's how happened

to be given Ritalin.

Eagle Forum February 2001

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

----

DR. MERCOLA'S COMMENT:

There are many many reasons why your child should not be on

Ritalin. Phyllis Schlafly does an excellent review on the

inappropriate social reasons why children are put on this

medication.

Threatening parents with their children's loss of access to

their tax supported school facilities seems cruel punishment

to families who are already stressed with the emotional

challenges of raising an ADHD child.

The sad reality of the entire situation though is that the

vast majority of these children would have enormous

improvement if they only removed all grains and sugar from

their diets and only drank pure water.

How does anyone reasonably expect these children to improve

when they are drinking sodas and juices all day long and

regularly having Happy Meals at Mc's with trans fat

French fries?

[Guest guest]

from:

http://www.mercola.com/2001/mar/14/drugs_children.htm

Who Decides What Drugs Are Forced on Children?

by Phyllis Schlafly

All children must be injected with dozens of vaccines before

entering school or daycare, and some of these injections are

given to infants within the first weeks or even hours of

birth.

Parents are led to believe that these injections are

required.

Who mandated these vaccines and what is the decision-making

process?

Parents are excluded from the process of deciding what drugs

are injected into their children's bodies. Most states allow

a limited medical exemption and a religious exemption, and a

few states allow a philosophical (or conscientiously held

belief) exemption. But often great pressure is exerted on

parents who try to use these exemptions, and about 98% of

all children are vaccinated.

Since more vaccines are coming on the market every year and

more are being mandated, it's time to ask and answer several

questions about forced medical care of healthy children.

(1) Do we want government to have the power to force medical

treatment on children against their parents wishes?

(2) Is the process that produces these mandates honest --

scientifically, bureaucratically, legislatively, politically

-- and open to public scrutiny and peer review?

It's important to recognize that the government is using

popular support for vaccines to subsidize states to set up

vaccine registries to tag all children at birth and track

their medical records all their lives, and the CDC is

working to merge these registries into a national medical

database.

When completed, this will achieve one of the principal goals

of the discredited Clinton health care plan: computerizing

the health records of all Americans with unique personal

identifiers (Social Security numbers, if possible).

Vaccine mandates go into effect in America in an intricate

three-step procedure that evades accountability.

First, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and its

Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee

(VRBPAC) decide whether a vaccine can be licensed.

Second, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and its

Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) decide

whether to include the vaccine on the Child Immunization

Schedule, i.e., put on the list of vaccines that are

recommended to be given to all children.

Third, state legislatures specify which vaccines and how

many doses are required (or authorize a state health agency

to put new vaccines on the compulsory list). State

legislatures or agencies usually follow ACIP's

recommendations.

It is obvious that the FDA/ACIP/state decisions make the

approved vaccines immensely profitable by providing a

guaranteed market. Federal laws are supposed to prohibit

conflicts of interest, but commercial conflicts have emerged

as a major concern.

Conflicts of Interest about Vaccines

When a rotavirus (infant diarrhea) vaccine was suddenly

withdrawn from the market in 1999, the public was led to

believe that it was because new information about harmful

side effects had been discovered. At a June 15, 2000 hearing

conducted by Rep. Dan Burton's (R-IN) House Committee on

Government Reform, we learned that other factors influenced

the 1998 FDA licensing and CDC recommendation.

Most of the work of the CDC advisory committee is done in

" working groups " behind closed doors without public

scrutiny. Six of the ten working groups had financial ties

to pharmaceuticals that make rotavirus vaccines.

It turns out that half of those on the two key committees

voting for the rotavirus vaccine had financial ties to

vaccine manufacturers, such as being paid as consultants or

lobbyists or owning vaccine patents or owning stock in

pharmaceuticals.

In pre-licensure trials for the rotavirus vaccine, some

babies suffered obstructed bowels a week later, some

requiring surgery to remove a portion of the intestine, a

painful condition called intussusception.

Nevertheless, the committees approved the vaccine for

universal use, calling these reports statistically

insignificant. The study data were concealed, and the public

did not learn of the problem until more than 100 cases of

intussusception were reported, including one death.

The vaccine was not even considered to be all that effective

in preventing diarrhea in infants. In one U.S. multicenter

trial, the rotavirus vaccine only had a 49% efficacy rate in

preventing the rotavirus disease.

Within months after government approval, 1.5 million vaccine

doses were given to infants. The Department of Health and

Human Services, in its announcement, stated that " the most

common adverse vaccine reactions included moderate fever,

increased irritability, and decreased appetite and

activity, " with no mention of side effects requiring

hospitalization or surgery.

