The Drugging of our Children

(Photo courtesy of WikiMedia) Here is a long, interesting, and infuriating video by Gary Null titled The Drugging of Our Children. It explores the prevalence of Ritalin for the treatment of Attention Deficit Disorder and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Michael Moore is interviewed in the film, and while I'm not a huge fan of his, he is pretty well spot-on with his words in this film.

There are interviews with several young people that have been on drugs for ADHD and/or depression, all with interesting stories of the effects Ritalin and the SSRIs had on them and their demeanor. One lady's story entails her refusal to put her child on Ritalin as the school demanded she do for him to stay in school. Child Protective Services removed her son from the home and put him on the drugs. She later "kidnapped" him and left for Canada, but the FBI pursued her there and had her son put back into an institution. She had a choice of political asylum in Canada or fighting to keep her son. She chose to be imprisoned to fight for her son. To this day, her son has still not been returned to her. Granted, she shouldn't have taken her son from a government facility.

Obviously this is only one side of the story and is intended to create a certain reaction, but the video is quite interesting. I can't speak on Ritalin or SSRIs as I'm not a doctor nor well-versed in the workings of those drugs. I will say though that I doubt either ADHD or depression is underdiagnosed. I highly doubt that MORE kids need to be on these drugs, especially when it's quite possible that a change in diet, sleep, or exercise patterns could rid a child of ADHD. A kid fed the typical morning breakfast of sugary cereal or waffles or Pop-Tarts is unlikely to be able to pay attention very well in class.

It almost seems like the schools are trying to medicate the "kid" right out of the child. Three times as many boys are diagnosed with ADHD compared to girls. Perhaps the learning environment is not set up for the way that boys learn. Boys and girls are not the same and something tells me that there isn't something inherently wrong with boys that makes them more susceptible to this disease, especially since it's reported in the video that there is no actual difference in brain activity of an ADHD vs non-ADHD brain. Maybe the boys are bored so they act up. And in a system where teachers and counselors are making diagnoses based on subjective determinations, rather than objective tests, the bias towards boys seems to confirm that there is something else going on.

We live in a fast-paced culture now. In most households, both parents work to be "successful". Poor nutrition is prevalent in our society. This study reports that 51% of families eat fast food one to two times a week and 7% eat it three to four times a week. Family dinner time doesn't exist anymore and with the growth of over-sugared, under-exercised, and overweight kids, it's easy to see that the delicate balance of hormones in a kid's brain could go a bit haywire. That doesn't mean the proper recourse is a drug. It is the easy way, but not the proper way when switching to a diet based on natural foods and spending some time exercising or playing as a family would do wonders for the child. Once you start medicating, you then have to medicate the side effects, of which many report hallucinations and violent tendencies. And then there are the ties to murder and suicide.

This story reminded me about this article Most People Are Depressed for a Very Good Reason. There are probably some cases where antidepressants are the right course of action. There are probably many more where the right course of action is for the person taking them to make changes to their life.

Our Growing Waistlines

Photo courtesy of MSN

This study hit the news last week: America Grows Fatter.

Mississippi has exceeded the 30% obesity rate for adults, the first time any state's population has done so, reported a health advocacy group. But 19 other states with large obese populations are not far behind.

30%! That's nearly 1 in 3 people that is obese in that state. Even Colorado, the "leanest" state is rocking a 17.6% obesity rate: more than 1 in 6 in Colorado are obese. And the other 48 states (plus DC) fall somewhere in the middle. My homestate of Kentucky is 7th with 27.5%, according to this report. And 1 in 5 of our kids are overweight in Kentucky, which in politically-correct jargon means obese, but we're afraid to call little Tommy obese.

Now, Dr. Eades has taken them to task over the methods of data collection and reporting. I don't disagree with him. The data in studies is often manipulated and massaged to produce what the authors want. And then the media reporting of it is generally geared in such a way as to create a great story, whether the report matches what the study says or not. The underlying reality is that at best, the stats are under-reported and there are even more obese folks walking around than the report says. In fact, I don't think we really even need these studies to tell us that America is getting fatter and fatter. A quick glance around you will tell you all you need to know.

Whether it's 30% or 40% is really irrelevant. It's too high of a percent. Our lack of exercise and poor eating habits are going to lead many in our nation to an early grave. But I can't get behind any kind of government intervention. As I mentioned in the comments of Dr. Eades' blog, the government foray into nutrition advice is much of what has us in this predicament in the first place, not to mention the Farm Bill and subsidies that support the prodigious amounts of cheap sugar and corn (which is turned into sugar) that keep us growing and growing. The Food Guide Pyramid is an excellent example of what's wrong with the government setting policy on our nutrition. Any new attempts will a) not stray far from the current pyramid because the government is far more concerned with saving face than with giving us proper recommendations and b) will go to the highest bidder. We don't need the government to save us. Personal responsibility is what we need. If people would focus on proper nutrition and exercise, their weight issues would miraculously disappear.

