Sorry, not familiar with TAC and think I'll stay on focus. Richard -----Original Message----- From: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Melinda Smith Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 7:31 PM To: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [NewPacifica] Re: Article on TeenScreen [was Left Foot Forward, March!] Thank you for writing in Frank. I have heard criticism of Teen Screen but what I have read from NAMI has debunked those critiques. Richard says that NAMI is conservative. Richard would probably have problems with E Fuller Torrey and his Treatment Advocacy Center (TAC). TAC believes that at certain times people are in need of involuntary treatment. I for one agree with that assessment. Especially in instances where the person is homicidal or suicidal. If the mental health screenings of kids are done well then I am for it. They should serve as recommendations for parents to seek additional help, not definitive diagnosis. I know there has been legislation passed that prohibits schools from requiring children to take medication in order to attend class. I remember CCHR being part of that. Melinda Smith =^..^= On 12/31/05, Frank LeFever <fflefever@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > No, you should not have put your revised line in the subject > heading. A more accurate heading is "One more example of how much > some so-called progressives or leftists have in common with right- > wing Creationists and other manifestations of anti-scientific bias > and shoot-first, ask questions later or never". > > A recent prior example is Amy Goodman's uncritical endorsement, > along with Fox News et al., of the "Guinea Pig Kids" demagoguery by > Omowale Clay and Ronaldo Bini. ("HIV is a myth, kids are being > tortured" etc.) > > A reference to David Schaffer caught my eye. I met him > professionally decades ago, and subsequently talked with him a few > times. Just to make sure that the record confirms my impressions of > his integrity and humane concern for the well-being of children, > demonstrated by serious research instead of rhetoric, I reviewed his > publication record with special attention to items relevant to the > irresponsible attack you have re-posted. > > When I calm down and have some urgent personal matters adequately > dealt with, I'll show how his record refutes specific allegations > and general innuendo. With citations. > > For now, I'll just ask people with a serious interest in responsible > examination of complex social and scientific issues to at least take > the small step of reading through the FAQ section of the TeenScreen > website and see how many of the purported "facts" in that > Scientologist's diatribe are worth examining or discussing further. > > With friends like this, who needs enemies? > > GIGO: Garbage In, Garbage Out. There is no hope for the left > whatsoever if it cannot develop its capacity for critical thinking > and make insistence on rigorous intellectual honesty its highest > priority. > > Here's the link and a list of the FAQs dealt with: > > -------------------------------------------------------- > http://www.teenscreen.org/cms/content/view/107/139/ > > Setting The Record Straight About TeenScreen > Updated: October 17th, 2005 > > Recently, TeenScreen has seen growing amounts of inaccurate, > intentionally deceptive misinformation about mental health screening > and the TeenScreen Program proliferating primarily through one or > two individuals on the Internet. Some of this inaccurate > information has been posted on other websites. > > The following is a summary and set of key facts for webmasters, > bloggers and others to use in vetting information about the program > and mental health screening. TeenScreen remains committed to > offering all parents the opportunity to have their teenagers receive > a voluntary mental health screening and making youth mental health a > national priority. We thank you for your continued support as we > work to help teens and dispel the myths about mental health > screening. > > How prevalent is mental illness and suicide in teens? > > Is TeenScreen a screening or diagnostic tool? What is the difference > between screening and a diagnosis? > > Does TeenScreen require parental consent? What is the difference > between active and passive consent? > > What mental health problems does TeenScreen screen for? > > What is the goal of the Columbia University TeenScreen Program? > > Does TeenScreen recommend anti-depressants for teens found to be > suffering from depression? > > Even though you don't recommend medication, isn't that the primary > result of the program? > > Is the pharmaceutical industry behind TeenScreen? > > Do any local TeenScreen programs accept money from pharmaceutical > companies? > > Does the Columbia University TeenScreen Program endorse mandated > mental health screening for all teens? > > What about President Bush's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health? > Didn't they endorse mandatory screening and TeenScreen? > > Why then are some people worried about mandatory screening? > > But aren't the commission and TeenScreen in favor of universal > screening? Aren't mandatory and universal the same thing? > > Are individual screening results shared with Columbia University? > > I have heard about active vs. passive consent. What does this mean? > > Does TeenScreen use free movie passes, food coupons, or other > rewards to encourage teens to participate in the screening? > > Is TeenScreen related to TMAP, the Texas Medication Algorithm > Project? > > Does talking about suicide encourage teens to attempt suicide? > > What happens if a teen needs further evaluation and does not have > health insurance? > ---------------------------------------------------- > > --Frank > > =========================================================== > > --- In NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Richard" <rsierra7@xxxx> wrote: > > > > I should have put: "Re: A New Left View vs Bush's Psychiatric > > Establishment" and gone on to textually comment TeenScreen is a > Bush > > pro-drug (prescription) program while explaining the article is a > dissenting > > New Left voice. But being this "is" a New Left