Re: The Presedent's New Freedom Commission On Mental Health

[Guest guest]

Thanks, Rita. This is the New Freedom Commission that would make all

our kids Slaves to Drugs. I say JUST SAY NO!

Here's an article on this from 2004 in British Medical Journal.

Bush plans to screen whole US

population for mental illness

Jeanne Lenzer New York

344, 83, 161, 84, 82, 315

News

Drug companies have contributed three times more to the campaign of

Bush, seen here

campaigning in Florida, than to that of his rival Kerry

GERALD HERBERT/AP

1458 BMJ VOLUME 328 19 JUNE 2004 bmj.com

A sweeping mental health initiative

will be unveiled by President

W Bush in July. The plan

promises to integrate mentally ill

patients fully into the community

by providing “services in the

community, rather than institutions,”

according to a March

2004 progress report entitled

New Freedom Initiative

(www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/

newfreedom/toc-2004.html).

While some praise the plan’s

goals, others say it protects the

profits of drug companies at the

expense of the public.

Bush established the New

Freedom Commission on Mental

Health in April 2002 to conduct a

“comprehensive study of the United

States mental health service

delivery system.” The commission

issued its recommendations in

July 2003. Bush instructed more

than 25 federal agencies to develop

an implementation plan based

on those recommendations.

The president’s commission

found that “despite their prevalence,

mental disorders often go

undiagnosed” and recommended

comprehensive mental health

screening for “consumers of all

ages,” including preschool children.

According to the commission,

“Each year, young children

are expelled from preschools

and childcare facilities for severely

disruptive behaviours and

emotional disorders.” Schools,

wrote the commission, are in a

“key position” to screen the

52 million students and 6 million

adults who work at the schools.

The commission also recommended

“Linkage [of screening]

with treatment and supports”

including “state-of-the-art treatments”

using “specific medications

for specific conditions.”

The commission commended

the Texas Medication Algorithm

Project (TMAP) as a “model”

medication treatment plan that

“illustrates an evidence-based

practice that results in better

consumer outcomes.”

Dr Darrel Regier, director of

research at the American Psychiatric

Association (APA), lauded

the president’s initiative and the

Texas project model saying,

“What’s nice about TMAP is that

this is a logical plan based on

efficacy data from clinical trials.”

He said the association has called

for increased funding for implementation

of the overall plan.

But the Texas project, which

promotes the use of newer,

more expensive antidepressants

and antipsychotic drugs, sparked

off controversy when

, an employee of the Pennsylvania

Office of the Inspector

General, revealed that key officials

with influence over the

medication plan in his state

received money and perks from

drug companies with a stake

in the medication algorithm

(15 May, p1153). He was sacked

this week for speaking to the

BMJ and the New York Times.

The Texas project started in

1995 as an alliance of individuals

from the pharmaceutical industry,

the University of Texas, and

the mental health and corrections

systems of Texas. The project

was funded by a

Wood grant—and by

several drug companies.

Mr told the BMJ that the

same “political/pharmaceutical

alliance” that generated the Texas

project was behind the recommendations

of the New Freedom

Commission, which, according to

his whistleblower report, were

“poised to consolidate the TMAP

effort into a comprehensive

national policy to treat mental illness

with expensive, patented

medications of questionable

benefit and deadly side effects,

and to force private insurers to

pick up more of the tab” (http://

psychrights.org/Drugs/

TMAPJanuary20.pdf).

Larry D Sasich, research

associate with Public Citizen in

Washington, DC, told the BMJ

that studies in both the United

States and Great Britain suggest

that “using the older drugs first

makes sense. There’s nothing in

the labeling of the newer atypical

antipsychotic drugs that suggests

they are superior in

efficacy to haloperidol [an older

“typical” antipsychotic]. There

has to be an enormous amount

of unnecessary expenditures for

the newer drugs.”

Olanzapine (trade name

Zyprexa), one of the atypical

antipsychotic drugs recommended

as a first line drug in the

Texas algorithm, grossed

$4.28bn (£2.35bn; €3.56bn)

worldwide in 2003 and is Eli

Lilly’s top selling drug. A 2003

New York Times article by Gardiner

reported that 70%

of olanzapine sales are paid for

by government agencies, such as

Medicare and Medicaid.

Eli Lilly, manufacturer of

olanzapine, has multiple ties to

the Bush administration.

Bush Sr was a member of Lilly’s

board of directors and Bush Jr

appointed Lilly’s chief executive

officer, Sidney Taurel, to a seat

on the Homeland Security

Council. Lilly made $1.6m in

political contributions in 2000—

82% of which went to Bush and

the Republican Party.

points out that the

companies that helped to start

up the Texas project have been,

and still are, big contributors to

the election funds of W

Bush. In addition, some members

of the New Freedom Commission

have served on advisory

boards for these same companies,

while others have direct

ties to the Texas Medication

Algorithm Project.

Bush was the governor of

Texas during the development

of the Texas project, and, during

his 2000 presidential campaign,

he boasted of his support for the

project and the fact that the

legislation he passed expanded

Medicaid coverage of psychotropic

drugs.

Bush is the clear front runner

when it comes to drug company

contributions. According to the

Center for Responsive Politics

(CRP), manufacturers of drugs

and health products have contributed

$764 274 to the 2004

Bush campaign through their

political action committees and

employees—far outstripping the

$149 400 given to his chief rival,

Kerry, by 26 April.

Drug companies have fared

exceedingly well under the Bush

administration, according to the

centre’s spokesperson,

Weiss.

The commission’s recommendation

for increased screening has

also been questioned.

Whitaker, journalist and author of

Mad in America, says that while

increased screening “may seem

defensible,” it could also be seen

as “fishing for customers,” and

that exorbitant spending on new

drugs “robs from other forms of

care such as job training and shelter

programmes.”

But Dr Graham Emslie, who

helped develop the Texas

project, defends screening:

“There are good data showing

that if you identify kids at an

earlier age who are aggressive,

you can intervene… and change

their trajectory.”

Bush plans to screen whole US

population for mental illness

Jeanne Lenzer New York

344, 83, 161, 84, 82, 315

News

Drug companies have contributed three times more to the campaign of

Bush, seen here

campaigning in Florida, than to that of his rival Kerry

GERALD HERBERT/AP

On May 29, 2006, at 11:32 AM, rshreffler02 wrote:

> http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-

> bin/blogs/voices.php/2006/05/29/p8477

[Guest guest]

Note the mental health requirement with the move to place verichips under everyone's skin- you know exactly where they are going with this- and none of it is good.