Protect the Corporations; Damn the Consumers

I ran across this article today and after reading it, I am incensed. Here's the headline: U.S. government fights to keep meatpackers from testing all slaughtered cattle for mad cow.

The Bush administration said Tuesday it will fight to keep meatpackers from testing all their animals for mad cow disease. The Agriculture Department tests fewer than 1 percent of slaughtered cows for the disease, which can be fatal to humans who eat tainted beef.

This President of ours and this Agriculture Department of ours are supposed to protect the American public. What do they do instead? They protect the conglomerate corporations that line their pockets with dollars. Why do they do this? Apparently, Creekstone Farms Premium Beef decided to voluntarily test all of their beef for Mad Cow Disease, or Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy. Well, the large meat companies think that having well-informed consumers is a bad idea. If consumers know that Creekstone beef is free of BSE, they may opt for that over the meat of the conglomerates forcing the big companies to also test their beef and assure us that it's safe. And that costs money, which will cut into their margins, resulting in less profit and smaller bonuses for the already-fat cats running these companies.

So the Agriculture Department has sued Creekstone Farms, but a federal judge ruled that Creekstone must be allowed to voluntarily test its herds. And now we're in the appeals process, which keeps the ruling from taking effect. Yes, that's right - our very own Agriculture Dept is suing a company that is trying to inform its consumers that its products are safe! It is appalling. During the Gettysburg Address, Abraham Lincoln declared our government to be "of the people, by the people, for the people." Unfortunately, everyday it seems that, contrary to Mr. Lincoln's declaration, that government has perished. We are now ruled by a government (and this isn't a problem that's come about only during the Bush administration) that is more concerned with corporate interests than those of "we the people". We seem to be "of the corporation, by the corporation, for the corporation."

Idaho Governor Can't Wait to Kill Wolves

Idaho Governor Can't Wait to Kill Wolves

Idaho's governor said Thursday he will support public hunts to kill all but 100 of the state's gray wolves after the federal government strips them of protection under the Endangered Species Act.

This thinking infuriates me. Humans move into an area, then proceed to kill off those "offending" animals that dare to "encroach" on our territory. The same thing has happened in Los Angeles with the coyote, minus the endangered species thing. This governor basically wants to kill off 2/3 of the wolves because they are doing what wolves do, kill elk and such for food. But the elk are part of Idaho's hunting industry, so it's time to harm the ecosystem in pursuit of the mighty dollar. Some things never change.

More on FDA and Cloning

My Big Beef with Cloned Cattle

This is an article I ran across yesterday on Live Science, a great website by the way, on cloning. The author looks at this FDA decision from several angles that I hadn't considered. One thing I had considered, which Mr. Wanjek also makes note of, is the lack of long-term human safety studies. Is cloned food likely safe? Yes. Has this been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt? No. And the FDA isn't known for its consumer-protecting decisions (see Vioxx, etc).

Issue 3 that he brings up, secrecy, is my biggest issue with this whole thing. If meat and milk from cloned animals is perfectly safe, then put it on the market. But let consumers know where their food comes from. Some will not want to eat it for religious/moral reasons, others for health reasons. We are able to see which meats come from grass-fed animals, so why should we be denied the ability to not choose food that goes against our personal nutrition philosophies, whatever that philosophy may be? Unless the FDA is afraid that consumers will reject cloned food... Studies show that a majority of Americans are against it. So they will hide it from us so that we can be against it, but can't do anything about it other than not eat meat.

We have until April 2nd to complain to the FDA. Get on it if you care about your food supply.

Eating Cloned Animals

Meat and milk from cloning are safe, 2 FDA scientists say

This article is about a week old...sorry, I've been busy with alot of stuff. So the FDA has determined that consuming meat and milk from cloned animals is safe. For some reason, that doesn't give me the warm and fuzzies. The FDA is well known for having huge industry ties when it comes to pharmaceuticals and there would be little surprise among most consumers to find out about ties to the food industry. The real shaft of the deal is that food from cloned animals won't be labeled. I think those of us that would rather not consume cloned animals should be able to look at a package and determine that it is from a regular ol', standard bred animal, whether those reasons be for health or morals.

This is further justification for eating grassfed meats or hunting your own game. Grassfed meat producers are a) typically smaller and are not going to drop $60,000 on cloning one animal and b) actually care about the animals and the meat that they turn out. There are quite a few good places to purchase grassfed meat online: Slanker's Grassfed Meats, Tallgrass Beef Company, Northstar Bison, and lots of local places .

