T Nation

This Made Me Want to Puke

Yea, thread title says it all… WTF!!!

http://www.parentsbehavingbadly.com/2007/07/06/video-mother-gives-ecstasy-to-child/

I hope this is a 25-lifer.

Ahhhh…I have seen some pretty fucked up shit on the internet, and this is right up there.

Those cunts need putting in a room full of sex offenders and to be anally raped…

[quote]AdamC wrote:
Those cunts need putting in a room full of sex offenders and to be anally raped…[/quote]

YEA!!!..Raping women FTW!!

:slight_smile:

[quote]AdamC wrote:
Those cunts need putting in a room full of sex offenders and to be anally raped…[/quote]

Yeah… OR just execution.

Quick, dirty, gets rid of the problem immediatelly.

Choose the life of the kid over the drugged up crack whore of a mother any day.

Yes, you should only give amphetamines to a child.

For their “attention deficit disorders”

Or in fact, give a child anything a drug company or food company can profit from.

But not ecstacy, that’s evil

I am not in favour of what was in that video, but there are so many worse things that are RECOMMENDED to kids.

And far worse things happening, e.g drinking and smoking during pregnancy, which apparently, a large percentage of women don’t realise they shouldn’t do.

[quote]Magarhe wrote:
Yes, you should only give amphetamines to a child.

For their “attention deficit disorders”

Or in fact, give a child anything a drug company or food company can profit from.

But not ecstacy, that’s evil

I am not in favour of what was in that video, but there are so many worse things that are RECOMMENDED to kids.

And far worse things happening, e.g drinking and smoking during pregnancy, which apparently, a large percentage of women don’t realise they shouldn’t do.
[/quote]

Smoking during pregnancy is not proven to be worse than giving a child ecstacy, for one. And those RECOMMENDED ‘things’ that are given to kids are most likely FDA approved depending on who was RECOMMENDING it. Now if you would like to get into conspiracy theories you could question whether the FDA was paid off by that particular pharmaceutical company. There’s a debate.

Also you should question intention when debating your particular topic. Do you think those parents in the video thought the ecstacy was going to benefit the child? What I’m saying is that any parent in their right mind would not try to intentionally harm their offspring. I wonder who RECOMMENDED ecstasy for that little girl. But it’s a good thing that you are not in favor of what is going on in that video, nor am I.

Have you ever tried ecstasy? I wouldn’t RECOMMEND it for ANYONE.

Let’s get something straight. Certain drugs have been studied by people with bigger brains than most of us (called scientists), to have properties that can help to treat or nullify genetic disorders, diseases, infections, psychosis, and any other thing someone might deem as being “wrong with them.” MDMA (ecstasy) has origins in the field of psychosis. Which one of the women in that car had a degree in Psychology?

Fucking sickening. 25 to Life for endangering a minors life using Schedule I Class A narcotics. That’s all I have to say.

[quote]meangenes wrote:
Magarhe wrote:

Have you ever tried ecstasy? I wouldn’t RECOMMEND it for ANYONE.

.[/quote]

have you every tried it? sounds like the rambalings of a person that hasn’t, but heard off someone that it was bad mmm’kay.
saw another thread a bit ago that compaired how strict americas laws are on such things as alcohol/drugs and how much of a problem the states have with these.

easy tiger!

I’m not saying i have the answers i’m just saying the people have the right to choose and when given the choice (and the novalty has gone) people are much more responsible.
look at france, the kids there drink wine with their parents with meals at like 3y/o, and france has one of the lowest rates of alcoholism.

but befor i get misinterpreted, giveing any harful substance like mdma to a child who can’t make a balanced desision themselves is discracfull.

You are making some hefty assumptions about who I am and what I know. This is not my specialty but my friends and colleagues are heavily involved in research in these areas and scientists in big pharmas. Since I liaise with experts doing cutting edge research into these things (e.g ecstacy and Parkinsons) from around the world, my response to you is: you haven’t got a clue what you are talking about. And you have no idea how frustrating it is for people like me that your opinion is the general, misguided opinion of the masses.

FDA approved doesn’t mean good or safe. If you knew what went on behind the scenes you’d puke.

I repeat what I said before, that woman was an idiot, but there are far worse things that are given to kids than ecstacy and nobody bats an eyelid, because “it’s approved”.

[quote]meangenes wrote:
Magarhe wrote:
Yes, you should only give amphetamines to a child.

For their “attention deficit disorders”

Or in fact, give a child anything a drug company or food company can profit from.

But not ecstacy, that’s evil

I am not in favour of what was in that video, but there are so many worse things that are RECOMMENDED to kids.