Re: The Presedent's New Freedom Commission On Mental Health

Thanks, Rita. This is the New Freedom Commission that would make all our kids Slaves to Drugs. I say JUST SAY NO! Here's an article on this from 2004 in British Medical Journal.Bush plans to screen whole USpopulation for mental illnessJeanne Lenzer New York344, 83, 161, 84, 82, 315NewsDrug companies have contributed three times more to the campaign of Bush, seen herecampaigning in Florida, than to that of his rival KerryGERALD HERBERT/AP1458 BMJ VOLUME 328 19 JUNE 2004 bmj.comA sweeping mental health initiativewill be unveiled by President W Bush in July. The planpromises to integrate mentally illpatients fully into the communityby providing “services in thecommunity, rather than institutions,”according to a March2004 progress report entitledNew Freedom Initiative(www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/newfreedom/toc-2004.html).While some praise the plan’sgoals, others say it protects theprofits of drug companies at theexpense of the public.Bush established the NewFreedom Commission on MentalHealth in April 2002 to conduct a“comprehensive study of the UnitedStates mental health servicedelivery system.” The commissionissued its recommendations inJuly 2003. Bush instructed morethan 25 federal agencies to developan implementation plan basedon those recommendations.The president’s commissionfound that “despite their prevalence,mental disorders often goundiagnosed” and recommendedcomprehensive mental healthscreening for “consumers of allages,” including preschool children.According to the commission,“Each year, young childrenare expelled from preschoolsand childcare facilities for severelydisruptive behaviours andemotional disorders.” Schools,wrote the commission, are in a“key position” to screen the52 million students and 6 millionadults who work at the schools.The commission also recommended“Linkage [of screening]with treatment and supports”including “state-of-the-art treatments”using “specific medicationsfor specific conditions.”The commission commendedthe Texas Medication AlgorithmProject (TMAP) as a “model”medication treatment plan that“illustrates an evidence-basedpractice that results in betterconsumer outcomes.”Dr Darrel Regier, director ofresearch at the American PsychiatricAssociation (APA), laudedthe president’s initiative and theTexas project model saying,“What’s nice about TMAP is thatthis is a logical plan based onefficacy data from clinical trials.”He said the association has calledfor increased funding for implementationof the overall plan.But the Texas project, whichpromotes the use of newer,more expensive antidepressantsand antipsychotic drugs, sparkedoff controversy when , an employee of the PennsylvaniaOffice of the InspectorGeneral, revealed that key officialswith influence over themedication plan in his statereceived money and perks fromdrug companies with a stakein the medication algorithm(15 May, p1153). He was sackedthis week for speaking to theBMJ and the New York Times.The Texas project started in1995 as an alliance of individualsfrom the pharmaceutical industry,the University of Texas, andthe mental health and correctionssystems of Texas. The projectwas funded by a Wood grant—and byseveral drug companies.Mr told the BMJ that thesame “political/pharmaceuticalalliance” that generated the Texasproject was behind the recommendationsof the New FreedomCommission, which, according tohis whistleblower report, were“poised to consolidate the TMAPeffort into a comprehensivenational policy to treat mental illnesswith expensive, patentedmedications of questionablebenefit and deadly side effects,and to force private insurers topick up more of the tab” (http://psychrights.org/Drugs/TMAPJanuary20.pdf).Larry D Sasich, researchassociate with Public Citizen inWashington, DC, told the BMJthat studies in both the UnitedStates and Great Britain suggestthat “using the older drugs firstmakes sense. There’s nothing inthe labeling of the newer atypicalantipsychotic drugs that suggeststhey are superior inefficacy to haloperidol [an older“typical” antipsychotic]. Therehas to be an enormous amountof unnecessary expenditures forthe newer drugs.”Olanzapine (trade nameZyprexa), one of the atypicalantipsychotic drugs recommendedas a first line drug in theTexas algorithm, grossed$4.28bn (£2.35bn; €3.56bn)worldwide in 2003 and is EliLilly’s top selling drug. A 2003New York Times article by Gardiner reported that 70%of olanzapine sales are paid forby government agencies, such asMedicare and Medicaid.Eli Lilly, manufacturer ofolanzapine, has multiple ties tothe Bush administration. Bush Sr was a member of Lilly’sboard of directors and Bush Jrappointed Lilly’s chief executiveofficer, Sidney Taurel, to a seaton the Homeland SecurityCouncil. Lilly made $1.6m inpolitical contributions in 2000—82% of which went to Bush andthe Republican Party. points out that thecompanies that helped to startup the Texas project have been,and still are, big contributors tothe election funds of WBush. In addition, some membersof the New Freedom Commissionhave served on advisoryboards for these same companies,while others have directties to the Texas MedicationAlgorithm Project.Bush was the governor ofTexas during the developmentof the Texas project, and, duringhis 2000 presidential campaign,he boasted of his support for theproject and the fact that thelegislation he passed expandedMedicaid coverage of psychotropicdrugs.Bush is the clear front runnerwhen it comes to drug companycontributions. According to theCenter for Responsive Politics(CRP), manufacturers of drugsand health products have contributed$764 274 to the 2004Bush campaign through theirpolitical action committees andemployees—far outstripping the$149 400 given to his chief rival, Kerry, by 26 April.Drug companies have faredexceedingly well under the Bushadministration, according to thecentre’s spokesperson, Weiss.The commission’s recommendationfor increased screening hasalso been questioned. Whitaker, journalist and author ofMad in America, says that whileincreased screening “may seemdefensible,” it could also be seenas “fishing for customers,” andthat exorbitant spending on newdrugs “robs from other forms ofcare such as job training and shelterprogrammes.”But Dr Graham Emslie, whohelped develop the Texasproject, defends screening:“There are good data showingthat if you identify kids at anearlier age who are aggressive,you can intervene… and changetheir trajectory.”Bush plans to screen whole USpopulation for mental illnessJeanne Lenzer New York344, 83, 161, 84, 82, 315NewsDrug companies have contributed three times more to the campaign of Bush, seen herecampaigning in Florida, than to that of his rival KerryGERALD HERBERT/APOn May 29, 2006, at 11:32 AM, rshreffler02 wrote:

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2006/05/29/p8477

[Guest guest]

If compelled law to place a verichip under my skin or that of my child,

that is the time for civil disobedience.

On May 29, 2006, at 1:18 PM, H wrote:

> Note the mental health requirement with the move to place verichips

> under everyone's skin-  you know exactly where they are going with

> this- and none of it is good.

>  

>  

>   Re: The Presedent's New Freedom Commission On

>> Mental Health

>>

>> Thanks, Rita. This is the New Freedom Commission that would make all

>> our kids Slaves to Drugs. I say JUST SAY NO!

>>

>>

>> Here's an article on this from 2004 in British Medical Journal.

>> Bush plans to screen whole US

>> population for mental illness

>> Jeanne Lenzer New York

>> 344, 83, 161, 84, 82, 315

>> News

>> Drug companies have contributed three times more to the campaign of

>> Bush, seen here

>> campaigning in Florida, than to that of his rival Kerry

>> GERALD HERBERT/AP

>>

>> 1458 BMJ VOLUME 328 19 JUNE 2004 bmj.com

>> A sweeping mental health initiative

>> will be unveiled by President

>> W Bush in July. The plan

>> promises to integrate mentally ill

>> patients fully into the community

>> by providing “services in the

>> community, rather than institutions,â€

>> according to a March

>> 2004 progress report entitled

>> New Freedom Initiative

>> (www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/

>> newfreedom/toc-2004.html).

>> While some praise the plan’s

>> goals, others say it protects the

>> profits of drug companies at the

>> expense of the public.

>> Bush established the New

>> Freedom Commission on Mental

>> Health in April 2002 to conduct a

>> “comprehensive study of the United

>> States mental health service

>> delivery system.†The commission

>> issued its recommendations in

>> July 2003. Bush instructed more

>> than 25 federal agencies to develop

>> an implementation plan based

>> on those recommendations.

>> The president’s commission

>> found that “despite their prevalence,

>> mental disorders often go

>> undiagnosed†and recommended

>> comprehensive mental health

>> screening for “consumers of all

>> ages,†including preschool children.

>> According to the commission,

>> “Each year, young children

>> are expelled from preschools

>> and childcare facilities for severely

>> disruptive behaviours and

>> emotional disorders.†Schools,

>> wrote the commission, are in a

>> “key position†to screen the

>> 52 million students and 6 million

>> adults who work at the schools.

>> The commission also recommended

>> “Linkage [of screening]

>> with treatment and supportsâ€

>> including “state-of-the-art treatmentsâ€

>> using “specific medications

>> for specific conditions.â€

>> The commission commended

>> the Texas Medication Algorithm

>> Project (TMAP) as a “modelâ€

>> medication treatment plan that

>> “illustrates an evidence-based

>> practice that results in better

>> consumer outcomes.â€

>> Dr Darrel Regier, director of

>> research at the American Psychiatric

>> Association (APA), lauded

>> the president’s initiative and the

>> Texas project model saying,

>> “What’s nice about TMAP is that

>> this is a logical plan based on

>> efficacy data from clinical trials.â€

>> He said the association has called

>> for increased funding for implementation

>> of the overall plan.

>> But the Texas project, which

>> promotes the use of newer,

>> more expensive antidepressants

>> and antipsychotic drugs, sparked

>> off controversy when

>> , an employee of the Pennsylvania

>> Office of the Inspector

>> General, revealed that key officials

>> with influence over the

>> medication plan in his state

>> received money and perks from

>> drug companies with a stake

>> in the medication algorithm

>> (15 May, p1153). He was sacked

>> this week for speaking to the

>> BMJ and the New York Times.

>> The Texas project started in

>> 1995 as an alliance of individuals

>> from the pharmaceutical industry,

>> the University of Texas, and

>> the mental health and corrections

>> systems of Texas. The project

>> was funded by a

>> Wood grant—and by

>> several drug companies.

>> Mr told the BMJ that the

>> same “political/pharmaceutical

>> alliance†that generated the Texas

>> project was behind the recommendations

>> of the New Freedom

>> Commission, which, according to

>> his whistleblower report, were

>> “poised to consolidate the TMAP

>> effort into a comprehensive

>> national policy to treat mental illness

>> with expensive, patented

>> medications of questionable

>> benefit and deadly side effects,

>> and to force private insurers to

>> pick up more of the tab†(http://

>> psychrights.org/Drugs/

>> TMAPJanuary20.pdf).