Let the Market Decide; We Don't Need Regulation

Consumer Pressures Push Starbucks Towards rBGH (rBST)-free Dairy

This article ties into my earlier posts on trans fats, both the successful ban in New York City and the potential ban in Louisville, KY. Consumers have pressured Starbucks into moving towards dairy that isn't produced with Bovine Growth Hormone. See, we don't need government regulation of what we can and can't eat. That's what a free-market economy is for; companies won't do that which isn't profitable. What we need regulation on is that companies must provide the information that x, y, and z are in their products and then let the consumer decide if they want to consume those items. If KFC is forced to say they each piece of chicken has 50g of trans fat and consumers continue to eat it, why should the government step in? On the other hand, if a restaurant discloses it's nutrition information and consumers stop eating it, the restaurant will quit serving that item or change the ingredients such that it is profitable again. Consumer uproar pushed McDonald's away from styrofoam many moons ago. And now consumers have asked Starbucks to serve them milk without the growth hormones, which are in the milk and are probably not too healthy for humans either. We don't need more regulation. If the government would just require that the information get into consumer hands, consumers will decide what is best for them.

Politics as Usual

This isn't a political blog, but with the impending election, I thought I'd say my piece. I read this article yesterday and something in it incensed me. I'll go ahead and quote the line to make your search easier:

And I believe if they continue to emphasize the big issues - keeping taxes low and protecting the American people - we'll win,

The part of it that infuriates me is "we'll win." As much as I hate President Bush, this isn't directed solely at him (although he may be the epitome); it's directed at the entire political establishment, which is summed up in those two little words right there: "we'll win."

The reason that phrase boils my blood is because of the "us" vs. "them" mentality of it all. Politicians view "the other party" as an opponent, the enemy, not as a diverse collective of peers with different ideas. "I could never get anything good from a Democrat/Republican!" If business ran that way, Finance would never involve Information Technology which would never talk to Operations. Meetings would consist of 10 Finance people sitting around, all throwing out pretty much the same ideas and congratulating themselves on being so clever. There is synergy in healthy opposition and summation of ideas. And single-party control of the government is just a bad idea all around. There's too much "Oh, you're a Dem/Rep and so am I...go ahead." As long as you don't get caught being sexually explicit with a 16-year old page and don't get caught with your hand in the till, you'll have support from your partymates. As soon as you get caught, they'll deny your very existence.

To top it off, "We the People" buy into this "left" vs. "right" crap. We all know people that vote party-line regardless of the candidates. I know people from school that would stick to their Republican or Democrat voting even if their party ran Charles Manson or Satan. I know two guys that are hardline Republicans that register Democrat so they can vote for the weakest Democrat in the primaries. That's what I call a perversion of our system; there is no interest in putting the best candidates in office, only an interest in making sure their party wins.

While I'm at it, I'm going to touch on the topic of "Candidate Quality." Plain and simple, it sucks. It reminds me of the South Park Election episode (which unfortunately I can't find a video for...if you find one, please post in comments). Every election, we are faced with the choice of rich politician A or richer politician B. Do we want the one tainted by oil money or the one tainted by pharmaceutical money? Do we want the "tax and spend" politician or the "don't tax, but keep on spending" politician? As an aside, there's only so far this country can continue to go into debt without facing some real issues.

I have to wonder how many voters find the effort so futile that they refuse to waste their time voting. I also wonder how many people that would make good leaders refuse to run because they don't want the fact that they smoked a joint at age 14 or drove drunk once 35 years ago or any number of other irrelevant facts brought to the light of day. The shame is that while there are decent (or at least better) candidates from some of the third-parties (Libertarian, Green, etc), the Democrats and Republicans do everything in their power to keep this a two-party system. If you aren't endorsed by one of the two Parties, you have no chance. I feel like a whore, a sellout, voting for either a Democrat or a Republican because I feel that they embody everything that is wrong with our government. Unfortunately, voting for a third-party seems like a waste of my vote. Bob Hill (of the Louisville Courier-Journal) had an awesome column this past Saturday. Why do we continue to vote for people that act in ways that would get our children's mouths washed out with soap before sending them to their rooms?

Maybe I'm being idealogical, but I like to think that there was a day when politicians represented "us", a day when there weren't career politicians. Politicians weren't always super-rich elites governing "the commoners." Some rich oil baron or real estate tycoon couldn't possibly understand the plight of the poor, unless s/he worked his/her way out of poverty. Today, we have political families: The Bushes, The Clintons, and many others. From what I understand, at one time, Congressmen (and women) held real jobs, which they worked 9 months of the year (I think) and they went to work in Congress for the other 3 months of the year. We don't even have term limits on our Congress-folk! No one can be around the corruption and money of Washington for long without being corrupted themselves. For this reason, along with getting some fresh ideas into Congress, we should have term limits on EVERY political office.

Make sure to get out and exercise your RIGHT to vote.