And far worse things happening, e.g drinking and smoking during pregnancy, which apparently, a large percentage of women don’t realise they shouldn’t do.

Smoking during pregnancy is not proven to be worse than giving a child ecstacy, for one. And those RECOMMENDED ‘things’ that are given to kids are most likely FDA approved depending on who was RECOMMENDING it. Now if you would like to get into conspiracy theories you could question whether the FDA was paid off by that particular pharmaceutical company. There’s a debate.

Also you should question intention when debating your particular topic. Do you think those parents in the video thought the ecstacy was going to benefit the child? What I’m saying is that any parent in their right mind would not try to intentionally harm their offspring. I wonder who RECOMMENDED ecstasy for that little girl. But it’s a good thing that you are not in favor of what is going on in that video, nor am I.

Have you ever tried ecstasy? I wouldn’t RECOMMEND it for ANYONE.

Let’s get something straight. Certain drugs have been studied by people with bigger brains than most of us (called scientists), to have properties that can help to treat or nullify genetic disorders, diseases, infections, psychosis, and any other thing someone might deem as being “wrong with them.” MDMA (ecstasy) has origins in the field of psychosis. Which one of the women in that car had a degree in Psychology?

Fucking sickening. 25 to Life for endangering a minors life using Schedule I Class A narcotics. That’s all I have to say.[/quote]

The video is a good example of what can happen when messed up raver kids with hippie parents, become parents.

I certainly don’t think what they did was ok. I would like to point out that, smoking during pregnancy can affect the development of a fetuses lungs. Causing a lifetime of respiratory problems.

I realize that thanks to the war on drugs Ecstacy is the boogeyman to a lot of people but there are prescription drugs that are given to kids everyday that are easily just as dangerous or worse.

Ritalin is an excellent example. Ritalin and Ecstacy are very similar chemicals. One is a schedule one amphetamine the other is schedule two amphetamine. Drugs in either category are considered to be highly addictive.

Addiction is an irreversible side effect of Ritalin. Especially when you take it day in and day out for years on end like a lot of doctors have prescribed. In fact there is a high probability that what got one or more of those kids in that video started on drugs was a doctor giving them Ritalin when they were kids.

In a society where the medical profession sees nothing wrong with feeding Ritalin to kids till they are chronic drug addicts before they even get out of elementary school. How can we expect kids who are raised in such a culture to see anything wrong with giving a kid a hit of ecstacy?

If messed up kids who may or may not know any better deserve twenty five years to life for giving a kid a pill one time, then what does a doctor who damn well ought to know better deserve when they give a kid a daily dose of ritalin or some other deadly drug or even a cocktail of drugs?

If that video is sickening, then what is to be made of the stories on these two sites of kids being killed by doctors feeding kids drugs against their parents wishes? Sometimes with court orders!

http://www.ritalindeath.com/

http://www.adhdfraud.org/

There is some serious hypocracy in this country.

[quote]wukey wrote:
meangenes wrote:
Magarhe wrote:

Have you ever tried ecstasy? I wouldn’t RECOMMEND it for ANYONE.

.

have you every tried it? sounds like the rambalings of a person that hasn’t, but heard off someone that it was bad mmm’kay.
saw another thread a bit ago that compaired how strict americas laws are on such things as alcohol/drugs and how much of a problem the states have with these.
[/quote]

Whether I have tried ecstasy or not makes no difference in what I stated. But yes, I have tried it and also had a close friend die of an MDMA overdose. Best not to assume. We have a saying here in the states. When you ass-u-me you make an ass out of u and me.

Have you ever experienced life in America? Are you speaking from experience or did you just read a thread on this particular topic and decide it was relevant enough to RAMBLE on here in reply to my statement? Do you know anyone envolved in American politics?

[quote]Magarhe wrote:
You are making some hefty assumptions about who I am and what I know. This is not my specialty but my friends and colleagues are heavily involved in research in these areas and scientists in big pharmas. Since I liaise with experts doing cutting edge research into these things (e.g ecstacy and Parkinsons) from around the world, my response to you is: you haven’t got a clue what you are talking about. And you have no idea how frustrating it is for people like me that your opinion is the general, misguided opinion of the masses.

FDA approved doesn’t mean good or safe. If you knew what went on behind the scenes you’d puke.

I repeat what I said before, that woman was an idiot, but there are far worse things that are given to kids than ecstacy and nobody bats an eyelid, because “it’s approved”.
[/quote]

As said, that’s the debate. Where in my statements did I say that there was no shifty business going on behind the scenes? I believe I said: "Now if you would like to get into conspiracy theories you could question whether the FDA was paid off by that particular pharmaceutical company. There’s a debate.