>> Larry D Sasich, research

>> associate with Public Citizen in

>> Washington, DC, told the BMJ

>> that studies in both the United

>> States and Great Britain suggest

>> that “using the older drugs first

>> makes sense. There’s nothing in

>> the labeling of the newer atypical

>> antipsychotic drugs that suggests

>> they are superior in

>> efficacy to haloperidol [an older

>> “typical†antipsychotic]. There

>> has to be an enormous amount

>> of unnecessary expenditures for

>> the newer drugs.â€

>> Olanzapine (trade name

>> Zyprexa), one of the atypical

>> antipsychotic drugs recommended

>> as a first line drug in the

>> Texas algorithm, grossed

>> $4.28bn (£2.35bn; €3.56bn)

>> worldwide in 2003 and is Eli

>> Lilly’s top selling drug. A 2003

>> New York Times article by Gardiner

>> reported that 70%

>> of olanzapine sales are paid for

>> by government agencies, such as

>> Medicare and Medicaid.

>> Eli Lilly, manufacturer of

>> olanzapine, has multiple ties to

>> the Bush administration.

>> Bush Sr was a member of Lilly’s

>> board of directors and Bush Jr

>> appointed Lilly’s chief executive

>> officer, Sidney Taurel, to a seat

>> on the Homeland Security

>> Council. Lilly made $1.6m in

>> political contributions in 2000—

>> 82% of which went to Bush and

>> the Republican Party.

>> points out that the

>> companies that helped to start

>> up the Texas project have been,

>> and still are, big contributors to

>> the election funds of W

>> Bush. In addition, some members

>> of the New Freedom Commission

>> have served on advisory

>> boards for these same companies,

>> while others have direct

>> ties to the Texas Medication

>> Algorithm Project.

>> Bush was the governor of

>> Texas during the development

>> of the Texas project, and, during

>> his 2000 presidential campaign,

>> he boasted of his support for the

>> project and the fact that the

>> legislation he passed expanded

>> Medicaid coverage of psychotropic

>> drugs.

>> Bush is the clear front runner

>> when it comes to drug company

>> contributions. According to the

>> Center for Responsive Politics

>> (CRP), manufacturers of drugs

>> and health products have contributed

>> $764 274 to the 2004

>> Bush campaign through their

>> political action committees and

>> employees—far outstripping the

>> $149 400 given to his chief rival,

>> Kerry, by 26 April.

>> Drug companies have fared

>> exceedingly well under the Bush

>> administration, according to the

>> centre’s spokesperson,

>> Weiss.

>> The commission’s recommendation

>> for increased screening has

>> also been questioned.

>> Whitaker, journalist and author of

>> Mad in America, says that while

>> increased screening “may seem

>> defensible,†it could also be seen

>> as “fishing for customers,†and

>> that exorbitant spending on new

>> drugs “robs from other forms of

>> care such as job training and shelter

>> programmes.â€

>> But Dr Graham Emslie, who

>> helped develop the Texas

>> project, defends screening:

>> “There are good data showing

>> that if you identify kids at an

>> earlier age who are aggressive,

>> you can intervene… and change

>> their trajectory.â€

>> Bush plans to screen whole US

>> population for mental illness

>> Jeanne Lenzer New York

>> 344, 83, 161, 84, 82, 315

>> News

>> Drug companies have contributed three times more to the campaign of

>> Bush, seen here

>> campaigning in Florida, than to that of his rival Kerry

>> GERALD HERBERT/AP

>>

>> On May 29, 2006, at 11:32 AM, rshreffler02 wrote:

>>

>>> http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-

>>> bin/blogs/voices.php/2006/05/29/p8477

>

>

>

[Guest guest]



You will get your chance, unless the next Presidential election creates a sea change in this society.

Re: The Presedent's New Freedom Commission On Mental HealthThanks, Rita. This is the New Freedom Commission that would make all our kids Slaves to Drugs. I say JUST SAY NO! Here's an article on this from 2004 in British Medical Journal.Bush plans to screen whole USpopulation for mental illnessJeanne Lenzer New York344, 83, 161, 84, 82, 315NewsDrug companies have contributed three times more to the campaign of Bush, seen herecampaigning in Florida, than to that of his rival KerryGERALD HERBERT/AP1458 BMJ VOLUME 328 19 JUNE 2004 bmj.comA sweeping mental health initiativewill be unveiled by President W Bush in July. The planpromises to integrate mentally illpatients fully into the communityby providing “services in thecommunity, rather than institutions,â€according to a March2004 progress report entitledNew Freedom Initiative(www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/newfreedom/toc-2004.html).While some praise the plan’sgoals, others say it protects theprofits of drug companies at theexpense of the public.Bush established the NewFreedom Commission on MentalHealth in April 2002 to conduct a“comprehensive study of the UnitedStates mental health servicedelivery system.†The commissionissued its recommendations inJuly 2003. Bush instructed morethan 25 federal agencies to developan implementation plan basedon those recommendations.The president’s commissionfound that “despite their prevalence,mental disorders often goundiagnosed†and recommendedcomprehensive mental healthscreening for “consumers of allages,†including preschool children.According to the commission,“Each year, young childrenare expelled from preschoolsand childcare facilities for severelydisruptive behaviours andemotional disorders.†Schools,wrote the commission, are in a“key position†to screen the52 million students and 6 millionadults who work at the schools.The commission also recommended“Linkage [of screening]with treatment and supportsâ€including “state-of-the-art treatmentsâ€using “specific medicationsfor specific conditions.â€The commission commendedthe Texas Medication AlgorithmProject (TMAP) as a “modelâ€medication treatment plan that“illustrates an evidence-basedpractice that results in betterconsumer outcomes.â€Dr Darrel Regier, director ofresearch at the American PsychiatricAssociation (APA), laudedthe president’s initiative and theTexas project model saying,“What’s nice about TMAP is thatthis is a logical plan based onefficacy data from clinical trials.â€He said the association has calledfor increased funding for implementationof the overall plan.But the Texas project, whichpromotes the use of newer,more expensive antidepressantsand antipsychotic drugs, sparkedoff controversy when , an employee of the PennsylvaniaOffice of the InspectorGeneral, revealed that key officialswith influence over themedication plan in his statereceived money and perks fromdrug companies with a stakein the medication algorithm(15 May, p1153). He was sackedthis week for speaking to theBMJ and the New York Times.The Texas project started in1995 as an alliance of individualsfrom the pharmaceutical industry,the University of Texas, andthe mental health and correctionssystems of Texas. The projectwas funded by a Wood grant—and byseveral drug companies.Mr told the BMJ that thesame “political/pharmaceuticalalliance†that generated the Texasproject was behind the recommendationsof the New FreedomCommission, which, according tohis whistleblower report, were“poised to consolidate the TMAPeffort into a comprehensivenational policy to treat mental illnesswith expensive, patentedmedications of questionablebenefit and deadly side effects,and to force private insurers topick up more of the tab†(http://psychrights.org/Drugs/TMAPJanuary20.pdf).Larry D Sasich, researchassociate with Public Citizen inWashington, DC, told the BMJthat studies in both the UnitedStates and Great Britain suggestthat “using the older drugs firstmakes sense. There’s nothing inthe labeling of the newer atypicalantipsychotic drugs that suggeststhey are superior inefficacy to haloperidol [an older“typical†antipsychotic]. Therehas to be an enormous amountof unnecessary expenditures forthe newer drugs.â€Olanzapine (trade nameZyprexa), one of the atypicalantipsychotic drugs recommendedas a first line drug in theTexas algorithm, grossed$4.28bn (£2.35bn; €3.56bn)worldwide in 2003 and is EliLilly’s top selling drug. A 2003New York Times article by Gardiner reported that 70%of olanzapine sales are paid forby government agencies, such asMedicare and Medicaid.Eli Lilly, manufacturer ofolanzapine, has multiple ties tothe Bush administration. Bush Sr was a member of Lilly’sboard of directors and Bush Jrappointed Lilly’s chief executiveofficer, Sidney Taurel, to a seaton the Homeland SecurityCouncil. Lilly made $1.6m inpolitical contributions in 2000—82% of which went to Bush andthe Republican Party. points out that thecompanies that helped to startup the Texas project have been,and still are, big contributors tothe election funds of WBush. In addition, some membersof the New Freedom Commissionhave served on advisoryboards for these same companies,while others have directties to the Texas MedicationAlgorithm Project.Bush was the governor ofTexas during the developmentof the Texas project, and, duringhis 2000 presidential campaign,he boasted of his support for theproject and the fact that thelegislation he passed expandedMedicaid coverage of psychotropicdrugs.Bush is the clear front runnerwhen it comes to drug companycontributions. According to theCenter for Responsive Politics(CRP), manufacturers of drugsand health products have contributed$764 274 to the 2004Bush campaign through theirpolitical action committees andemployees—far outstripping the$149 400 given to his chief rival, Kerry, by 26 April.Drug companies have faredexceedingly well under the Bushadministration, according to thecentre’s spokesperson, Weiss.The commission’s recommendationfor increased screening hasalso been questioned. Whitaker, journalist and author ofMad in America, says that whileincreased screening “may seemdefensible,†it could also be seenas “fishing for customers,†andthat exorbitant spending on newdrugs “robs from other forms ofcare such as job training and shelterprogrammes.â€But Dr Graham Emslie, whohelped develop the Texasproject, defends screening:“There are good data showingthat if you identify kids at anearlier age who are aggressive,you can intervene… and changetheir trajectory.â€Bush plans to screen whole USpopulation for mental illnessJeanne Lenzer New York344, 83, 161, 84, 82, 315NewsDrug companies have contributed three times more to the campaign of Bush, seen herecampaigning in Florida, than to that of his rival KerryGERALD HERBERT/APOn May 29, 2006, at 11:32 AM, rshreffler02 wrote:

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2006/05/29/p8477

[Guest guest]

Time for a sea change.