The Burton hearings provided some answers to help explain

this disaster. When the rotavirus vaccine was approved by

the FDA committee, 8 members were absent, 2 were excluded,

and 4 of the remaining 5 had conflicts of interest that

necessitated waivers. This was not a quorum so they were

joined by 5 temporary members, and then all voted to approve

the vaccine. The committee's own charter states that

temporary members are normally not to exceed 4.

The CDC routinely grants conflict-of-interest waivers to

every member of its advisory committee a year at a time, and

allows full participation in the discussions by all members

even if they have a financial stake in the decision.

One member who cast three votes to recommend the rotavirus

vaccine owned a patent for another rotavirus vaccine and

admitted that he was paid by the pharmaceutical industry to

travel around the country and teach doctors that vaccines

are safe.

The public still has no access to the actual data concerning

side effects of the rotavirus vaccine or of the

controversial chicken pox or hepatitis B vaccines. If these

new vaccines are safe, there should be no objection to

releasing the actual data that demonstrate this.

The obvious incentive to conceal such data is to hide facts

that discredit the public recommendations.

At Burton's June 15 hearing, officials from the FDA and CDC

defended the various conflicts of interest because waivers

were granted. One CDC official went so far as to suggest

that it is good to use vaccine industry insiders on official

advisory committees because they are able to vote based on

secret drug-company information! That is tantamount to

letting vaccine industry lobbyists write their own

profitable government mandates, i.e., simply own the

process.

It is a great mistake to base vaccine policy on confidential

or trade-secret data. Scientific claims are most reliable

when all data and analyses are subject to public scrutiny.

Our political system demands that government decisions be

subject to democratic checks and balances.

The whole concept of the government forcing experimental

treatment on healthy individuals is disturbing to those who

value freedom. Mandatory vaccine policies depend on

overwhelming public acceptance, but public confidence is

eroded by conflicts of interest and secrecy of deliberations

and data.

Government should put all the data, analyses and meeting

minutes on a public website, and this should include a

risk-benefit analysis, cost-benefit analysis, and a

comparison against alternate policies. Only public data and

arguments should be considered. The CDC should appoint

advisory committee members with diverse points of view.

Scientists from other fields, consumer advocates, and even

vaccine critics would greatly improve the quality of the

recommendations because more policy implications would be

considered.

Who Imposes the Vaccine Mandates?

The December 27, 2000 issue of JAMA (Journal of the American

Medical Association) contains a very important caveat about

who is responsible for the decisions to mandate vaccines,

even though the article supports the widespread policy of

forcing all children to be vaccinated in order to enter

daycare or school.

The JAMA article reports on a Centers for Disease Control

(CDC) study that makes the unsurprising claim that

unvaccinated children are more likely to get measles and

pertussis than those who are vaccinated. The study used

Colorado data because that is one of 15 states that allow

parents a philosophical (conscientiously held belief)

exemption in addition to the religious and medical

exemptions. Only 1.4 percent claimed this exemption and more

than 98% of Colorado children were vaccinated in the year

cited by the study.

Vaccination is not effective in about 5 percent of children,

so when there is a measles outbreak, most of the cases are

among vaccinated children.

The CDC has declared that the United States has been free

from indigenous measles since 1998 and the only cases come

in with immigrants.

For the Colorado study, the researchers had to go back more

than ten years to find sufficient cases and include a

measles epidemic. If the researchers wanted to discuss

current risks accurately, they should have focused on

immigrants and ineffective vaccinations rather than on

children whom they disdainfully call " exemptors. "

It appears that the " experts " and the " authorities " won't be

happy until there is 100% compliance with vaccine mandates.

The real purpose of the JAMA report seems to be to shame or

scare the 1 to 2 percent of parents into not using a

philosophical exemption and to induce states to repeal this

exemption.

The same issue of JAMA includes an editorial commenting on

this study. It, too, is based on the premise that vaccine

mandates are desirable, and it deplores criticisms of

vaccines by parents, implying that their objections must be

based on ignorance or misinformation.

But buried in the JAMA editorial are some startling comments

and revelations. JAMA absolves ACIP, CDC and FDA from any

accountability for the mandating of vaccines in the

three-step process described above. The editorial says, " It

is not the responsibility of these advisory bodies to

determine which vaccines are mandated; that decision resides

with the state. "

The JAMA editorial issues a warning to state legislators.

They should not mandate a vaccine just because FDA licenses

it or ACIP recommends it; state legislators are responsible

to make their own decisions and cannot pass the buck to FDA,

ACIP or CDC, which only have power to recommend, but not

mandate, the vaccines.

Then comes the question, why do ACIP and FDA so gratuitously

put so many vaccines on the " recommended " list for all

children? JAMA's editorial reveals the answer:

these recommendations are monetary decisions masquerading as

medical decisions.