Now if I may ask, what is it that your colleagues and yourself “do” to make even heftier claims on such a topic? In other words, let me know who I am speaking to, you must have credentials to regard my opinion as being “of the masses.” Insurance investigation maybe?

To all of you, let’s think about the FACT that the Pharmaceutical industry grosses more than $200 billion a year. Just imagine the corruption.

Another thing. How do you think illegal drugs get into the United States? Granted it isn’t grown or produced here. Do you think U.S. Customs, a government organization, is not corrupt?

She was wrong, our government is wrong, all the manufacturers of drugs (street and pharma) are wrong, and everyone is Hippocrates.
25 to life is more than a fair punishment.

To Sifu, that is tragic. Do you know if the parents filed suit on their doctor? Otherwise good luck on filing suit on the entire Pharmaceutical industry.

Did you happen to hear the language during it? Colorful profanities all through it. Then and the end, to hear that they had on a Christian radio station…

[quote]Sifu wrote:
meangenes wrote:
Magarhe wrote:
Yes, you should only give amphetamines to a child.

For their “attention deficit disorders”

Or in fact, give a child anything a drug company or food company can profit from.

But not ecstacy, that’s evil

I am not in favour of what was in that video, but there are so many worse things that are RECOMMENDED to kids.

And far worse things happening, e.g drinking and smoking during pregnancy, which apparently, a large percentage of women don’t realise they shouldn’t do.

Smoking during pregnancy is not proven to be worse than giving a child ecstacy, for one. And those RECOMMENDED ‘things’ that are given to kids are most likely FDA approved depending on who was RECOMMENDING it. Now if you would like to get into conspiracy theories you could question whether the FDA was paid off by that particular pharmaceutical company. There’s a debate.

Also you should question intention when debating your particular topic. Do you think those parents in the video thought the ecstacy was going to benefit the child? What I’m saying is that any parent in their right mind would not try to intentionally harm their offspring. I wonder who RECOMMENDED ecstasy for that little girl. But it’s a good thing that you are not in favor of what is going on in that video, nor am I.

Have you ever tried ecstasy? I wouldn’t RECOMMEND it for ANYONE.

Let’s get something straight. Certain drugs have been studied by people with bigger brains than most of us (called scientists), to have properties that can help to treat or nullify genetic disorders, diseases, infections, psychosis, and any other thing someone might deem as being “wrong with them.” MDMA (ecstasy) has origins in the field of psychosis. Which one of the women in that car had a degree in Psychology?

Fucking sickening. 25 to Life for endangering a minors life using Schedule I Class A narcotics. That’s all I have to say.

The video is a good example of what can happen when messed up raver kids with hippie parents, become parents.

I certainly don’t think what they did was ok. I would like to point out that, smoking during pregnancy can affect the development of a fetuses lungs. Causing a lifetime of respiratory problems.

I realize that thanks to the war on drugs Ecstacy is the boogeyman to a lot of people but there are prescription drugs that are given to kids everyday that are easily just as dangerous or worse.

Ritalin is an excellent example. Ritalin and Ecstacy are very similar chemicals. One is a schedule one amphetamine the other is schedule two amphetamine. Drugs in either category are considered to be highly addictive.

Addiction is an irreversible side effect of Ritalin. Especially when you take it day in and day out for years on end like a lot of doctors have prescribed. In fact there is a high probability that what got one or more of those kids in that video started on drugs was a doctor giving them Ritalin when they were kids.

In a society where the medical profession sees nothing wrong with feeding Ritalin to kids till they are chronic drug addicts before they even get out of elementary school. How can we expect kids who are raised in such a culture to see anything wrong with giving a kid a hit of ecstacy?

If messed up kids who may or may not know any better deserve twenty five years to life for giving a kid a pill one time, then what does a doctor who damn well ought to know better deserve when they give a kid a daily dose of ritalin or some other deadly drug or even a cocktail of drugs?

If that video is sickening, then what is to be made of the stories on these two sites of kids being killed by doctors feeding kids drugs against their parents wishes? Sometimes with court orders!

http://www.ritalindeath.com/

http://www.adhdfraud.org/

There is some serious hypocracy in this country.[/quote]

I normally don’t give out this kind of info freely but I’m going to have to weigh in on this one:

I used to be one was those “raver” kids and by no means would most normal humans give a child X!