On May 29, 2006, at 6:56 PM, hcoleman wrote:

> You will get your chance, unless the next Presidential election

> creates a sea change in this society.

>> Re: The Presedent's New Freedom Commission On

>>>> Mental Health

>>>>

>>>> Thanks, Rita. This is the New Freedom Commission that would make

>>>> all our kids Slaves to Drugs. I say JUST SAY NO!

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Here's an article on this from 2004 in British Medical Journal.

>>>> Bush plans to screen whole US

>>>> population for mental illness

>>>> Jeanne Lenzer New York

>>>> 344, 83, 161, 84, 82, 315

>>>> News

>>>> Drug companies have contributed three times more to the campaign of

>>>> Bush, seen here

>>>> campaigning in Florida, than to that of his rival Kerry

>>>> GERALD HERBERT/AP

>>>>

>>>> 1458 BMJ VOLUME 328 19 JUNE 2004 bmj.com

>>>> A sweeping mental health initiative

>>>> will be unveiled by President

>>>> W Bush in July. The plan

>>>> promises to integrate mentally ill

>>>> patients fully into the community

>>>> by providing “services in the

>>>> community, rather than institutions,â€

>>>> according to a March

>>>> 2004 progress report entitled

>>>> New Freedom Initiative

>>>> (www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/

>>>> newfreedom/toc-2004.html).

>>>> While some praise the plan’s

>>>> goals, others say it protects the

>>>> profits of drug companies at the

>>>> expense of the public.

>>>> Bush established the New

>>>> Freedom Commission on Mental

>>>> Health in April 2002 to conduct a

>>>> “comprehensive study of the United

>>>> States mental health service

>>>> delivery system.†The commission

>>>> issued its recommendations in

>>>> July 2003. Bush instructed more

>>>> than 25 federal agencies to develop

>>>> an implementation plan based

>>>> on those recommendations.

>>>> The president’s commission

>>>> found that “despite their prevalence,

>>>> mental disorders often go

>>>> undiagnosed†and recommended

>>>> comprehensive mental health

>>>> screening for “consumers of all

>>>> ages,†including preschool children.

>>>> According to the commission,

>>>> “Each year, young children

>>>> are expelled from preschools

>>>> and childcare facilities for severely

>>>> disruptive behaviours and

>>>> emotional disorders.†Schools,

>>>> wrote the commission, are in a

>>>> “key position†to screen the

>>>> 52 million students and 6 million

>>>> adults who work at the schools.

>>>> The commission also recommended

>>>> “Linkage [of screening]

>>>> with treatment and supportsâ€

>>>> including “state-of-the-art treatmentsâ€

>>>> using “specific medications

>>>> for specific conditions.â€

>>>> The commission commended

>>>> the Texas Medication Algorithm

>>>> Project (TMAP) as a “modelâ€

>>>> medication treatment plan that

>>>> “illustrates an evidence-based

>>>> practice that results in better

>>>> consumer outcomes.â€

>>>> Dr Darrel Regier, director of

>>>> research at the American Psychiatric

>>>> Association (APA), lauded

>>>> the president’s initiative and the

>>>> Texas project model saying,

>>>> “What’s nice about TMAP is that

>>>> this is a logical plan based on

>>>> efficacy data from clinical trials.â€

>>>> He said the association has called

>>>> for increased funding for implementation

>>>> of the overall plan.

>>>> But the Texas project, which

>>>> promotes the use of newer,

>>>> more expensive antidepressants

>>>> and antipsychotic drugs, sparked

>>>> off controversy when

>>>> , an employee of the Pennsylvania

>>>> Office of the Inspector

>>>> General, revealed that key officials

>>>> with influence over the

>>>> medication plan in his state

>>>> received money and perks from

>>>> drug companies with a stake

>>>> in the medication algorithm

>>>> (15 May, p1153). He was sacked

>>>> this week for speaking to the

>>>> BMJ and the New York Times.

>>>> The Texas project started in

>>>> 1995 as an alliance of individuals

>>>> from the pharmaceutical industry,

>>>> the University of Texas, and

>>>> the mental health and corrections

>>>> systems of Texas. The project

>>>> was funded by a

>>>> Wood grant—and by

>>>> several drug companies.

>>>> Mr told the BMJ that the

>>>> same “political/pharmaceutical

>>>> alliance†that generated the Texas

>>>> project was behind the recommendations

>>>> of the New Freedom

>>>> Commission, which, according to

>>>> his whistleblower report, were

>>>> “poised to consolidate the TMAP

>>>> effort into a comprehensive

>>>> national policy to treat mental illness

>>>> with expensive, patented

>>>> medications of questionable

>>>> benefit and deadly side effects,

>>>> and to force private insurers to

>>>> pick up more of the tab†(http://

>>>> psychrights.org/Drugs/

>>>> TMAPJanuary20.pdf).

>>>> Larry D Sasich, research

>>>> associate with Public Citizen in

>>>> Washington, DC, told the BMJ

>>>> that studies in both the United

>>>> States and Great Britain suggest

>>>> that “using the older drugs first

>>>> makes sense. There’s nothing in

>>>> the labeling of the newer atypical

>>>> antipsychotic drugs that suggests

>>>> they are superior in

>>>> efficacy to haloperidol [an older

>>>> “typical†antipsychotic]. There

>>>> has to be an enormous amount

>>>> of unnecessary expenditures for

>>>> the newer drugs.â€

>>>> Olanzapine (trade name

>>>> Zyprexa), one of the atypical

>>>> antipsychotic drugs recommended

>>>> as a first line drug in the

>>>> Texas algorithm, grossed

>>>> $4.28bn (£2.35bn; €3.56bn)

>>>> worldwide in 2003 and is Eli

>>>> Lilly’s top selling drug. A 2003

>>>> New York Times article by Gardiner

>>>> reported that 70%

>>>> of olanzapine sales are paid for

>>>> by government agencies, such as

>>>> Medicare and Medicaid.

>>>> Eli Lilly, manufacturer of

>>>> olanzapine, has multiple ties to

>>>> the Bush administration.

>>>> Bush Sr was a member of Lilly’s

>>>> board of directors and Bush Jr

>>>> appointed Lilly’s chief executive

>>>> officer, Sidney Taurel, to a seat

>>>> on the Homeland Security

>>>> Council. Lilly made $1.6m in

>>>> political contributions in 2000—

>>>> 82% of which went to Bush and

>>>> the Republican Party.

>>>> points out that the

>>>> companies that helped to start

>>>> up the Texas project have been,

>>>> and still are, big contributors to

>>>> the election funds of W

>>>> Bush. In addition, some members

>>>> of the New Freedom Commission

>>>> have served on advisory

>>>> boards for these same companies,

>>>> while others have direct

>>>> ties to the Texas Medication

>>>> Algorithm Project.

>>>> Bush was the governor of

>>>> Texas during the development

>>>> of the Texas project, and, during

>>>> his 2000 presidential campaign,

>>>> he boasted of his support for the

>>>> project and the fact that the

>>>> legislation he passed expanded

>>>> Medicaid coverage of psychotropic

>>>> drugs.

>>>> Bush is the clear front runner

>>>> when it comes to drug company

>>>> contributions. According to the

>>>> Center for Responsive Politics

>>>> (CRP), manufacturers of drugs

>>>> and health products have contributed

>>>> $764 274 to the 2004

>>>> Bush campaign through their

>>>> political action committees and

>>>> employees—far outstripping the

>>>> $149 400 given to his chief rival,

>>>> Kerry, by 26 April.