board why would I > trouble > > myself? > > > > Hey, folks, the article expresses the New Left vision throughout > and on a > > ALL points, that's why I sent it. Like it or not in the Sixties > Scientology > > was New Left and, far as today goes, when it promotes such views I > fully > > support THEM although, personally, I object to Scientology. > > > > You can know me when I say, "If you're New Left, or consistently > promote a > > New Left view, you're welcome, welcome to our new coalition." How > the hell > > do you think you build coalitions? Does everyone have to agree on > > everything? Of course not. You build on the bottom line and are > free to > > disagree on individual problems and solutions. Secular, religious, > > communist, agnostic, Scientologist, theosophist, anti- > Scientologist, black, > > occult, white, rich, poor, middle class, etc, etc; who cares? I > > don't....sick and tired of the bs left...and that's what we > are...full of > > it. > > > > Yeah, I know, "They're different"...from me. So? Who are you? > What MAKES > > your clock tick? Time for self-criticism? > > > > Forget the Right, we're the problem and we wonder why there's no > unity? > > > > An article like that should unite the left, not be used to keep it > divided. > > The issue isn't Scientology, it's unifying around a good left > > anti-psychiatric understanding and that's what THAT article > provided. Keep > > the focus and "....Forward, March!". /R > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On > > Behalf Of CraigGingold > > Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 6:17 AM > > To: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Cc: counterpunch@xxxx > > Subject: [NewPacifica] Re: Article on TeenScreen [was Left Foot > Forward, > > March!] > > > > > > [I nearly missed this post due to the inscrutable heading... ] > > > > To: "New Pacifica" <NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > From: "Richard" <rsierra7@xxxx> > > > Date sent: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 13:28:35 -0800 > > Subject: [NewPacifica] Left Foot Forward, March! > > > > +++++++++ > > > > Reading the article (The Making of Mental Patients: Inside > TeenScreen) > > was quite maddening (in the colloquial sense of the term). On the > one > > hand, I am strongly sympathetic to the concerns it addresses. On > the > > other hand, owing to the author's affiliations, I find it nearly > impossible > > to evaluate her allegations and conclusions -- and I am at a loss > to > > understand why Counterpunch published the article without making > > a point of clarifying for its readers those affiliations, which > seriously > > undermine the author's credibility. > > > > Briefly, on a personal note, I have been extremely concerned about > > the overuse of psychiatric medications on school-children since I > first > > saw Ritalin come into widespread use starting in the early 1970's > for > > what was then called "hyperactivity." Secondly, I would have grave > > reservations about any screening program that puts more power in > > the hands of school bureaucracies. I know how they operate, and > > I know that their interests are often inimical to the best > interests > > of children, especially children who are perceived as "problems". > > (Which is one major reason why both of my own children were > > homeschooled -- not to imply that either of them were "problems"). > > > > Having said all of that, I am nonetheless compelled to register my > > concerns about the article, fundamentally because I do not feel > that > > I can fully trust the author, Sandra Lucas, who is identified as > follows: > > > > "Executive Director of the Utah Chapter of the Citizens Commission > > on Human Rights, a mental health watchdog group." > > > > That bland description entirely omits the crucial fact that the > CCHR is an > > offshoot of the Church of Scientology -- an organization whose > avowed > > goal is nothing less than the extirpation of the entire profession > of > > psychiatry. (Their views are nothing less than hair-raising, see > below.) > > > > I find that omission astonishing -- and I think Counterpunch owes > its > > readers an explanation. Certainly, Counterpunch would never run an > > article written by an author affiliated with the Executive > Intelligence > > Review, without informing readers up front that the EIR is > published > > by none other than Lyndon LaRouche. So what gives?? > > > > Craig Gingold > > (near) Midpines CA > > > > For those who aren't familiar with Scientology's long-running war > with > > psychiatry -- which traces back to the hostile reception > Scientology > > (and its forerunner, Dianetics) received from pyschiatrists in the > 1950's > > -- I strongly encourage you to take a couple of minutes and read > these > > two web-pages for an introduction to the subject: > > > > Article on "Scientology and psychiatry" from Wikipedia: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_psychiatry > > > > "WHAT IS THE CITIZENS COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS?" > > http://www.xenu.net/archive/infopack/12.htm > ================================================= > > > > > > > New Pacifica Working Group > http://www.egroups.com/group/NewPacifica > 'Save Our Stations!' > > > > ________________________________ > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > > Visit your group "NewPacifica" on the web. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > NewPacifica-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > ________________________________ > -- Melinda Smith =^..^= http://angelfire.com/zine/melsbasketcase New Pacifica Working Group http://www.egroups.com/group/NewPacifica 'Save Our Stations!' Yahoo! Groups Links ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Help save the life of a child. Support St. Jude Children's Research Hospital. http://us.click.yahoo.com/f4eSOB/lbOLAA/E2hLAA/xYTolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> New Pacifica Working Group http://www.egroups.com/group/NewPacifica 'Save Our Stations!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewPacifica/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: NewPacifica-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/