As for the ADD medicine sometimes that is really needed, even if given forcefully! Do you happen to know some of the more common side effects of having ADD or ADHA are? One of which is an extreme temper which could turn violent and cause harm to the kid or others.

The amphetamines given to people for ADD do not cause holes in the brain as does X, so comparing the 2 is not a good choice.

If you want to be fighting the doctors and chemical companies than I would suggest you start with pain killers. They are far more addictive than aderal or Ritalin. But mainly I think you should give this fight up. People need to be responsible for their own actions, not blame society for pressuring them into it.

So to say anything that is given out by a doctor is worse than X I would suggest you go back and research what these chemicals do to a child’s brain. X is made up of chemicals outside of a lab which are often cut with cheaper and much more dangerous chemicals.

Last time I checked Ritalin isn’t causing people to see things, heighten the senses to the point of orgasiming if a person brushes by you, and continual use causing massive holes in the brain leaving someone a vegetable. There have been countless studies where a person did X a few times a week and has permanent brain damage and loss of motor functions.

Whereas thousands of kids take Ritalin every day, for years on end, and have no permanent damage. You could argue that some have had horrible side effects, but they are the minority whereas with X terrible side effects are the norm.

Also, I’m not sure where you are getting that either of these drugs or addictive. The only people that would get addicted to these drugs, I would argue could be addicted to Advil.

For those of you wondering this is said by someone with personal expierence in X and Ritalin. I also have done a ton of research into both, and have personal expierences from close friends in both. In HS I did way more drugs than I am proud of and as a result 2 things happened.

First I studied eevrything I could on the drugs to figure out exactly what the hell I did to myself and secondly, I needed Ritalin to combat the ADD I got from the damage it suffered during that time. But hell I got a finance degree, am getting my MBA and debating on taking the MCAT so I guess the damage wasn’t nearly as bad as it could be.

[quote]Xylene wrote:
AdamC wrote:
Those cunts need putting in a room full of sex offenders and to be anally raped…

YEA!!!..Raping women FTW!!

:)[/quote]

Not sure what you are trying to say but i wasn’t trying to make light of rape…

[quote]AdamC wrote:
Those cunts need putting in a room full of sex offenders and to be anally raped…[/quote]

Well now that would just make everyone in that room a bunch of motherfuckers, ultimately leading to the appointers being responsible not only for raped cunts but an increase in the worlds motherfuckers.

I guess we could take all the first time rape offenders and turn them into motherfuckers.

Adderall is a miracle drug. That’s all I have to say about that.

[quote]CrewPierce wrote:
Sifu wrote:
meangenes wrote:
Magarhe wrote:

I normally don’t give out this kind of info freely but I’m going to have to weigh in on this one:

I used to be one was those “raver” kids and by no means would most normal humans give a child X!

As for the ADD medicine sometimes that is really needed, even if given forcefully! Do you happen to know some of the more common side effects of having ADD or ADHA are? One of which is an extreme temper which could turn violent and cause harm to the kid or others.

The amphetamines given to people for ADD do not cause holes in the brain as does X, so comparing the 2 is not a good choice.

If you want to be fighting the doctors and chemical companies than I would suggest you start with pain killers. They are far more addictive than aderal or Ritalin. But mainly I think you should give this fight up. People need to be responsible for their own actions, not blame society for pressuring them into it.

So to say anything that is given out by a doctor is worse than X I would suggest you go back and research what these chemicals do to a child’s brain. X is made up of chemicals outside of a lab which are often cut with cheaper and much more dangerous chemicals.

Last time I checked Ritalin isn’t causing people to see things, heighten the senses to the point of orgasiming if a person brushes by you, and continual use causing massive holes in the brain leaving someone a vegetable. There have been countless studies where a person did X a few times a week and has permanent brain damage and loss of motor functions.

Whereas thousands of kids take Ritalin every day, for years on end, and have no permanent damage. You could argue that some have had horrible side effects, but they are the minority whereas with X terrible side effects are the norm.

Also, I’m not sure where you are getting that either of these drugs or addictive. The only people that would get addicted to these drugs, I would argue could be addicted to Advil.

For those of you wondering this is said by someone with personal expierence in X and Ritalin. I also have done a ton of research into both, and have personal expierences from close friends in both. In HS I did way more drugs than I am proud of and as a result 2 things happened.

First I studied eevrything I could on the drugs to figure out exactly what the hell I did to myself and secondly, I needed Ritalin to combat the ADD I got from the damage it suffered during that time. But hell I got a finance degree, am getting my MBA and debating on taking the MCAT so I guess the damage wasn’t nearly as bad as it could be.[/quote]

You candy raving E-tard. There is lots of information backing up what I wrote.