>>>> Drug companies have fared

>>>> exceedingly well under the Bush

>>>> administration, according to the

>>>> centre’s spokesperson,

>>>> Weiss.

>>>> The commission’s recommendation

>>>> for increased screening has

>>>> also been questioned.

>>>> Whitaker, journalist and author of

>>>> Mad in America, says that while

>>>> increased screening “may seem

>>>> defensible,†it could also be seen

>>>> as “fishing for customers,†and

>>>> that exorbitant spending on new

>>>> drugs “robs from other forms of

>>>> care such as job training and shelter

>>>> programmes.â€

>>>> But Dr Graham Emslie, who

>>>> helped develop the Texas

>>>> project, defends screening:

>>>> “There are good data showing

>>>> that if you identify kids at an

>>>> earlier age who are aggressive,

>>>> you can intervene… and change

>>>> their trajectory.â€

>>>> Bush plans to screen whole US

>>>> population for mental illness

>>>> Jeanne Lenzer New York

>>>> 344, 83, 161, 84, 82, 315

>>>> News

>>>> Drug companies have contributed three times more to the campaign of

>>>> Bush, seen here

>>>> campaigning in Florida, than to that of his rival Kerry

>>>> GERALD HERBERT/AP

>>>>

>>>> On May 29, 2006, at 11:32 AM, rshreffler02 wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-

>>>>> bin/blogs/voices.php/2006/05/29/p8477

>>>

>>>

>>>

[Guest guest]

Are we talking about verichips for the mentally challenged? Bush should be the first in line. " J. Krakow" <rkrakow@...> wrote: Time for a sea change.On May 29, 2006, at 6:56 PM, hcoleman wrote:> You will get your chance, unless the next Presidential election > creates a sea change in this society.>> Re: The Presedent's New Freedom Commission On >>>> Mental Health>>>>>>>> Thanks, Rita. This is the New Freedom Commission that would make >>>> all our kids Slaves to Drugs. I say JUST SAY NO!>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's an article on this from 2004 in British Medical Journal.>>>> Bush plans to screen whole US>>>> population

for mental illness>>>> Jeanne Lenzer New York>>>> 344, 83, 161, 84, 82, 315>>>> News>>>> Drug companies have contributed three times more to the campaign of >>>> Bush, seen here>>>> campaigning in Florida, than to that of his rival Kerry>>>> GERALD HERBERT/AP>>>>>>>> 1458 BMJ VOLUME 328 19 JUNE 2004 bmj.com>>>> A sweeping mental health initiative>>>> will be unveiled by President>>>> W Bush in July. The plan>>>> promises to integrate mentally ill>>>> patients fully into the community>>>> by providing “services in the>>>> community, rather than institutions,â€>>>> according to a March>>>> 2004 progress report entitled>>>> New Freedom

Initiative>>>> (www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/>>>> newfreedom/toc-2004.html).>>>> While some praise the plan’s>>>> goals, others say it protects the>>>> profits of drug companies at the>>>> expense of the public.>>>> Bush established the New>>>> Freedom Commission on Mental>>>> Health in April 2002 to conduct a>>>> “comprehensive study of the United>>>> States mental health service>>>> delivery system.†The commission>>>> issued its recommendations in>>>> July 2003. Bush instructed more>>>> than 25 federal agencies to develop>>>> an implementation plan based>>>> on those recommendations.>>>> The president’s commission>>>> found that “despite their

prevalence,>>>> mental disorders often go>>>> undiagnosed†and recommended>>>> comprehensive mental health>>>> screening for “consumers of all>>>> ages,†including preschool children.>>>> According to the commission,>>>> “Each year, young children>>>> are expelled from preschools>>>> and childcare facilities for severely>>>> disruptive behaviours and>>>> emotional disorders.†Schools,>>>> wrote the commission, are in a>>>> “key position†to screen the>>>> 52 million students and 6 million>>>> adults who work at the schools.>>>> The commission also recommended>>>> “Linkage [of screening]>>>> with treatment and supportsâ€>>>> including “state-of-the-art

treatmentsâ€>>>> using “specific medications>>>> for specific conditions.â€>>>> The commission commended>>>> the Texas Medication Algorithm>>>> Project (TMAP) as a “modelâ€>>>> medication treatment plan that>>>> “illustrates an evidence-based>>>> practice that results in better>>>> consumer outcomes.â€>>>> Dr Darrel Regier, director of>>>> research at the American Psychiatric>>>> Association (APA), lauded>>>> the president’s initiative and the>>>> Texas project model saying,>>>> “What’s nice about TMAP is that>>>> this is a logical plan based on>>>> efficacy data from clinical trials.â€>>>> He said the association has called>>>> for increased funding for

implementation>>>> of the overall plan.>>>> But the Texas project, which>>>> promotes the use of newer,>>>> more expensive antidepressants>>>> and antipsychotic drugs, sparked>>>> off controversy when >>>> , an employee of the Pennsylvania>>>> Office of the Inspector>>>> General, revealed that key officials>>>> with influence over the>>>> medication plan in his state>>>> received money and perks from>>>> drug companies with a stake>>>> in the medication algorithm>>>> (15 May, p1153). He was sacked>>>> this week for speaking to the>>>> BMJ and the New York Times.>>>> The Texas project started in>>>> 1995 as an alliance of individuals>>>> from the

pharmaceutical industry,>>>> the University of Texas, and>>>> the mental health and corrections>>>> systems of Texas. The project>>>> was funded by a >>>> Wood grant—and by>>>> several drug companies.>>>> Mr told the BMJ that the>>>> same “political/pharmaceutical>>>> alliance†that generated the Texas>>>> project was behind the recommendations>>>> of the New Freedom>>>> Commission, which, according to>>>> his whistleblower report, were>>>> “poised to consolidate the TMAP>>>> effort into a comprehensive>>>> national policy to treat mental illness>>>> with expensive, patented>>>> medications of questionable>>>> benefit and deadly side

effects,>>>> and to force private insurers to>>>> pick up more of the tab†(http://>>>> psychrights.org/Drugs/>>>> TMAPJanuary20.pdf).>>>> Larry D Sasich, research>>>> associate with Public Citizen in>>>> Washington, DC, told the BMJ>>>> that studies in both the United>>>> States and Great Britain suggest>>>> that “using the older drugs first>>>> makes sense. There’s nothing in>>>> the labeling of the newer atypical>>>> antipsychotic drugs that suggests>>>> they are superior in>>>> efficacy to haloperidol [an older>>>> “typical†antipsychotic]. There>>>> has to be an enormous amount>>>> of unnecessary expenditures for>>>> the newer

drugs.â€>>>> Olanzapine (trade name>>>> Zyprexa), one of the atypical>>>> antipsychotic drugs recommended>>>> as a first line drug in the>>>> Texas algorithm, grossed>>>> $4.28bn (£2.35bn; €3.56bn)>>>> worldwide in 2003 and is Eli>>>> Lilly’s top selling drug. A 2003>>>> New York Times article by Gardiner>>>> reported that 70%>>>> of olanzapine sales are paid for>>>> by government agencies, such as>>>> Medicare and Medicaid.>>>> Eli Lilly, manufacturer of>>>> olanzapine, has multiple ties to>>>> the Bush administration. >>>> Bush Sr was a member of Lilly’s>>>> board of directors and Bush Jr>>>> appointed Lilly’s chief executive>>>>

officer, Sidney Taurel, to a seat>>>> on the Homeland Security>>>> Council. Lilly made $1.6m in>>>> political contributions in 2000—>>>> 82% of which went to Bush and>>>> the Republican Party.>>>> points out that the>>>> companies that helped to start>>>> up the Texas project have been,>>>> and still are, big contributors to>>>> the election funds of W>>>> Bush. In addition, some members>>>> of the New Freedom Commission>>>> have served on advisory>>>> boards for these same companies,>>>> while others have direct>>>> ties to the Texas Medication>>>> Algorithm Project.>>>> Bush was the governor of>>>> Texas during the development>>>> of the