Here are JAMA's words: " Since federal funding for vaccines

is determined by the ACIP through the Vaccines for Children

(VFC) program, whenever possible the ACIP should endorse

funding for vaccines that physicians and parents wish to

administer. "

In other words, the real purpose of ACIP and FDA

recommendations is to release federal funds to buy the

vaccines from the manufacturers. Remember that Rep. Dan

Burton's investigation in June 2000 revealed many conflicts

of interest among those who sit on federal panels where they

can approve the recommendations that trigger the federal

funds.

JAMA issues a stern caveat to the states: " All vaccines that

are licensed and recommended for use in children should not

necessarily be legally mandated for day care or school

entry. Each state needs to assess each vaccine individually.

.. . . States should determine whether the disease to be

prevented by the vaccines is highly contagious, results in

significant morbidity and mortality, and poses a major

health problem to both the individual and the community. "

It's obvious that those are not the criteria used by the

ACIP and FDA in their pronouncements. Many states are now

amending their compulsory vaccination laws to add hepatitis

B and chicken pox. An independent assessment of these

vaccines by a state is unlikely to conclude that they meet

the criteria set forth by JAMA.

Rep. Burton should hold more hearings to expose the

government's vaccine licensing/recommendation/ mandate

process. Meanwhile, since the government's decision-making

procedure is not only defective but suspect, we need a

philosophical exemption in every state so that decisions can

be made by parents whose motive is the health of their

children, not promoting government purchases of vaccines.

Independent judgments by states and consumers might have

helped to avoid past blunders like the rotavirus vaccine

embarrassment last year that caused injuries to so many

babies. At a minimum, a philosophical exemption in every

state would create a market demand for improvement of

vaccines.

Recall Defective Tires, But Not Vaccines?

A July 18, 2000 hearing of the House Committee on Government

Reform produced evidence about the health dangers from

vaccines containing thimerosal (mercury). Babies who are

injected with the vaccines specified on the Universal

Childhood Immunization Schedule, which are typically

delivered in four to six shots during one doctor's visit,

may receive 40 times the amount of mercury that is

considered safe under Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

guidelines.

An independent evaluation conducted by the National Research

Council confirmed the EPA guidelines as accurate, and the

FDA's own website states that " lead, cadmium, and mercury

are examples of elements that are toxic when present at

relatively low levels. " Credible testimony was also given

regarding the possible relationship between symptoms of

mercury poisoning and the skyrocketing rate of autism, now

occurring in 1 in 500 children nationwide.

Committee Chairman Dan Burton sent letters to HHS Secretary

Donna Shalala and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

asking for the recall of all thimerosal-containing vaccines.

His requests and those of parents of vaccine-injured

children have been ignored. This is despite the fact that

the FDA admits that the vaccines on the Childhood

Immunization Schedule are all available in a thimerosal-free

version.

Apparently, the FDA is not planning to recall any of the 50

thimerosal-containing vaccines but only suggests a " phase

out " over time, thus allowing the pharmaceuticals to unload

their defective merchandise on unsuspecting children. For

years to come, these toxic vaccines will continue to be

injected in babies in public health clinics, doctor's

offices, and managed care facilities.

It is unconscionable to continue to put thousands of babies

every day at risk from mercury poisoning, especially when

the government is recommending use of these vaccines and the

schools are making them mandatory, and when safe

alternatives are easily available.

Leaving dangerous vaccines on the market so that the

pharmaceuticals can continue to receive revenue from current

inventories (instead of ordering a recall, as happened with

tires) seems to be the pattern.

Even after it was known that oral polio and whole-cell

pertussis vaccines caused a higher rate of adverse

reactions, clinics and doctors continued to use their

supplies for years rather than pitch them in favor of safer

vaccines. If there is any reason for HHS and FDA to continue

to put thousands of babies at risk from dangerous vaccines

other than to protect the profits of the powerful

pharmaceuticals, we'd like to know what that might be.

Should Schools Force Medical Treatment?

In Utica, NY, parents of 77 middle schoolers were warned in

October 2000 that their children would be taken and turned

over to Child Protective Services for neglect unless they

were vaccinated against hepatitis B within two weeks. There

was no emergency, no epidemic of hepatitis B against which

children need to be protected, and no evidence that

hepatitis B is being transmitted at school.

The " emergency " was that the school district would lose a

substantial amount of state funding if students did not

comply with the vaccine mandate. So school district

physician Dr. Mark Zongrone, giving his financial (not

medical) diagnosis, said, " We refuse to let that happen. "

How did we get to a circumstance in America where a school,

for its own financial self-interest, imposes medical

treatment on children in opposition to their parents'

wishes? Is this America or Nazi Germany? Hepatitis B is

primarily an adult disease spread by multiple sex partners,

drug abusers, and those in occupations where they are

exposed to blood. Unless the child is born to an infected

mother, children under the age of 14 are three times more

likely to die or suffer adverse reactions from the hepatitis

B vaccine than from the disease itself.