Here is info from the United States Drug Enforcement Administration
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/concern/methylphenidate.html

Methylphenidate, a Schedule II substance, has a high potential for abuse and produces many of the same effects as cocaine or the amphetamines. The abuse of this substance has been documented among narcotic addicts who dissolve the tablets in water and inject the mixture. Complications arising from this practice are common due to the insoluble fillers used in the tablets. When injected, these materials block small blood vessels, causing serious damage to the lungs and retina of the eye. Binge use, psychotic episodes, cardiovascular complications, and severe psychological addiction have all been associated with methylphenidate abuse.

Methylphenidate is used legitimately in the treatment of excessive daytime sleepiness associated with narcolepsy, as is the newly marketed Schedule IV stimulant, modafinil (Provigil®). However; the primary legitimate medical use of methylphenidate (Ritalin®, Methylin®, Concerta®) is to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children. The increased use of this substance for the treatment of ADHD has paralleled an increase in its abuse among adolescents and young adults who crush these tablets and snort the powder to get high. Youngsters have little difficulty obtaining methylphenidate from classmates or friends who have been prescribed it. Greater efforts to safeguard this medication at home and school are needed.

Violent behaviour is a common side effect of amphetamines. Even the DEA says so. Anti depressants are another common drug that can cause psychotic behaviour. Columbine shooter Eric Harris was on Luvox, that’s why the maines wouldn’t take him. But I digress.

http://www.adhdfraud.org/frameit.asp?src=commentary.htm
RITALIN IS HIGHLY ADDICTIVE

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD: There has never been any doubt of the addictiveness of Ritalin/methylphenidate. People in psychiatry, paid to say ADHD is a disease, Ritalin is safe & non-addictive, say it because they are paid to say it or because they make their living making patients of normals and drugging them. FB]
UM study: Ritalin use may worsen cocaine abuse
BY CONNIE PRATER AND SHARI RUDAVSKY, cprater@herald.com

People who use cocaine regularly may have a harder time breaking the habit
if they used Ritalin or the club drug Ecstasy in their youth, a University
of Miami study suggests.
The number of U.S. children and adolescents who were prescribed Ritalin and
other stimulants surged dramatically in the 1990s.
[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD: FB From 500,000 in 1985 to 1.0 million in 1990, to 6 million today–with no evidence that it is a bona fide disease]

The study, conducted on laboratory mice, found that rodents given Ritalin
and Ecstasy, then later cocaine, showed higher sensitivity to cocaine than
those that hadn’t been exposed to the first two stimulants.
“If they start using drugs, these guys that have been preexposed to Ritalin
and Ecstasy may be more susceptible for relapse than others,” said Yossef
Itzhak, a UM professor of psychiatry and the lead researcher on the study.

Here is my response to your no damage to the brain remark.
http://www.adhdfraud.org/frameit.asp?src=commentary.htm

Ritalin May Cause Brain Damage In Children
Reuters: Monday, November 12, 2001
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12922-2001Nov11.html

Ritalin May Cause Brain Change in Children

Reuters
Monday, November 12, 2001; Page A08

The stimulant Ritalin, a drug used to help children with attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder, may cause long-term changes in the brain,
researchers reported yesterday.
[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD: ADHD has never been proved to exist; children said to have it–thus labeled, have never been proved to be abnormal/diseased. This risk/benefit equation: treating a non-disease with a brain-damaging, addictive substance, is never justifiable]

The changes look similar to those seen with other stimulants such as
amphetamine and cocaine, at least in rats, the team at the University of
Buffalo found.
[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD: perhaps because methylphenidate is amphetamine-like and is classified by the INCB and DEA with amphetamine, methamphetamine and cocaine as Schedule II stimulants. They say it shares all side effects with these drugs, addictive potential included. ]

“Clinicians consider Ritalin to be short-acting,” Joan Baizer, a professor
of physiology and biophysics who led the study, said in a statement.

“When the active dose has worked its way through the system, they consider
it ‘all gone.’ Our research with gene expression in an animal model suggests
that it has the potential for causing long-lasting changes in brain cell
structure and function.”
[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD: Get that “long-lasting changes in brain cell structure and function.” The CT/MRI brain scan research of 1986 throught the present leaves no doubt that long term Ritalin/amphetamine use as “treatment” for the non-existent disease ADHD, not ADHD, causes “on average 10% brain atrophy.”]

But Baizer said that Ritalin, known generically as methylphenidate, probably
is not addictive in the way drugs of abuse are if it is used properly.