Texas project, and, during>>>> his 2000 presidential campaign,>>>> he boasted of his support for the>>>> project and the fact that the>>>> legislation he passed expanded>>>> Medicaid coverage of psychotropic>>>> drugs.>>>> Bush is the clear front runner>>>> when it comes to drug company>>>> contributions. According to the>>>> Center for Responsive Politics>>>> (CRP), manufacturers of drugs>>>> and health products have contributed>>>> $764 274 to the 2004>>>> Bush campaign through their>>>> political action committees and>>>> employees—far outstripping the>>>> $149 400 given to his chief rival,>>>> Kerry, by 26 April.>>>> Drug companies have fared>>>>

exceedingly well under the Bush>>>> administration, according to the>>>> centre’s spokesperson, >>>> Weiss.>>>> The commission’s recommendation>>>> for increased screening has>>>> also been questioned. >>>> Whitaker, journalist and author of>>>> Mad in America, says that while>>>> increased screening “may seem>>>> defensible,†it could also be seen>>>> as “fishing for customers,†and>>>> that exorbitant spending on new>>>> drugs “robs from other forms of>>>> care such as job training and shelter>>>> programmes.â€>>>> But Dr Graham Emslie, who>>>> helped develop the Texas>>>> project, defends screening:>>>> “There are good data

showing>>>> that if you identify kids at an>>>> earlier age who are aggressive,>>>> you can intervene… and change>>>> their trajectory.â€>>>> Bush plans to screen whole US>>>> population for mental illness>>>> Jeanne Lenzer New York>>>> 344, 83, 161, 84, 82, 315>>>> News>>>> Drug companies have contributed three times more to the campaign of >>>> Bush, seen here>>>> campaigning in Florida, than to that of his rival Kerry>>>> GERALD HERBERT/AP>>>>>>>> On May 29, 2006, at 11:32 AM, rshreffler02 wrote:>>>>>>>>> http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi->>>>> bin/blogs/voices.php/2006/05/29/p8477>>>>>>>>>

[Guest guest]

Agreed. The verichip or a federally mandated, untested, flu vaccine forced by a

declared

" State of Emergency " under martial law. I pity the fool who tries to get near my

family! Civil

disobedience would be a mild definition.

> >>

> >>> http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-

> >>> bin/blogs/voices.php/2006/05/29/p8477

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

If anyone has children in mainstream elementary school, do quiz them

occaisonally on questionaires they get in school. I remember last

year, my now 11 year old, got a 4 page mental health questionaire,

she was told to answer it and bring it back into school. To me, it

reaked of this initiative. It was asking questions in my opinion not

suited dfor 9/10 year olds about suicidal thoughts, thoughts of

lonliness, self harm. I tossed it into the garbage.

> >>

> >>> http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-

> >>> bin/blogs/voices.php/2006/05/29/p8477

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]



It may be up to the Dems now.

However, that's quite frightening, given the damage they did and can do.

Re: The Presedent's New Freedom Commission On Mental HealthThanks, Rita. This is the New Freedom Commission that would make all our kids Slaves to Drugs. I say JUST SAY NO!Here's an article on this from 2004 in British Medical Journal.Bush plans to screen whole USpopulation for mental illnessJeanne Lenzer New York344, 83, 161, 84, 82, 315NewsDrug companies have contributed three times more to the campaign of Bush, seen herecampaigning in Florida, than to that of his rival KerryGERALD HERBERT/AP1458 BMJ VOLUME 328 19 JUNE 2004 bmj.comA sweeping mental health initiativewill be unveiled by President W Bush in July. The planpromises to integrate mentally illpatients fully into the communityby providing “services in thecommunity, rather than institutions,â€according to a March2004 progress report entitledNew Freedom Initiative(www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/newfreedom/toc-2004.html).While some praise the plan’sgoals, others say it protects theprofits of drug companies at theexpense of the public.Bush established the NewFreedom Commission on MentalHealth in April 2002 to conduct a“comprehensive study of the UnitedStates mental health servicedelivery system.†The commissionissued its recommendations inJuly 2003. Bush instructed morethan 25 federal agencies to developan implementation plan basedon those recommendations.The president’s commissionfound that “despite their prevalence,mental disorders often goundiagnosed†and recommendedcomprehensive mental healthscreening for “consumers of allages,†including preschool children.According to the commission,“Each year, young childrenare expelled from preschoolsand childcare facilities for severelydisruptive behaviours andemotional disorders.†Schools,wrote the commission, are in a“key position†to screen the52 million students and 6 millionadults who work at the schools.The commission also recommended“Linkage [of screening]with treatment and supportsâ€including “state-of-the-art treatmentsâ€using “specific medicationsfor specific conditions.â€The commission commendedthe Texas Medication AlgorithmProject (TMAP) as a “modelâ€medication treatment plan that“illustrates an evidence-basedpractice that results in betterconsumer outcomes.â€Dr Darrel Regier, director ofresearch at the American PsychiatricAssociation (APA), laudedthe president’s initiative and theTexas project model saying,“What’s nice about TMAP is thatthis is a logical plan based onefficacy data from clinical trials.â€He said the association has calledfor increased funding for implementationof the overall plan.But the Texas project, whichpromotes the use of newer,more expensive antidepressantsand antipsychotic drugs, sparkedoff controversy when , an employee of the PennsylvaniaOffice of the InspectorGeneral, revealed that key officialswith influence over themedication plan in his statereceived money and perks fromdrug companies with a stakein the medication algorithm(15 May, p1153). He was sackedthis week for speaking to theBMJ and the New York Times.The Texas project started in1995 as an alliance of individualsfrom the pharmaceutical industry,the University of Texas, andthe mental health and correctionssystems of Texas. The projectwas funded by a Wood grant—and byseveral drug companies.Mr told the BMJ that thesame “political/pharmaceuticalalliance†that generated the Texasproject was behind the recommendationsof the New FreedomCommission, which, according tohis whistleblower report, were“poised to consolidate the TMAPeffort into a comprehensivenational policy to treat mental illnesswith expensive, patentedmedications of questionablebenefit and deadly side effects,and to force private insurers topick up more of the tab†(http://psychrights.org/Drugs/TMAPJanuary20.pdf).Larry D Sasich, researchassociate with Public Citizen inWashington, DC, told the BMJthat studies in both the UnitedStates and Great Britain suggestthat “using the older drugs firstmakes sense. There’s nothing inthe labeling of the newer atypicalantipsychotic drugs that suggeststhey are superior inefficacy to haloperidol [an older“typical†antipsychotic]. Therehas to be an enormous amountof unnecessary expenditures forthe newer drugs.â€Olanzapine (trade nameZyprexa), one of the atypicalantipsychotic drugs recommendedas a first line drug in theTexas algorithm, grossed$4.28bn (£2.35bn; €3.56bn)worldwide in 2003 and is EliLilly’s top selling drug. A 2003New York Times article by Gardiner reported that 70%of olanzapine sales are paid forby government agencies, such asMedicare and Medicaid.Eli Lilly, manufacturer ofolanzapine, has multiple ties tothe Bush administration. Bush Sr was a member of Lilly’sboard of directors and Bush Jrappointed Lilly’s chief executiveofficer, Sidney Taurel, to a seaton the Homeland SecurityCouncil. Lilly made $1.6m inpolitical contributions in 2000—82% of which went to Bush andthe Republican Party. points out that thecompanies that helped to startup the Texas project have been,and still are, big contributors tothe election funds of WBush. In addition, some membersof the New Freedom Commissionhave served on advisoryboards for these same companies,while others have directties to the Texas MedicationAlgorithm Project.Bush was the governor ofTexas during the developmentof the Texas project, and, duringhis 2000 presidential campaign,he boasted of his support for theproject and the fact that thelegislation he passed expandedMedicaid coverage of psychotropicdrugs.Bush is the clear front runnerwhen it comes to drug companycontributions. According to theCenter for Responsive Politics(CRP), manufacturers of drugsand health products have contributed$764 274 to the 2004Bush campaign through theirpolitical action committees andemployees—far outstripping the$149 400 given to his chief rival, Kerry, by 26 April.Drug companies have faredexceedingly well under the Bushadministration, according to thecentre’s spokesperson, Weiss.The commission’s recommendationfor increased screening hasalso been questioned. Whitaker, journalist and author ofMad in America, says that whileincreased screening “may seemdefensible,†it could also be seenas “fishing for customers,†andthat exorbitant spending on newdrugs “robs from other forms ofcare such as job training and shelterprogrammes.â€But Dr Graham Emslie, whohelped develop the Texasproject, defends screening:“There are good data showingthat if you identify kids at anearlier age who are aggressive,you can intervene… and changetheir trajectory.â€Bush plans to screen whole USpopulation for mental illnessJeanne Lenzer New York344, 83, 161, 84, 82, 315NewsDrug companies have contributed three times more to the campaign of Bush, seen herecampaigning in Florida, than to that of his rival KerryGERALD HERBERT/APOn May 29, 2006, at 11:32 AM, rshreffler02 wrote:

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2006/05/29/p8477

[Guest guest]

Right after Tommy , immigrants, and guest workers? How about Frist?