Parents of two students in separate schools filed suit on

January 24 against the New York City Board of Education,

claiming that it violated state and federal law by refusing

to grant religious exemptions to forced inoculations. New

York law requires schoolchildren to be injected with a long

list of various vaccines, but allows both medical and

religious exemptions.

Seventh grader Rotella refused the hepatitis B

vaccination, asserting a religious exemption. She was sent

to the administrative office and her parents were called to

take her home. After she missed several days, the school

demanded an affidavit from the family's clergy, which

's father obtained. After she returned to school,

two security guards barged into the middle of a class and

physically escorted to the principal's office

where she was denied the religious exemption and not allowed

to return to school without the vaccination.

Second grader Maja Leibovitz was evicted from school last

November 16 because she had not been vaccinated, even though

her parents, Christian Scientists, claimed a religious

exemption. The principal said he would hold Maja back a

grade because she was not attending school, and then called

Child Protective Services, claiming that the mother was

guilty of educational neglect for not placing her child in

school.

On January 26, a federal court ordered the New York City

Board of Education to allow these two students to return to

school. They were represented by Liberty Counsel of Orlando.

Why did it take a lawsuit to get the school to obey the law?

Can a Court Order Kids to Take Drugs?

Can a judge constitutionally order a controversial drug to

be given to a child over the opposition of his parents? Such

action by a Family Court Judge in Albany, NY has touched off

a national debate pitting public schools and the courts

against parental rights.

Seven-year-old Carroll of Berne, NY, was diagnosed by a

psychologist as having ADHD (Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity

Disorder) and a physician prescribed the psychotropic drug

Ritalin. The boy soon exhibited two of the drug's common

side effects, sleeplessness and appetite loss.

When 's parents told school officials they wanted to

temporarily discontinue the medication, they got a visit

from the Albany County Child Protective Services and a

petition to appear in court. The school district accused the

Carrolls of " educational neglect " and they received what

amounted to an order from Judge Gerard E. Maney to start

using Ritalin again.

Under what was described as " at least the theoretical threat

of having their child removed from their custody, " the

Carrolls agreed to " an adjournment in contemplation of

dismissal (ACOD). " There was no fact-finding hearing before

Judge Maney, no testimony taken, and no written decision

rendered. According to law guardian Pamela J. Joern of

Albany, who supported the school's position, " The consent

ACOD directed the parents to comply with the doctor's

treatment regimen, which was a prescription for Ritalin.

They could get a second opinion, but they couldn't ignore

the problem. "

In order to avoid a prolonged court battle, the Carrolls

compromised, which is usually what happens when parents are

subjected to intimidation by state child protection

agencies. The injustice of Judge Maney's decision will go

unreviewed by higher courts, but the Carroll case has

kicked up a storm of protest on the internet.

This case underscores the need for better medical privacy

protection in order to safeguard against government

intervention in personal medical decisions.

A family's decision whether or not to use Ritalin is not the

government's business.

This judicial activism would never be known outside of the

local community if it were not for the flow of information

on the Internet

Ritalin does not treat an objective physical illness as, for

example, insulin treats diabetes. Ritalin is a serious drug

used to control behavior problems and is very attractive to

the schools because it makes the child more likely to shut

up, sit down, and do what he's told. There are some 3.8

million schoolchildren, mostly boys, who are said to have

ADHD, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Estimates are that most of them are on Ritalin or similar

psychotropic drugs.

The number of children labeled ADHD and taking Ritalin has

greatly increased since 1991 when ADHD was covered under the

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), a

federal program that brings more funding to public schools

in order to provide extra services. Under IDEA, the school

is required to craft an Individualized Education Plan (IEP)

to accommodate each child, which may include drugs

prescribed by a medical doctor, and that's how happened

to be given Ritalin.

Eagle Forum February 2001

----------------------------------------------------------------------

------

----

DR. MERCOLA'S COMMENT:

There are many many reasons why your child should not be on

Ritalin. Phyllis Schlafly does an excellent review on the

inappropriate social reasons why children are put on this

medication.

Threatening parents with their children's loss of access to

their tax supported school facilities seems cruel punishment

to families who are already stressed with the emotional

challenges of raising an ADHD child.

The sad reality of the entire situation though is that the

vast majority of these children would have enormous

improvement if they only removed all grains and sugar from

their diets and only drank pure water.

How does anyone reasonably expect these children to improve

when they are drinking sodas and juices all day long and

regularly having Happy Meals at Mc's with trans fat

French fries?

--- End forwarded message ---