“Children have been given Ritalin daily for many years, and it is extremely
effective and beneficial, but it’s not quite as simple as a short-acting
drug,” she said. “We need to look at it more closely.”
[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD: Virtually all in medical academia are paid to insert that Ritalin is not addictive if “used properly.” As if the drug knows when it is legally prescribed, i.e. whether take from the school nurse or off of school grounds]
High
doses of amphetamine and cocaine have been found to switch on genes known as
“immediate early genes” in brain cells. One of the genes, called c-fos, has
been linked with addiction when it is activated in certain parts of the
brain.

The researchers gave rat pups sweetened milk carrying methylphenidate in
comparable doses and at similar times to what a child would get.

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD: They use rats while we, here in the good old USA, give these same poisons to 6 million of our own normal children, children–make no mistake–who have no abnormality/disease until their “treatment” with these drugs begins]
C-fos genes were activated in their brains in a pattern
similar to that seen in cocaine and amphetamine use, the researchers told a
meeting of the Society for Neuroscience in San Diego.

“These data do suggest that there are effects of Ritalin on cell function
that outlast the short term, and we should sort that out,” Baizer said.

She said perhaps a gene chip – a microarray – could be used to see just
which genes are turned on and off by methylphenidate.

© 2001 The Washington Post Company

I’ll leave you with this one because it is a lot to read.

BRITISH COLUMBIA: Babies on psychiatric drugs
[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD: This is a perversion of science and a monstous perversion of medicine. Once a study has been completed, presented at meetings, published in journals, no matter how devoid of scientific merit, it becomes ‘cutting edge’, OK and everyone starts doing it. There is no word for this except ‘criminal’. The District or prosecuting attorney of the province should convene a grand jury or it’s equivalent and begin to take testimony from physicians interviewed for this article who have expressed alarm or misgiving. Testimony should be taken, as well from child neurologists, pediatricians, pharmacologists, pediatric pathologists, toxicologists and the like, then indictments should follow. Wherever preschoolers are being drugged (there is no justification for calling this treatment), legal inquiries should be launched.]

B.C. BABIES ON PAXIL, PROZAC, ZOLOFT
Babies on mood drugs
Tender age of patients shocks physicians

Ann Rees The Vancouver Province 18 December 2000

Babies still young enough to be in diapers are being
prescribed powerful adult tranquilizers.

A Vancouver Province investigation found about 20 B.C. infants
aged two and under last year were prescribed either a sedative called
imipramine or anti-depressant drugs such as Prozac, Paxil and
Zoloft, a class of drugs known as SSRIs. The five youngest were not
even a year old, which shocked doctors.

“Oh my goodness!” said Dr. Wendy Roberts, pediatrician and director of the
Child Development Centre at Toronto’s Hospital for Sick Children. Dr.
Marshall Korenblum, chief psychiatrist at the
prestigious Hincks-Dellcrest Centre for Children in Toronto said: “I cannot
see any indication for putting a pre-schooler on anti-depressants.”

The drugs have not been tested for safety and effectiveness in such young
children.

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD: Meaning there is no proof they are safe or effective, i.e., that there is no medical reason to prescribe them.]

Dr. Jane Garland, head of the mood disorders clinic at B.C. Children’s
Hospital in Vancouver, said “systematic studies” have been done only on
children six and up. But despite the lack of research, Garland said the
drugs are appropriate in rare and extreme cases for children under three.
“I have seen kids, for example, with sleep-terror disorders or extreme
sleep disorders and anxiety problems who are younger than three who
occasionally have been put on those medications,” she said.

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD: That someone has done it is all they have to have to justify following suit. With no valid research as to safety or efficacy it cannot be said their is a scientific basis for using such drugs in children of this age. It cannot be said that that benefit outweighs risks. This being the case, there is no justification for their use.]

“But that would be a treatment of last resort for under-threes. One would
have wanted to try everything else.”

Garland is currently conducting a drug trial, paid for by the manufacturer
of the anti-depressant Zoloft, to study safety and effectiveness in six-to
18-year-olds.

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD: With the ‘researcher’ funded by the drug’s maker, what is the chance the drug will be found to be other than effective?]

Meanwhile, there is widespread debate about whether popular
anti-depressants could cause long-term side-effects, especially in young
children. At the extreme end of the debate is a book called Prozac
Backlash, in which Harvard psychiatrist Dr. Joseph Glenmullen documents
serious long-term effects of popular anti-depressants such as Prozac, Paxil
and Zoloft.