http://tinyurl.com/mmw3d July 28, 2005

http://tinyurl.com/mjqxj May 23, 2006

http://tinyurl.com/mutod October 4, 2004

-----Original Message-----From: EOHarm [mailto:EOHarm ]On Behalf Of Maurine MeleckSent: Monday, May 29, 2006 8:29 PMEOHarm Subject: Re: The Presedent's New Freedom Commission On Mental HealthAre we talking about verichips for the mentally challenged? Bush should be the first in line. " J. Krakow" <rkrakow@...> wrote: Time for a sea change.On May 29, 2006, at 6:56 PM, hcoleman wrote:> You will get your chance, unless the next Presidential election > creates a sea change in this society.>> Re: The Presedent's New Freedom Commission On >>>> Mental Health>>>>>>>> Thanks, Rita. This is the New Freedom Commission that would make >>>> all our kids Slaves to Drugs. I say JUST SAY NO!>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's an article on this from 2004 in British Medical Journal.>>>> Bush plans to screen whole US>>>> population for mental illness>>>> Jeanne Lenzer New York>>>> 344, 83, 161, 84, 82, 315>>>> News>>>> Drug companies have contributed three times more to the campaign of >>>> Bush, seen here>>>> campaigning in Florida, than to that of his rival Kerry>>>> GERALD HERBERT/AP>>>>>>>> 1458 BMJ VOLUME 328 19 JUNE 2004 bmj.com>>>> A sweeping mental health initiative>>>> will be unveiled by President>>>> W Bush in July. The plan>>>> promises to integrate mentally ill>>>> patients fully into the community>>>> by providing “services in the>>>> community, rather than institutions,â€>>>> according to a March>>>> 2004 progress report entitled>>>> New Freedom Initiative>>>> (www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/>>>> newfreedom/toc-2004.html).>>>> While some praise the plan’s>>>> goals, others say it protects the>>>> profits of drug companies at the>>>> expense of the public.>>>> Bush established the New>>>> Freedom Commission on Mental>>>> Health in April 2002 to conduct a>>>> “comprehensive study of the United>>>> States mental health service>>>> delivery system.†The commission>>>> issued its recommendations in>>>> July 2003. Bush instructed more>>>> than 25 federal agencies to develop>>>> an implementation plan based>>>> on those recommendations.>>>> The president’s commission>>>> found that “despite their prevalence,>>>> mental disorders often go>>>> undiagnosed†and recommended>>>> comprehensive mental health>>>> screening for “consumers of all>>>> ages,†including preschool children.>>>> According to the commission,>>>> “Each year, young children>>>> are expelled from preschools>>>> and childcare facilities for severely>>>> disruptive behaviours and>>>> emotional disorders.†Schools,>>>> wrote the commission, are in a>>>> “key position†to screen the>>>> 52 million students and 6 million>>>> adults who work at the schools.>>>> The commission also recommended>>>> “Linkage [of screening]>>>> with treatment and supportsâ€>>>> including “state-of-the-art treatmentsâ€>>>> using “specific medications>>>> for specific conditions.â€>>>> The commission commended>>>> the Texas Medication Algorithm>>>> Project (TMAP) as a “modelâ€>>>> medication treatment plan that>>>> “illustrates an evidence-based>>>> practice that results in better>>>> consumer outcomes.â€>>>> Dr Darrel Regier, director of>>>> research at the American Psychiatric>>>> Association (APA), lauded>>>> the president’s initiative and the>>>> Texas project model saying,>>>> “What’s nice about TMAP is that>>>> this is a logical plan based on>>>> efficacy data from clinical trials.â€>>>> He said the association has called>>>> for increased funding for implementation>>>> of the overall plan.>>>> But the Texas project, which>>>> promotes the use of newer,>>>> more expensive antidepressants>>>> and antipsychotic drugs, sparked>>>> off controversy when >>>> , an employee of the Pennsylvania>>>> Office of the Inspector>>>> General, revealed that key officials>>>> with influence over the>>>> medication plan in his state>>>> received money and perks from>>>> drug companies with a stake>>>> in the medication algorithm>>>> (15 May, p1153). He was sacked>>>> this week for speaking to the>>>> BMJ and the New York Times.>>>> The Texas project started in>>>> 1995 as an alliance of individuals>>>> from the pharmaceutical industry,>>>> the University of Texas, and>>>> the mental health and corrections>>>> systems of Texas. The project>>>> was funded by a >>>> Wood grant—and by>>>> several drug companies.>>>> Mr told the BMJ that the>>>> same “political/pharmaceutical>>>> alliance†that generated the Texas>>>> project was behind the recommendations>>>> of the New Freedom>>>> Commission, which, according to>>>> his whistleblower report, were>>>> “poised to consolidate the TMAP>>>> effort into a comprehensive>>>> national policy to treat mental illness>>>> with expensive, patented>>>> medications of questionable>>>> benefit and deadly side effects,>>>> and to force private insurers to>>>> pick up more of the tab†(http://>>>> psychrights.org/Drugs/>>>> TMAPJanuary20.pdf).>>>> Larry D Sasich, research>>>> associate with Public Citizen in>>>> Washington, DC, told the BMJ>>>> that studies in both the United>>>> States and Great Britain suggest>>>> that “using the older drugs first>>>> makes sense. There’s nothing in>>>> the labeling of the newer atypical>>>> antipsychotic drugs that suggests>>>> they are superior in>>>> efficacy to haloperidol [an older>>>> “typical†antipsychotic]. There>>>> has to be an enormous amount>>>> of unnecessary expenditures for>>>> the newer drugs.â€>>>> Olanzapine (trade name>>>> Zyprexa), one of the atypical>>>> antipsychotic drugs recommended>>>> as a first line drug in the>>>> Texas algorithm, grossed>>>> $4.28bn (£2.35bn; €3.56bn)>>>> worldwide in 2003 and is Eli>>>> Lilly’s top selling drug. A 2003>>>> New York Times article by Gardiner>>>> reported that 70%>>>> of olanzapine sales are paid for>>>> by government agencies, such as>>>> Medicare and Medicaid.>>>> Eli Lilly, manufacturer of>>>> olanzapine, has multiple ties to>>>> the Bush administration. >>>> Bush Sr was a member of Lilly’s>>>> board of directors and Bush Jr>>>> appointed Lilly’s chief executive>>>> officer, Sidney Taurel, to a seat>>>> on the Homeland Security>>>> Council. Lilly made $1.6m in>>>> political contributions in 2000—>>>> 82% of which went to Bush and>>>> the Republican Party.>>>> points out that the>>>> companies that helped to start>>>> up the Texas project have been,>>>> and still are, big contributors to>>>> the election funds of W>>>> Bush. In addition, some members>>>> of the New Freedom Commission>>>> have served on advisory>>>> boards for these same companies,>>>> while others have direct>>>> ties to the Texas Medication>>>> Algorithm Project.>>>> Bush was the governor of>>>> Texas during the development>>>> of the Texas project, and, during>>>> his 2000 presidential campaign,>>>> he boasted of his support for the>>>> project and the fact that the>>>> legislation he passed expanded>>>> Medicaid coverage of psychotropic>>>> drugs.>>>> Bush is the clear front runner>>>> when it comes to drug company>>>> contributions. According to the>>>> Center for Responsive Politics>>>> (CRP), manufacturers of drugs>>>> and health products have contributed>>>> $764 274 to the 2004>>>> Bush campaign through their>>>> political action committees and>>>> employees—far outstripping the>>>> $149 400 given to his chief rival,>>>> Kerry, by 26 April.>>>> Drug companies have fared>>>> exceedingly well under the Bush>>>> administration, according to the>>>> centre’s spokesperson, >>>> Weiss.>>>> The commission’s recommendation>>>> for increased screening has>>>> also been questioned. >>>> Whitaker, journalist and author of>>>> Mad in America, says that while>>>> increased screening “may seem>>>> defensible,†it could also be seen>>>> as “fishing for customers,†and>>>> that exorbitant spending on new>>>> drugs “robs from other forms of>>>> care such as job training and shelter>>>> programmes.â€>>>> But Dr Graham Emslie, who>>>> helped develop the Texas>>>> project, defends screening:>>>> “There are good data showing>>>> that if you identify kids at an>>>> earlier age who are aggressive,>>>> you can intervene… and change>>>> their trajectory.â€>>>> Bush plans to screen whole US>>>> population for mental illness>>>> Jeanne Lenzer New York>>>> 344, 83, 161, 84, 82, 315>>>> News>>>> Drug companies have contributed three times more to the campaign of >>>> Bush, seen here>>>> campaigning in Florida, than to that of his rival Kerry>>>> GERALD HERBERT/AP>>>>>>>> On May 29, 2006, at 11:32 AM, rshreffler02 wrote:>>>>>>>>> http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi->>>>> bin/blogs/voices.php/2006/05/29/p8477>>>>>>>>>

[Guest guest]

I think it is a great idea- all politicians and former politicians to be implanted with chips-

That way we can track them!!!

Re: The Presedent's New Freedom Commission On >>>> Mental Health>>>>>>>> Thanks, Rita. This is the New Freedom Commission that would make >>>> all our kids Slaves to Drugs. I say JUST SAY NO!>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's an article on this from 2004 in British Medical Journal.>>>> Bush plans to screen whole US>>>> population for mental illness>>>> Jeanne Lenzer New York>>>> 344, 83, 161, 84, 82, 315>>>> News>>>> Drug companies have contributed three times more to the campaign of >>>> Bush, seen here>>>> campaigning in Florida, than to that of his rival Kerry>>>> GERALD HERBERT/AP>>>>>>>> 1458 BMJ VOLUME 328 19 JUNE 2004 bmj.com>>>> A sweeping mental health initiative>>>> will be unveiled by President>>>> W Bush in July. The plan>>>> promises to integrate mentally ill>>>> patients fully into the community>>>> by providing “services in the>>>> community, rather than institutions,â€>>>> according to a March>>>> 2004 progress report entitled>>>> New Freedom Initiative>>>> (www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/>>>> newfreedom/toc-2004.html).>>>> While some praise the plan’s>>>> goals, others say it protects the>>>> profits of drug companies at the>>>> expense of the public.>>>> Bush established the New>>>> Freedom Commission on Mental>>>> Health in April 2002 to conduct a>>>> “comprehensive study of the United>>>> States mental health service>>>> delivery system.†The commission>>>> issued its recommendations in>>>> July 2003. Bush instructed more>>>> than 25 federal agencies to develop>>>> an implementation plan based>>>> on those recommendations.>>>> The president’s commission>>>> found that “despite their prevalence,>>>> mental disorders often go>>>> undiagnosed†and recommended>>>> comprehensive mental health>>>> screening for “consumers of all>>>> ages,†including preschool children.>>>> According to the commission,>>>> “Each year, young children>>>> are expelled from preschools>>>> and childcare facilities for severely>>>> disruptive behaviours and>>>> emotional disorders.†Schools,>>>> wrote the commission, are in a>>>> “key position†to screen the>>>> 52 million students and 6 million>>>> adults who work at the schools.>>>> The commission also recommended>>>> “Linkage [of screening]>>>> with treatment and supportsâ€>>>> including “state-of-the-art treatmentsâ€>>>> using “specific medications>>>> for specific conditions.â€>>>> The commission commended>>>> the Texas Medication Algorithm>>>> Project (TMAP) as a “modelâ€>>>> medication treatment plan that>>>> “illustrates an evidence-based>>>> practice that results in better>>>> consumer outcomes.â€>>>> Dr Darrel Regier, director of>>>> research at the American Psychiatric>>>> Association (APA), lauded>>>> the president’s initiative and the>>>> Texas project model saying,>>>> “What’s nice about TMAP is that>>>> this is a logical plan based on>>>> efficacy data from clinical trials.â€>>>> He said the association has called>>>> for increased funding for implementation>>>> of the overall plan.>>>> But the Texas project, which>>>> promotes the use of newer,>>>> more expensive antidepressants>>>> and antipsychotic drugs, sparked>>>> off controversy when >>>> , an employee of the Pennsylvania>>>> Office of the Inspector>>>> General, revealed that key officials>>>> with influence over the>>>> medication plan in his state>>>> received money and perks from>>>> drug companies with a stake>>>> in the medication algorithm>>>> (15 May, p1153). He was sacked>>>> this week for speaking to the>>>> BMJ and the New York Times.>>>> The Texas project started in>>>> 1995 as an alliance of individuals>>>> from the pharmaceutical industry,>>>> the University of Texas, and>>>> the mental health and corrections>>>> systems of Texas. The project>>>> was funded by a >>>> Wood grant—and by>>>> several drug companies.>>>> Mr told the BMJ that the>>>> same “political/pharmaceutical>>>> alliance†that generated the Texas>>>> project was behind the recommendations>>>> of the New Freedom>>>> Commission, which, according to>>>> his whistleblower report, were>>>> “poised to consolidate the TMAP>>>> effort into a comprehensive>>>> national policy to treat mental illness>>>> with expensive, patented>>>> medications of questionable>>>> benefit and deadly side effects,>>>> and to force private insurers to>>>> pick up more of the tab†(http://>>>> psychrights.org/Drugs/>>>> TMAPJanuary20.pdf).>>>> Larry D Sasich, research>>>> associate with Public Citizen in>>>> Washington, DC, told the BMJ>>>> that studies in both the United>>>> States and Great Britain suggest>>>> that “using the older drugs first>>>> makes sense. There’s nothing in>>>> the labeling of the newer atypical>>>> antipsychotic drugs that suggests>>>> they are superior in>>>> efficacy to haloperidol [an older>>>> “typical†antipsychotic]. There>>>> has to be an enormous amount>>>> of unnecessary expenditures for>>>> the newer drugs.â€>>>> Olanzapine (trade name>>>> Zyprexa), one of the atypical>>>> antipsychotic drugs recommended>>>> as a first line drug in the>>>> Texas algorithm, grossed>>>> $4..28bn (£2.35bn; €3.56bn)>>>> worldwide in 2003 and is Eli>>>> Lilly’s top selling drug. A 2003>>>> New York Times article by Gardiner>>>> reported that 70%>>>> of olanzapine sales are paid for>>>> by government agencies, such as>>>> Medicare and Medicaid.>>>> Eli Lilly, manufacturer of>>>> olanzapine, has multiple ties to>>>> the Bush administration. >>>> Bush Sr was a member of Lilly’s>>>> board of directors and Bush Jr>>>> appointed Lilly’s chief executive>>>> officer, Sidney Taurel, to a seat>>>> on the Homeland Security>>>> Council. Lilly made $1.6m in>>>> political contributions in 2000—>>>> 82% of which went to Bush and>>>> the Republican Party.>>>> points out that the>>>> companies that helped to start>>>> up the Texas project have been,>>>> and still are, big contributors to>>>> the election funds of W>>>> Bush. In addition, some members>>>> of the New Freedom Commission>>>> have served on advisory>>>> boards for these same companies,>>>> while others have direct>>>> ties to the Texas Medication>>>> Algorithm Project.>>>> Bush was the governor of>>>> Texas during the development>>>> of the Texas project, and, during>>>> his 2000 presidential campaign,>>>> he boasted of his support for the>>>> project and the fact that the>>>> legislation he passed expanded>>>> Medicaid coverage of psychotropic>>>> drugs.>>>> Bush is the clear front runner>>>> when it comes to drug company>>>> contributions. According to the>>>> Center for Responsive Politics>>>> (CRP), manufacturers of drugs>>>> and health products have contributed>>>> $764 274 to the 2004>>>> Bush campaign through their>>>> political action committees and>>>> employees—far outstripping the>>>> $149 400 given to his chief rival,>>>> Kerry, by 26 April.>>>> Drug companies have fared>>>> exceedingly well under the Bush>>>> administration, according to the>>>> centre’s spokesperson, >>>> Weiss.>>>> The commission’s recommendation>>>> for increased screening has>>>> also been questioned. >>>> Whitaker, journalist and author of>>>> Mad in America, says that while>>>> increased screening “may seem>>>> defensible,†it could also be seen>>>> as “fishing for customers,†and>>>> that exorbitant spending on new>>>> drugs “robs from other forms of>>>> care such as job training and shelter>>>> programmes.â€>>>> But Dr Graham Emslie, who>>>> helped develop the Texas>>>> project, defends screening:>>>> “There are good data showing>>>> that if you identify kids at an>>>> earlier age who are aggressive,>>>> you can intervene… and change>>>> their trajectory.â€>>>> Bush plans to screen whole US>>>> population for mental illness>>>> Jeanne Lenzer New York>>>> 344, 83, 161, 84, 82, 315>>>> News>>>> Drug companies have contributed three times more to the campaign of >>>> Bush, seen here>>>> campaigning in Florida, than to that of his rival Kerry>>>> GERALD HERBERT/AP>>>>>>>> On May 29, 2006, at 11:32 AM, rshreffler02 wrote:>>>>>>>>> http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi->>>>> bin/blogs/voices.php/2006/05/29/p8477>>>>>>>>>