Glenmullen reports several cases of neurological disorders, such as
disfiguring facial and body tics, which he believes are indications of
brain damage. Other prominent doctors have dismissed Glenmullen’s concerns.
But when it comes to children there is no certainty either way. “I think
it’s reasonable to be concerned,” Julie Magno Zito, a University of
Maryland pharmacy professor, said in a recent magazine interview. “We have
no idea on how these drugs affect the developing brain, the heart, the
kidney, the liver.”

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD: Which means there is no justification for giving them–it simply is not known if they do more harm than good]

What is certain is that the use of psychiatric drugs
by young children is on the increase.

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD: Not treatment having a scientific basis for a bona fide disease or diseases, it is big business of the mental health/psychopharm industry]

Zito recently published a study in which she found a three-fold increase in
the prescription of psychotropic drugs in U.S. children aged two to four
between 1991 and 1995. “It’s a growth market,” said Dr. Larry Diller, an
American pediatrician who is writing a book urging a more sensible approach
to using drugs to treat
childhood psychiatric disorders.

Diller, who wrote the best selling book Running on Ritalin, believes
widespread acceptance of drugs to treat Attention Deficit Hyperactivity
Disorder has made doctors and parents less cautious about using other
psychiatric drugs to treat children. “I think it is just basically the
increasing acceptance of using psychiatric
drugs in children.”

B.C. appears to be on the cutting edge of the trend.

The 20 babies and tots were among almost 70 pre-schoolers four and
younger who were prescribed sedatives and anti-depressants last year,
according to data obtained through Freedom of Information from B.C.'s
PharmaNet prescription record system. The youngest anti-depressant
patients were two baby girls and three baby boys, all under a year old. The
two girls received Paxil. One baby boy was
prescribed bupropion, a drug sold as Zyban and Wellbutrin, and the other
two received Surmontil and Effexor.

Three babies who turned one last year were also given Prozac, Paxil or
trazodone. A dozen tots who turned two last year were also given
anti-depressants. Five of the two-year-olds were prescribed imipramine,
which the American Heart Association warns could cause death from cardiac
arrest.

Toronto’s Roberts said doctors at Sick Children’s are very cautious about
using the sedative and never prescribe it for babies. “Not at that age,
never,” she said. “There are major cardiac problems with
that.”

In the past, the drug was commonly prescribed in school-aged children to
control bed-wetting. But there is absolutely no excuse for using a drug to
control bed-wetting in a two-year- old, said Toronto psychiatrist
Korenblum. “They may not even be toilet-trained yet,” he said. Neither of
the Toronto child specialists could explain why infants would be prescribed
anti-depressants or sedatives. Roberts said anti-depressants such as Paxil,
Prozac and Zoloft are used to treat children old enough to speak but who
have a rare form of mutism associated with social anxiety. “The incidence
is very small,” she said. “I wouldn’t think there would be 10
kids in B.C. with it.”

The same anti-depressants are used to treat autism, but usually not before
age four or five. “Zoloft has been very helpful at night for a percentage
of (autistic) kids because it has a sedating effect,” Roberts said. “For
some of our kids it is a lifesaver because they sleep two hours a night and
the parents are just completely wiped out. It also helps the excessive
anxious behaviour.”

Dr. Pratibha Reebye, infant psychiatrist at B.C.'s Children’s Hospital,
does not prescribe anti-depressants to kids under three.

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD: It is absurd of psychiatry to pretend it can diagnose psychologic symptom complexes in infancy that are akin to those diagnosed and treated in children K-12, and in adults. Moreover, once diagnosed, they presume as through all biological psychiatry, that they have diagnosed a ‘disease’, a ‘chemical imbalance’, one needing medical therapy–a ‘chemical balancer’, a pill.]

“But occasionally you may have a child who is three and a half years or
four years old who is clinically so depressed and having phobic reactions,
not sleeping, not settling down and you may want to try some
anti-depressants. But that would be a very rare.”

Dr. Derryck Smith, chief psychiatrist at Children’s Hospital does not know
why a baby would be prescribed an anti-depressant. “There is no reason I
could think of personally, but that is not to say there isn’t one,” said
Smith.

What the doc ordered
Ann Rees
Vancouver Province 18 December 2000

Paxil is the leading anti-depressant for kids in B.C. Doctors turn to
Zoloft and Prozac as their second and third choices to treat depression,
anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorders and other mental
disorders, according to 1999 data obtained through Freedom of
Information from the provincial PharmaNet prescription drug records. The
data does not show the diagnosis. About 3,326 teens and children were
prescribed Zoloft which, like Paxil, is one of a new group of mood-altering
anti-depressants called serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Two dozen
Zoloft patients were six or younger, and about 420 were 12 or younger.

Prozac, perhaps the best known of the SSRIs, was the third most popular
tranquilizer for kids, with 2,498 patients under 19. About 464 of the
patients were pre-teens. Fifty-five were six or younger.

About 2,285 teens and children were prescribed imipramine, an old-style
tricyclic anti-depressant. The drug, which is sold under the brand names
Tofranil, Impril and Novo-Pramine, is used primarily to treat long-term
depression. It was previously widely used to control bed-wetting. “We
have stopped using it altogether unless you are completely desperate,” said
Dr. Wendy Roberts, director of the Child Development Clinic at Toronto’s
Hospital for Sick Children.

In B.C., 42 of the patients were under five, and five of those turned two
last year. Thousands of B.C. children and teenagers were prescribed other
powerful anti-depressants which are not tested or recommended for use in
young patients. The PharmaNet records show:

  • 1,966 patients 19 or younger received prescriptions for amitriptyline,
    which is sold under the brand names Elavil, Apo-Amitriptyline and
    Novo-Tryptin. The youngest patient was two years old, with 40 aged six
    years or younger and 171 aged 10 or younger.

  • 1,409 patients received fluvoxamine, sold as Luvox, which is used to
    treat depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder. The youngest patients
    were four years old, with 198 aged 10 or younger – 30 were aged six or
    younger.

  • 1,380 patients aged 19 or younger received venlafaxine, an
    anti-depressant sold as Effexor. The youngest patient on the drug was under
    one year of age. Forty- nine patients were 10 or younger.

  • 1,310 received trazodone, which is sold as Desyrel. The youngest patient
    was a one-year-old infant; 17 were six or younger and there were 106
    patients 10 or younger.

  • 946 received bupropion, which is sold as Zyban and Wellbutrin. The
    youngest patient was under one year, with 65 aged 10 years or younger –
    five were six or younger.

  • 533 received citalopram hydrobromide, sold as Celexa. The youngest
    was seven.

  • 351 received clomipramine, sold as Apo-clomipramine and Anafranil.
    The youngest turned seven last year.

  • 275 received desipramine, sold as Norpramin and Pertofane. The
    anti-depressant is not recommended for children under 12. The data
    shows 91 children under 12 were prescribed the drug in 1999. The
    youngest was four last year.

  • 243 received Lithium, an anti-manic drug which carries a high overdose
    risk as well as side-effects of nausea and trembling. Only 12 patients were
    10 or older. The youngest was six.

  • 200 received doxepin, an anti-depressant with strong sedative effects.
    The youngest patient was four. A child who turned five and two who were six
    last year were also on the drug.

  • 321 received nefazodone, an anti-depressant. Only nine patients were
    under 10, with the youngest aged four.

  • 159 received nortriptyline, an old-style tricyclic anti-depressant sold
    as Aventyl. There were 23 patients aged 10 or under on the drug, with the
    youngest patient turning five last year.

  • 91 patients received moclobemide, an anti-depressant sold as Manerix. The
    youngest three patients were eight in 1999.

  • 67 patients received trimipramine, which is an anti-depressant sold as
    Surmontil. Two of the patients were infants younger than a year.

[quote]AdamC wrote:
Xylene wrote:
AdamC wrote:
Those cunts need putting in a room full of sex offenders and to be anally raped…

YEA!!!..Raping women FTW!!

:slight_smile:

Not sure what you are trying to say but i wasn’t trying to make light of rape…[/quote]

Of course you weren’t.

:slight_smile:

[quote]Xylene wrote:
AdamC wrote:
Xylene wrote:
AdamC wrote:
Those cunts need putting in a room full of sex offenders and to be anally raped…

YEA!!!..Raping women FTW!!

:slight_smile:

Not sure what you are trying to say but i wasn’t trying to make light of rape…

Of course you weren’t.

:)[/quote]

Rape is not a laughing matter!

Unless your rapeing a clown.

[quote]n3wb wrote:
Xylene wrote:
AdamC wrote:
Xylene wrote:
AdamC wrote:
Those cunts need putting in a room full of sex offenders and to be anally raped…

YEA!!!..Raping women FTW!!

:slight_smile:

Not sure what you are trying to say but i wasn’t trying to make light of rape…

Of course you weren’t.

:slight_smile:

Rape is not a laughing matter!

Unless your rapeing a clown.

[/quote]

Donkey gonna rape. YAY!!!

:slight_smile: